Edward C. Tolman’s expectancy learning theory, also referred to as purposive behaviorism, introduced a significant shift in psychological thought by emphasizing the cognitive processes underlying behavior. While classical and operant conditioning focus predominantly on stimulus-response and behavior-consequence relationships, respectively, Tolman proposed that organisms form mental representations—or cognitive maps—of their environment. This article examines the core tenets of Tolman’s expectancy theory, compares and contrasts it with both classical conditioning (Pavlov) and operant conditioning (Skinner), and explores how an understanding of Tolman’s theory may benefit dog trainers in practice.
Overview of Tolman’s Expectancy Learning Theory
Purposive Behaviorism and Cognitive Maps
Tolman’s approach, often termed purposive behaviorism, holds that behavior is guided by goals and expectations rather than simply reflexive or automatic responses. He posited that organisms acquire knowledge about the relationships between environmental cues and potential outcomes—expectancies—even when a specific reinforcement is not immediately present. Central to his framework is the concept of the cognitive map, an internal representation of the spatial and causal layout of the environment.
In one of his most cited experiments, Tolman demonstrated latent learning with rats navigating a maze. Rats that explored the maze without obvious reinforcement were able to find the goal more efficiently once a reward was introduced, suggesting they had already learned the maze layout (i.e., formed a cognitive map) in the absence of explicit reinforcers.
Expectancies as an Intervening Variable
Tolman introduced the idea of intervening variables—internal processes that mediate between stimuli and responses. Rather than focusing solely on observable behaviors, Tolman argued that organisms actively process information about the environment, develop hypotheses, and form expectations about future outcomes. This view opened the door to a more cognitive understanding of learning.
Comparison with Classical Conditioning
Core Principles of Classical Conditioning
Classical conditioning, originally described by Ivan Pavlov, involves pairing a neutral stimulus (Conditioned Stimulus, CS) with an unconditioned stimulus (US) that naturally elicits an unconditioned response (UR). After repeated pairings, the neutral stimulus becomes a conditioned stimulus that elicits a conditioned response (CR) similar to the original unconditioned response.
Key features:
- Learning occurs through the temporal pairing of CS and US.
- The organism’s response is generally reflexive or involuntary (e.g., salivation).
- The emphasis is on stimulus-response associations.
Tolman’s Perspective and Distinctions
Whereas classical conditioning explains how associations between two stimuli (CS and US) are formed, Tolman’s theory posits that organisms do more than form direct S–R bonds; they develop cognitive representations about when and why events occur. For instance, a dog may learn not only that a certain cue predicts food, but also develop an expectation about the spatial or temporal context in which that food is delivered.
Distinctions:
- Classical conditioning focuses on automatic reflex-like behaviors, while Tolman’s theory includes cognitive processes that guide behavior.
- Tolman introduced expectancies rather than relying solely on a mechanistic link between stimuli and responses.
Comparison with Operant Conditioning
Core Principles of Operant Conditioning
Operant conditioning, as formulated by B.F. Skinner, emphasizes the consequences of behavior. Behaviors that are followed by reinforcements are more likely to recur, while those followed by punishments are less likely to recur.
Key features:
- Voluntary behaviors are shaped by consequences (reinforcements or punishments).
- Reinforcement schedules (e.g., fixed ratio, variable ratio) affect the rate and strength of learning.
- The focus is on the observable relationship between behavior and its outcomes.
Tolman’s Perspective and Distinctions
Although operant conditioning focuses on how consequences selectively strengthen or weaken behaviors, Tolman argued that organisms learn about contingencies in a broader sense. Rather than only learning a direct link between a particular behavior and its consequence (e.g., pressing a lever leads to food), organisms form expectations and mental representations of the action-outcome relationship.
Distinctions:
- Operant conditioning underscores the mechanics of reinforcement and punishment in shaping behavior; Tolman’s view adds cognitive interpretations of those reinforcers and punishers.
- In Tolman’s theory, learning can occur even if the reinforcement is not immediately delivered or is absent (latent learning). The organism can store information and later use it when reinforcement conditions change.
Integration: How Tolman’s Theory Relates to Classical and Operant Conditioning
Tolman’s expectancy learning theory incorporates elements reminiscent of both classical and operant conditioning, but within a cognitive framework:
- From Classical Conditioning: Tolman acknowledges the importance of environmental stimuli and their predictive value for future events, aligning with the CS–US relationship but extending it to conscious or semi-conscious expectations.
- From Operant Conditioning: Tolman incorporates the importance of consequences in guiding and motivating behavior but interprets them as part of a wider cognitive map. Reinforcers and punishers do not merely stamp in or stamp out behaviors; instead, they update the organism’s internal model of how the environment works.
Thus, Tolman’s approach can be seen as an extension rather than a replacement of classical and operant conditioning, highlighting that internal cognitive processes mediate these fundamental learning mechanisms.
Practical Relevance for Dog Trainers
Understanding Cognitive Maps and Expectancies
When training dogs, recognizing that they may form cognitive maps of the training context can be advantageous. Dogs can learn about the location of resources, the sequences of cues and reinforcements, and how to navigate complex tasks.
For instance, a dog might:
- Understand that a specific room or part of a field is associated with a particular exercise.
- Form an expectancy that a certain cue sequence will be followed by an opportunity to perform a behavior that leads to a known outcome (reinforcement).
By acknowledging these internal representations, trainers can structure training environments so that dogs form clear, accurate expectancies about what is required of them.
Latent Learning: Preparing for Unreinforced Exploration
Tolman’s findings suggest that dogs may learn even when not being actively reinforced. A dog permitted to explore a training space or agility course without explicit instruction or reward may nevertheless store information about the environment, including obstacles and pathways. This latent learning can be leveraged later when the trainer introduces specific tasks or reinforcements.
Complex Behaviors and Problem-Solving
Because dogs may rely on internal expectancies, trainers can design problem-solving exercises that capitalize on dogs’ ability to navigate challenges cognitively. Knowing that dogs form mental representations can guide the trainer to introduce tasks progressively, allowing the dog to practice navigating environmental cues and building upon previously learned information.
Combined Use with Classical and Operant Methods
In practice, dog trainers often use a blend of classical and operant strategies. Incorporating Tolman’s perspective can refine these strategies by:
- Emphasizing how dogs might interpret or anticipate the relationships between cues, behaviors, and outcomes.
- Designing training sessions that allow for exploration, hence capitalizing on latent learning.
- Recognizing that dog behavior may at times be guided by expectancies that are not immediately tied to visible reinforcers.
Conclusion
Tolman’s expectancy learning theory offers a cognitive lens through which to view the more traditional frameworks of classical and operant conditioning. By highlighting cognitive maps, latent learning, and the formation of expectancies, Tolman’s approach broadens the understanding of how organisms—including dogs—learn from and interact with their environment.
For dog trainers, integrating Tolman’s insights means acknowledging that dogs can accumulate knowledge even in the absence of explicit reinforcement and that they maintain internal representations of the training context. This perspective can inform more nuanced training strategies and potentially enhance the dog’s learning and adaptability across a variety of training scenarios.
Ultimately, rather than displacing classical or operant conditioning, Tolman’s expectancy theory complements these models by incorporating cognitive elements. By appreciating both the associative processes of conditioning and the cognitive expectations that underlie them, trainers can craft training regimens that align with the dog’s natural capacity to learn, remember, and adapt.
Often we just “feel” that something works, so it seems to me with the theory of expectations. For a dog, many things can seem to be a stimulus with which it associates appropriate expectations – such as the handler’s clothing. It would even be strange if such cognitive processes did not occur. I remember reading in a book about dogs’ perception of time, where it was studied how a dog’s brain works (connected under that funny helmet with LEDs) at certain times – for 10 days in a row, obedience combined with fetch was practiced with the dog at the same time each day, in the same room, and the brain’s work was recorded. On the 11th day when the dog was hooked up to the apparatus, its brain worked almost identically to that of the exercise despite the fact that absolutely nothing happened that day, the dog simply stayed in the same room at the same time as the previous trials, and yet its brain behaved as if it had just fetched the ball. I think it was this expectation associated with the same place and time that triggered this reaction in the dog.
You need to login in order to like this post: click here