The interaction paradigm, frequently used as a test of Hull vs Spence, is held to be biased against Hull for several reasons: (1) Black (1965) has demonstrated that Spence could account for either outcome. (2) The probability of rejecting Hull is not controlled. (3) The 2 × 2 design minimizes the chances of finding for Hull. (4) One of Hull's postulates is disregarded. A suggestion is made for a better design to study the pertinent empirical relations
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BlackR. W.On the combination of drive and incentive motivation. Psychol. Rev., 1965, 72, 310–317.
2.
HullC. L.Essentials of behavior. New Haven: Yale Univer. Press, 1951.
3.
LoganF. A.The Hull-Spence approach. In KochS. (Ed.), Psychology: A study of a science. Vol. 2. General systematic formulations, learning, and special processes. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1959. Pp. 293–358.
4.
SewardJ. P.SheaR. A.ElkindD.Evidence for the interaction of drive and reward. Amer. J. Psychol., 1958, 71, 404–407.
5.
SpenceK. W.Behavior theory and conditioning. New Haven: Yale Univer. Press, 1956.
6.
WinerB. J.Statistical principles in experimental design. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1962.
