Department of Psychology, Rutgers University Piscataway, NJ, USA.
Front Psychol. 2013 Jul 4;4:395. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00395. eCollection 2013.
IN A SEMINAL PAPER WRITTEN FIVE DECADES AGO, CRONBACH DISCUSSED THE TWO HIGHLY DISTINCT APPROACHES TO SCIENTIFIC PSYCHOLOGY: experimental and correlational. Today, although these two approaches are fruitfully implemented and embraced across some fields of psychology, this synergy is largely absent from other areas, such as in the study of learning and behavior. Both Tolman and Hull, in a rare case of agreement, stated that the correlational approach held little promise for the understanding of behavior. Interestingly, this dismissal of the study of individual differences was absent in the biologically oriented branches of behavior analysis, namely, behavioral genetics and ethology. Here we propose that the distinction between "causation" and "causes of variation" (with its origins in the field of genetics) reveals the potential value of the correlational approach in understanding the full complexity of learning and behavior. Although the experimental approach can illuminate the causal variables that modulate learning, the analysis of individual differences can elucidate how much and in which way variables interact to support variations in learning in complex natural environments. For example, understanding that a past experience with a stimulus influences its "associability" provides little insight into how individual predispositions interact to modulate this influence on associability. In this "new" light, we discuss examples from studies of individual differences in animals' performance in the Morris water maze and from our own work on individual differences in general intelligence in mice. These studies illustrate that, opposed to what Underwood famously suggested, studies of individual differences can do much more to psychology than merely providing preliminary indications of cause-effect relationships.
在五十年前的一篇开创性论文中,Cronbach 讨论了科学心理学中两种截然不同的方法:实验和相关。如今,尽管这两种方法在一些心理学领域得到了成功的实施和应用,但这种协同作用在其他领域,如学习和行为研究中却很少见。Tolman 和 Hull 都罕见地一致认为,相关方法对行为的理解没有什么希望。有趣的是,这种对个体差异研究的不屑在行为分析的生物学分支中并不存在,即行为遗传学和动物行为学。在这里,我们提出,“因果关系”和“变异原因”之间的区别(其起源于遗传学领域)揭示了相关方法在理解学习和行为的全部复杂性方面的潜在价值。虽然实验方法可以阐明调节学习的因果变量,但个体差异的分析可以阐明变量在多大程度上以及以何种方式相互作用,以支持在复杂自然环境中学习的变化。例如,了解过去与刺激的接触会影响其“可联想性”,但这并不能深入了解个体倾向如何相互作用来调节这种对可联想性的影响。从这个“新”的角度出发,我们讨论了来自动物在 Morris 水迷宫中的表现的个体差异研究以及我们自己在老鼠一般智力的个体差异研究中的例子。这些研究表明,与 Underwood 著名的观点相反,个体差异的研究可以为心理学做出更多贡献,而不仅仅是提供因果关系的初步迹象。