Sie befinden Sich nicht im Netzwerk der Universität Paderborn. Der Zugriff auf elektronische Ressourcen ist gegebenenfalls nur via VPN oder Shibboleth (DFN-AAI) möglich. mehr Informationen...
The concept generalization has always been a prevalent feature of discussions on human behavior. Since the earliest psychological writings, theorists have guessed at the process by which people appear to transcend boundaries that supposedly govern their actions. Arguments concerning the process have usually run something like this: Human behavior is best understood as a set of specific units;—units of overt responses, units of measurable internal events, and units of environmental events. Some interacting combination of these units provides our understanding of why people do what they do. But, in addition to this focus on the specific units and their combinations, somthing general or nonspecific must be brought into this understanding. While one might draw useful conclusions through mapped-out unit combinations shown to govern behavior, there always seem to be instances in which the organism acts beyond the confines of this mapping. For example, consider a child who is taught to attach the letter S to a group of nouns referring to more than one object. As that learned group expands in number, the child begins to apply this rule of thumb to nouns not included in the group. The child’s use of the plural for the original group is understandable through a reinforcement process; the generalization, however, is not “explained” by the process.