ArticleThe Behavior analyst2006
Behaviorism, latent learning, and cognitive maps: needed revisions in introductory psychology textbooks.
Article in The Behavior analyst, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Accurate Predictions of Molecular Properties of Proteins via Graph Neural Networks and Transfer Learning.Journal of chemical theory and computation · 2025Article
- Moving Beyond Reinforcement and Response Strength.The Behavior analyst · 2017Article
- Time Does Not Help OrangutansFrontiers in psychology · 2017Article
- Evidence for social cooperation in rodents by automated maze.Scientific reports · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This paper critically assesses the scholarship in introductory psychology textbooks in relation to the topic of latent learning. A review of the treatment of latent learning in 48 introductory psychology textbooks published between 1948 and 2004, with 21 of these texts published since 1999, reveals that the scholarship on the topic of latent learning demonstrated in introductory textbooks warrants improvement. Errors that persist in textbooks include the assertion that the latent learning experiments demonstrate unequivocally that reinforcement was not necessary for learning to occur, that behavioral theories could not account for the results of the latent learning experiments, that B. F. Skinner was an S-R association behaviorist who argued that reinforcement is necessary for learning to occur, and that because behavioral theories (including that of B. F. Skinner) were unable explain the results of the latent learning experiments the cognitive map invoked by Edward Tolman is the only explanation for latent learning. Finally, the validity of the cognitive map is typically accepted without question. Implications of the presence of these errors for students and the discipline are considered. Lastly, remedies are offered to improve the scholarship found in introductory psychology textbooks.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.