Introduction
When instinct theory was incorporated into the new scientific psychology of the late nineteenth century, it was already centuries old. In its earliest form, instinct theory specified that a creature’s essential nature was already established at birth and that its actions would largely be directed by that nature. A modern restatement of this notion would be that, at birth, creatures are already programmed, as computers are, and that they must operate according to their programs. Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution through
natural selection, first published in 1859, led to great controversy in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. It also fostered speculation that if humans were evolved from earlier forms and were therefore more closely related to other animals than had once been believed, humans might have instincts, or inherited behaviors, that other animals were observed to have. In 1908, William McDougall
, one of the main early instinct theorists, suggested a list of human instincts that included such varied behaviors as repulsion, curiosity, self-abasement, and gregariousness. Many researchers came up with their own lists of human instincts; by the 1920s, more than two thousand had been suggested.
A computer program can be printed out and studied, but an instinct in the original sense cannot so easily be made explicit. At best, it can be inferred from the behavior of an animal or person after other explanations for that behavior have been discounted; at worst, it is simply assumed from observing behavior. That a person has, for example, an instinct of argumentativeness could be assumed from the person’s arguing; arguing is then “explained” by declaring that it comes from an instinct of argumentativeness. Such circular reasoning is unacceptable in scientific analysis, but it is very common in some early scientific (and many modern popular) discussions of instinct.
Variations in Theory
As is often the case with ideas that have long been believed by both scientists and the general public, instinct theory has separated into several theories. The earliest form was accepted by Aristotle, the ancient Greek philosopher and scientist. He stated in his
Politics
that “a social instinct is implanted in all men by nature” and that “a man would be thought a coward if he had no more courage than a courageous woman, and a woman would be thought loquacious if she imposed no more restraint on her conversation than the good man.” The first statement declares an inherent quality of people; the second, inherent qualities of men and women. Very likely, Aristotle’s beliefs were based on careful observation of people around him—a good beginning, but not a sufficient basis for making factual comments about people in general.
Aristotle’s views were those of a scientist of his day. Centuries later, a scientist would not hold such views, but a layperson very well might. Over the many centuries since Aristotle expressed his views on instinct theory, “popular” versions of it have been more influential than the cautious versions offered by later scientists.
Historic Misinterpretations
Modern science reaches conclusions based, to the greatest extent possible, on evidence gathered and interpreted along lines suggested by theories. Traditional instinct theory is especially weak in suggesting such lines; usually it put early psychologists in the position of trying to support the idea that instinct had caused a behavior by demonstrating that nothing else had caused it. Rather than supporting one possibility, they were attempting to deny dozens of others. Even worse, they were forcing thought into an “either-or” pattern rather than allowing for the possibility that a behavior may be based on inherited influences interacting with learned ones.
For example, to try to evaluate the possibility that people are instinctively afraid of snakes, one might first find a number of people who are afraid of snakes and then attempt to establish that those people had never had an experience that might have caused them to learn their fear, such as being startled or harmed by a snake or even being told that snakes are dangerous. Such a task is all but impossible, almost guaranteeing that a researcher will conclude that there are several ways that the fear could have been learned, so an instinct explanation can be discounted. The fact that people who fear snakes can learn not to fear them can be offered as further evidence that they had learned their original fear—not a particularly compelling argument, but a good enough approach for a researcher who wants to discount instinct.
When behaviorism
became the predominant theoretical stance of psychology in the 1920s, the problems with instinct as an explanation of motivation
were “resolved” simply by sidestepping them. Instincts were discarded as unscientific, replaced by concepts such as needs, drives, and motives. Dropping the term “instinct” from the vocabulary of psychology did not eliminate the behaviors it had originally labeled, either for lower animals or for people, but it did separate even further the popular views of instinct from the scientific ones.
Reemergence of Human Nature Research
Instinct theory’s purpose in psychology’s infancy was the same as it had once been in the distant past: to explain the motivations of a variety of species, from the simplest creatures up to humans. Unfortunately, it had also served other purposes in the past, purposes that often proved unwelcome to early behavioral scientists. To declare people superior to other animals, or men superior to women, or almost any target group better or worse than another was not a goal of psychology.
Worse than the heritage of centuries of misuse of the concept of instinct was the accumulation of evidence that instincts, defined at the time as completely unlearned behaviors, were limited to simple creatures and were virtually nonexistent in people. Psychology and related sciences all but eliminated instinct as a motivational concept for decades. However, they could not avoid bringing back similar notions; the term “instinct” was gone, but what it tried to explain was not. For example, in the 1940s, social psychologists working to find alternatives to the belief that aggression is instinctive in humans proposed that frustration (goal blocking) is a major cause of aggression. When pressed to explain why frustration led to aggression, many indicated that this is simply part of human nature. Some years later, it was demonstrated that the presence of some sort of weapon during a frustrating experience enhanced the likelihood of aggression, apparently through a “triggering effect.” Instinct as a concept was not invoked, but these ideas came very close.
Even closer was the work of another group of scientists, ethologists, in their explanations of some animal behaviors. Evaluating what might be thought a good example of instinct in its earliest definition, a duckling following its mother, they demonstrated that experience with a moving, quacking object is necessary. In other words, learning, albeit learning that was limited to a very brief period in the duckling’s development, led to the behavior. Many other seemingly strong examples of instinct were demonstrated to be a consequence of some inner predisposition interacting with environmental circumstances. A new, more useful rethinking of the ancient concept of instinct had begun.
Instinctive Influences
A 1961 article by Keller and Marian Breland suggested that instinct should still be a part of psychology, despite its period of disgrace. While training performing animals, they had witnessed a phenomenon they termed “instinctive drift.” (Although other terms, such as “species-specific behavior,” were at that time preferred to “instinct,” the Brelands stated their preference for the original label.) Instinctive drift refers to the tendency of a creature’s trained behavior to move in the direction of inherited predispositions.
When the Brelands tried to teach pigs to place coins in a piggy bank, they found that although the pigs could easily be taught to pick up coins and run toward the bank, they could not be stopped from repeatedly dropping and rooting at them. Raccoons could be taught to drop coins in a container but could not be stopped from “dipping” the coins in and rubbing them together, a drift toward the instinctive washing of food. Several other species presented similar problems to their would-be trainers, all related to what the Brelands willingly called instinct.
Preparedness is another example of an instinct/learning relationship. Through conditioning, any creature can be taught to associate some previously neutral stimulus with a behavior. Dogs in Ivan Petrovich Pavlov’s laboratory at the beginning of the twentieth century readily learned to salivate at the sound of a bell, a signal that food would appear immediately. While some stimuli can easily serve as signals for a particular species, others cannot. It seems clear that animals are prepared by nature for some sorts of learning but not for others. Rats can readily be trained to press a lever (a bar in a Skinner box) to obtain food, and pigeons can readily be trained to peck at something to do so, but there are some behaviors that they simply cannot learn to serve that purpose.
Conditioned taste aversion
is yet another example of an instinctive influence that has been well documented by modern psychology. In people and other animals, nausea following the taste of food very consistently leads to that taste becoming aversive. The taste/nausea combination is specific; electric shock following a taste does not cause the taste to become aversive, nor does a visual stimulus followed by nausea cause the sight to become aversive. Researchers theorize that the ability to learn to detect and avoid tainted food has survival value, so it has become instinctive.
Limitations and Misuse of Theory
In popular use, belief in instincts has confused and hurt people more than it has enlightened or helped them. Instinct theory often imposes a rigid either-or form on people’s thinking about human motivation. That is, people are encouraged by the notion of instinct to wonder if some behavior, such as aggression, is either inherent in people or learned from experience. Once one’s thoughts are cast into such a mold, one is less likely to consider the strong likelihood that a behavior has multiple bases, which may be different from one person to the next. Instead of looking for the many possible reasons for human aggression, some related to inherent qualities and some related to learned qualities, one looks for a single cause. Intently focusing on one possibility to the exclusion of all others often blinds people to the very fact that they are doing so. Searching for “the” answer, they fail to recognize that their method of searching has locked their thinking onto a counterproductive track.
Instinct theory has been invoked to grant humans special status, above that of other animals. Generally, this argument states that humans can reason and rationally control their actions, while lower animals are guided solely by instincts. At best, this argument has been used to claim that humans are especially loved by their God. At worst, the idea that lower animals are supposedly guided only by instinct was used by philosopher René Descartes to claim that animals were essentially automatons, incapable of actually feeling pain, and that therefore they could be vivisected without anesthesia.
Instinct theory has also been used to support the claim that some people are more worthy than other people. Those with fewer “base instincts,” or even those who by their rationality have overcome their instincts, are supposedly superior. Acceptance of such ideas has led to very real errors of judgment and considerable human suffering. For example, over many centuries, across much of the world, it was believed that women, simply by virtue of being female, were not capable of sufficiently clear thinking to justify providing them with a formal education, allowing them to own property, or letting them hold elected office or vote. Anthropologist Margaret Mead, in her 1942 book And Keep Your Powder Dry: An Anthropologist Looks at America, reports a reversal of the claim that women inherently lack some important quality. Young women in her classes, when told the then-prevailing view that people had no instincts and therefore they had no maternal instinct, became very upset, according to Mead, believing that they lacked something essential. Many minority racial or ethnic groups have suffered in similar fashion from claims that, by their unalterable nature, they are incapable of behaving at levels comparable to those in the majority.
Instinct theory has been used to suggest the absolute inevitability of many undesirable behaviors, sometimes as a way of excusing them. The ideas that philandering is part of a man’s nature or that gossiping is part of a woman’s are patently foolish uses of the concept of instinct.
Bibliography
Barrett, Deirdre. Supernormal Stimuli: How Primal Urges Overran Their Evolutionary Purpose. New York: Norton, 2010. Print.
Bering, Jesse. The Belief Instinct: The Psychology of Souls, Destiny, and the Meaning of Life. New York: Norton, 2011. Print.
Birney, Robert Charles, and Richard C. Teevan, eds. Instinct: An Enduring Problem in Psychology. Princeton: Van Nostrand, 1961. Print.
Breland, Keller, and Marian Breland. “The Misbehavior of Organisms.” American Psychologist 16.11 (1961): 681–84. Print.
Cofer, Charles Norval, and M. H. Appley. Motivation: Theory and Research. New York: Wiley, 1967. Print.
Hilgard, Ernest Ropiequet. Psychology in America: A Historical Survey. San Diego: Harcourt, 1987. Print.
Pinker, Steven. The Language Instinct: How the Mind Creates Language. New York: Harper, 2007. Print.
Portegys, Thomas E. "Discrimination Learning Guided by Instinct." International Journal of Hybrid Intelligent Systems 10.3 (2013): 129–36. Print.
Spink, Amanda. Information Behavior: An Evolutionary Instinct. Heidelberg: Springer, 2010. Print.
Sun, L. The Fairness Instinct: The Robin Hood Mentality and Our Biological Nature. Amherst: Prometheus, 2013. Print.
Wallenstein, Gene V. The Pleasure Instinct: Why We Crave Adventure, Chocolate, Pheromones, and Music. Hoboken: Wiley, 2009. Print.
Watson, John B. Behaviorism. New York: Norton, 1925. Print.
Weiten, Wayne. Psychology: Themes and Variations. 9th ed. Belmont: Wadsworth, 2013. Print.
No comments:
Post a Comment