Chapter Summary

Edward Tolman’s theory of learning is viewed as a blend of Gestalt theory and behaviorism, although
he preferred to study large, molar behavioral patterns in order to discover cognitive processes. His
theory is referred to as a purposive behaviorism because it tries to explain goal-directed behavior.

Tolman introduced the use of intervening variables into psychological research. The chapter reviews
some of Tolman’s assumption about learning. He felt that learning was ongoing and that organisms
construct a cognitive map of their environment and followed the principle of least effort in problem
solving. Latent learning and latent expectancy concepts were very important to Tolman, however they
were met with some criticism by behaviorists.

In his research, Tolman detailed much about variables in his experiments. A review of environmental
variables, intervening variables, and individual difference variables illustrate how all three types of
variables effected outcome performance.

Tolman proposed six types of learning in his famous 1949 article entitled “There Is More Than One
Kind of Learning.” Cathexis, equivalence beliefs, field expectancies, field-cognition modes, drive
discriminations, and motor patterns are all describe in the chapter. They are viewed as a truly eclectic
collection of concepts incorporating many other major theories of learning. Tolman’s own thoughts
about his theory shows him to feel uneasy about its complexities, but also show that he enjoyed the
endeavors and pleased that he did it his way.

Tolman’s work is applicable to education in a similar manner as Gestaltists. Both types of theorists
would emphasize the importance for students to have the chance to test the adequacy of their ideas,
either individually or in small groups. Cognitive mapping would occur when students are exposed to
information from many different viewpoints.

Perhaps Tolman’s main contribution to the field of psychology comes not from any one specific
experiment or theorem, but from being a respected antagonist against the predominant
neobehaviorism of his time. His laboratory research was so well constructed and controlled that they
could not be ignored. Critics point towards the lack of practical applications generated by his theory.