Pavlov, Ivan Petrovich
Pavlov, Ivan Petrovich
Pavlov and American psychology
Ivan Petrovich Pavlov (1849-1936), Russian physiologist, psychologist, and Nobel prize winner, was born in the city of Ryazan, the eldest in a family of ten. His father was a priest and teacher of Greek and Latin, his grandfather and greatgrandfather were sextons and produce farmers. His great-great-grandfather, Mokey Pavlov, was a freed serf, the son of a serf who had no surname and whose Christian name, Pavel, became the family name of succeeding generations. Pavlov’s mother was also the daughter of a priest, yet was herself illiterate; she was known in the vicinity for her ability to heal jaundice by having her patients gaze steadily at a pike swimming in a tank of water.
Pavlov was enrolled in the second grade of the First Ryazan Parochial School in 1860, at the age of 11 (an injury caused by a fall had delayed his formal schooling), and in the Ryazan Theological Seminary in 1864. He left the seminary a year before graduation to enter the division of natural sciences of the physicomathematical faculty of the University of St. Petersburg in 1870. The radical change in his outlook and career plans appears to have been brought about by his reading of Russian translations of Jacob Moleschott’s Physiologisches Skizzenbuch and G. H. Lewes’s Physiology of Common Life, as well as the writings of D. I. Pisarev, and particularly, I. M. Sechenov’s “Refleksi golovnogo mozga” (“Reflexes of the Brain”; 1863), which Pavlov had managed to digest in his seminary days.
Pavlov was graduated from the university in 1875 and became a student of the Imperial Medicosurgical Academy in the same year. As a university student, he had performed two original experiments, one with V. N. Veliky on “the effect of the laryngeal nerve on blood circulation” and “the afferent accelerators of tachycardia,” the other with M. Afanas’ev on “the nerve supply of the pancreas.” An abstract of the report of the first experiment was published in 1874 in the Transactions of the St. Petersburg Society of Naturalists. Pavlov was awarded a gold medal for his second experiment, a full report of which was published in 1878 in the highly authoritative Pflugefs Archiv fiir die gesamte Physiologie des Menschen und der Tiere.These two experiments substantially foreshadowed Pavlov’s research interests for the next 16 years—innervation of the vascular and digestive systems.
As a student at the academy, Pavlov served first as a research assistant to K. N. Ustimovich in the veterinary division and later as an assistant to Sergei P. Botkin in the clinical division. He was graduated from the academy in 1879 with the unusual record of 11 scientific publications, only two of which were collaborations and seven of which appeared in Pflugefs Archiv. He stayed on at the academy for postgraduate research, continuing his work in the physiological laboratory of Botkin’s clinic. His 77-page doctoral thesis, “Tsentrobezhnye nervy serdtsa” (“Efferent Nerves of the Heart”), appeared in 1883. In 1884 he was accorded the rank of lecturer in physiology and awarded a twoyear foreign travel fellowship that he spent at the laboratory of C. F. W. Ludwig in Leipzig and at that of P. Haidenhain in Breslau (he had visited the latter laboratory earlier, as a student).
In 1890 Pavlov was made professor of pharmacology of the academy and director of the physiological laboratory of the newly founded St. Petersburg Institute of Experimental Medicine. He became professor of physiology in the academy in 1895, holding the post until 1924, when the Soviet Academy of Sciences established a special Institute of Physiology under his direction and began planning the transfer of its laboratories to the village of Koltushi (now named Pavlovo), about twenty miles from Leningrad. The compound of imposing buildings of the Institute was completed in 1935 and has since expanded. Comprising not only outstanding and interrelated research laboratories but also neuropsychic clinics and young children’s experimental schools, Pavlovo is a unique scientific community, centering on what is perhaps man’s leading life science—behavioral change (conditioning) and related neural action. Pavlov was elected a member of the Russian Imperial Academy in 1907, a member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences in 1908, and a member of the American Philosophical Society in 1932. Hishonoris causa doctorates include those awarded by the universities of Geneva, Vienna, Cambridge, Edinburgh, and Paris. In 1935, at the age of 86, Pavlov was honorary president of the Fifteenth International Congress of Physiology, held in Leningrad.
Behavioral psychology
Pavlov’s 62 years of almost unceasing experimentation (eight days before his death he discussed and directed the conduct of nine experiments on dogs and discussed and interpreted the behavior of five mental patients) illustrate well the scientist’s way of learning—by studying “more and more about less and less/’ His first 16 years of research centered on uncovering the neural mechanism of blood circulation and digestion; by 1890 he had restricted his research almost wholly to the mechanisms of digestion, a fact cited when he was awarded the Nobel prize; and after 1903 he concentrated almost entirely on the study of salivation. As early as his doctoral dissertation, Pavlov had begun to uphold Botkin’s view of nervism—the nervous system in some way affects both normal and pathological activities of the organism. (This doctrine continues to make Russian medicine and physiology distinctive by emphasizing the functional over the organic, becoming over being.) However, Pavlov went much beyond Botkin. He combined nervism with objective associationism,thereby founding a new life-science discipline—“higher nervous activity”—in his own country and laying a firm basis for objective and behavioral psychology and for behavioral sciences in general. His specific physiological discoveries and surgical innovations (e.g., the Pavlov pouch, permitting the collection of pure gastric juice) developed into a general, novel and, to a large extent, revolutionary system of studying normal and abnormal action in man and animals.
Objective associationism
In a more specific sense, one might say that almost all of Pavlov’s research revolved around the action of reflexes—in the nineteenth century, unlearned, or what he came to call “unconditioned,” reflexes and in the twentieth century, his famous “conditioned” reflexes [SeeLearning,article oninstrumental learning]. Here he was influenced by a distinctive feature of the life sciences in Russia: Sechenov’s concept of the reflex. Whereas in western Europe and in America the reflex denoted only a special reaction—peripheral, segmental, simple, quick, unconscious, involuntary—Sechenov had made it the essence of all reactions. As early as 1860, in his doctoral dissertation, Sechenov had declared that voluntary reactions are reflexive in nature. He developed this idea into an all-embracing and radical life-science philosophy in his classic “Refleksi . . .” (1863). All significant animal and human reactions, wrote Sechenov, are (a) determined and determinable, i.e., evoked by measurable and controllable physical stimuli and (b) mediated by the nervous system. Hence, they are all reflexes, whether they be simple or complex, peripheral or central, involuntary or voluntary, unconscious or conscious, physiological or psychical. The reflex was set forth not only as the unit of body action but also of body-mind or body-including-mind action. Indeed, present-day Soviet psychologists typically state that Sechenov uncovered the reflex nature of the psyche, meaning thereby that he upheld the materialistic—or physicalistic—philosophy that psychical reactions invariably originate in physical stimulation and invariably are mediated by neural reactions. [See the biography ofSechenov.]
Although Pavlov was fully familiar with Sechenov’s writings, he did not at first realize their full implication. In the 1890s, during his experiments with digestion, he ascertained that glandular secretion is by no means only a function of measurable physical stimulation. However, at that time, he freely used the concept of “psychic secretion,” which, as he wrote later, he had “then contrasted sharply with reflex secretion”; he also spoke of the experimental animals’ “thoughts, desires, and feelings” ([1897] 1955, pp. 83-85.) By 1898, however, Pavlov had deleted from the manuscript of his pupil’s, S. G. Wolfson’s, doctoral dissertation, “The Work of the Salivary Glands,” several paragraphs containing such sentences as the “role of the psyche in salivary secretion is of course undeniable” and the “psyche determines the work of the salivary glands, choosing between acceptable and rejectable substances.” And in 1901 he took similar exception to a psychic interpretation in a dissertation, entitled “Analysis (of the Normal Conditions) of the Work of Salivary Glands in the Dog,” by another of his students, A. T. Snarsky. Pavlov wrote that:
Dr. Snarsky clung to subjective interpretations of the phenomena, but I, taken aback by the fantasy and scientific barrenness of the approach, began looking for another way out of the difficult position. After persistent thought and mental conflict I finally decided that with regard to so-called psychic stimulation I must remain in the role of a pure physiologist, that is, of an objective external observer dealing only with external phenomena and their reactions. . . . The chief stimulus for my decision, although then an unconscious one, arose out of an impression made upon me in my youth by the brilliant monograph of I. M. Sechenov, father of Russian physiology, entitled Reflexes of the Brain (1863). ([1923] 1928-1941, vol. 1, pp. 38-39)
The decision in favor of the objective-physiological approach was fully realized in 1903 in an address before the Fourteenth International Medical Congress. Entitled “Experimental Psychology and Psychopathology in Animals,” the address put forward clearly and cogently the Pavlovian doctrine of unconditioned and conditioned reflexes, forever replacing psychic secretion with conditionedreflex secretion and declaring boldly that: “Vital phenomena that are termed psychic are distinguishable from pure physiological phenomena only in degree of complexity. Whether we call these phenomena psychical or complex-nervous is of little importance, as long as it is realized and recognized that the naturalist approaches them only objectively, leaving aside the question of their essence” ([1903] 1928, pp. 59-60).
This statement combines with two others—first, that “the physiology of the higher nervous system [read: the behavior] of higher animals can be successfully studied only if one completely renounces the indefinite formulations of psychology and stands wholly upon a purely objective ground” ([1904] 1928, p. 75), and second, that “the naturalist has no right to speak of higher animals’ psychic processes [Pavlov’s italics] without deserting the principle of natural science—which is the work of the human mind directed to nature through studies that derive their assumptions and interpretations from no other sources than nature itself” ([1906] 1928, p. 82). These statements were surely clarion calls to behavioral objectivism and were sounded in almost the same form a decade later by John B. Watson, the father of American behaviorism. Yet it must be made clear that Pavlov was not simply a “general behavioral objectivist” but a specific “objective associationist.” His historic contributions inhere not just in advocating the objectification of categories of the mind through behavior categories but in providing a specific objective method of studying the chief traditional explanatory principle of mind—associationism. What had, ever since Aristotle, been merely imaged and meditated on, Pavlov made to flow, so to speak, in capillary tubes and electric batteries. Through the conditioned reflex, the study of association became subject to all the refinements and measurements and means of verification of modern science and technology.
The conditioned reflex
In its original, classical paradigm the conditioned reflex demonstrates that a stimulus initially inadequate to evoke some reflex may become adequate after it has been administered one or more times together with a stimulus adequate to produce the reflex. Pavlov called the inadequate stimulus the conditioned or to-be-conditioned stimulus; the adequate stimulus was called the unconditioned stimulus; the reflex in response to the originally adequate stimulus, the unconditioned reflex; and the reflex in response to the originally inadequate and later adequate stimulus the conditioned reflex. Later, Anatolii G. Ivanov-Smolenskii (1927-1952), working in Pavlov’s laboratory, J. Konorski and S. Miller, in their own and in Pavlov’s laboratory (see Konorski 1948), and Starytsin in Bekhterev’s laboratory, modified the original Pavlovian paradigm. Similarly, in the United States the paradigm was modified and was called instrumental conditioning (Hilgard & Marquis 1940) or operant conditioning (Skinner 1938), and it stimulated a great deal of research and thought in the field. The modified paradigm, however, added little to Pavlov’s empirical laws of, and generalizations about, conditioning, its contribution being more in the realm of expanding theory.
Approximately six thousand successful experiments employing the exact Pavlovian paradigm of pairing unconditioned with to-be-conditioned stimuli have by now been reported. All kinds of organisms, from protozoa to men and from neonates (even fetuses) to the most advanced human and animal seniles, and all kinds of reflexes and stimuli have been used in these experiments. Moreover, conditioning has been related experimentally to almost all other known organismic changes, either as the changes affect the conditioning or as the conditioning affects the changes. To cite two out of hundreds of examples: data from eight experiments are available on the effects of “experimental clinical death” on conditioning, that is, on the fate of conditioned reflexes when an animal is experimentally put to death and then revived (Negovskii 1954); and data from 82 experiments are at hand on the effect of ionizing radiation on conditioning (Voprosy . . . 1962). Reports of conditioning experiments exist in 29 different languages, although the large majority are in Russian and English.
Early in his experimentation Pavlov noted that the study of conditioning yielded sets of interrelated functional laws or generalizations and suggested related sets of testable hypotheses for further laws or generalizations. On such a basis a complete systematic discipline could be erected, and Pavlov gradually proceeded to do so.
The chief functional laws or generalizations concerning empirical conditioned-reflex data established by Pavlov include: (a) extinction, the gradual diminution and final disappearance of a conditioned reflex, when the conditioned stimulus is repeatedly administered without the unconditioned stimulus; (b) spontaneous recovery, the partial reversal of the effects of extinction and regaining of the original conditioning in the course of time—a sort of forgetting of extinction that is greater than the forgetting of the original conditioning; (c) generalization, the partial transfer of a conditioned reflex to stimuli similar to the conditioned stimulus (stimulus generalization) and to reflexes similar to the conditioned reflex (reflex generalization); (d) differentiation, the training that involves alternating presentations of the conditioned stimulus, accompanied by the unconditioned stimulus, with presentations of related stimuli, unaccompanied by the unconditioned stimuli (differential conditioning); (e) higher-order conditioning,the formation of a conditioned reflex through pairing a to-be-conditioned stimulus with a previously conditioned stimulus (instead of an unconditioned stimulus); (f) dynamic stereotypy, the patterning of successively applied conditioned stimuli in such a way that the positional order of each stimulus rather than its specific nature determines the nature and magnitude of the conditioned reflex evoked by the stimulus; (g) disinhibition, the partial regaining of conditioning, when a partially or totally extinguished conditioned stimulus or a partially or totally differentiated similar stimulus is applied together with some new or extra stimulus—putative indication that extinction and differentiation are inhibitory processes that may themselves be inhibited (i.e., disinhibited) by the action of an extra stimulus. Obviously these generalizations are basic to the understanding of the mechanisms of change in human and animal behavior—ways through which the change occurs in normal (and abnormal) life situations, methods and techniques for its full analysis in the laboratory, and means of producing and controlling it through special education.
In the main, Pavlov’s formulations—although not necessarily his whole system—have been verified and accepted. In a glossary in a recent standard textbook on conditioning and learning (Hilgard & Marquis [1940] 1961) 36 terms are attributed to Pavlov and only 25 to all other students of the field combined. A perusal of the two current official periodicals of American experimental psychology—the Journal of Experimental Psychology and theJournal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology—reveals that their contributors are still very much concerned with Pavlov’s work, perhaps more so than with the work of any other physiologist or psychologist. A recent survey of members of the American Psychological Association placed Pavlov second only to Freud in the members’ estimate of who most influenced contemporary psychology. And there is no doubt that Pavlov would have ranked first, had the survey been confined toexperimental psychologists.
Conception of higher nervous activity
Pavlov named the new life-science discipline of the formation and disruption of conditioned reflexes “higher nervous activity,” and in his first book on the topic (1923) he added to it the term “behavior” in parentheses. This addition indicated both Pavlov’s realization that others—notably American psychologists—saw the new discipline as the study of behavior and also his intention to convey that, while conditioned reflexes become manifest in behavior, their interpretation inheres in higher-nervous or cortical action—indeed, that they reveal this action and have no real systematic or scientific import without it. Since, however, no technique for directly probing higher-nervous or cortical action was as yet known in Pavlov’s day, he proceeded to develop a hypothetical, yet highly comprehensive, system of such action: a postulated complex interplay of neural excitation and inhibition, their irradiation, concentration, and induction, underlying all behavioral conditioned-reflex manifestations.
The Pavlovian neuroconditioning system was often called by others a conceptual (i.e., inferential) nervous system: a system based only on inferences—which is all that it originally was. Modern research, however, with its direct electroencephalographic, microelectrodic, and even biochemical probing of neural action during conditioning, seems to show that Pavlov’s inferences were for the most part correct. In any event, his original conditioning scheme, which was like the modified paradigm, provides complete information on dependent and independent variables—control and measurement of both the conditioned and the unconditioned stimuli and measurements of conditioned reflex, unconditioned reflex, and original reflex in relation to conditioned stimulus—and has in recent years become the most serviceable means of correlating direct neural action and conditioned action, thus unveiling the true physical basis of learning. This enterprise, one of the most challenging in our age, is also one in which the contact between research workers in the East and West has been very close, a fact witnessed by the Colloquium on Electroencephalography of Higher Nervous Activity in Moscow in 1958, the Macy Conferences on the Central Nervous System and Behavior in 1958, 1959, and 1960, the Montevideo Conference on Brain Mechanism and Learning in 1959, the New York Pavlovian Conference on Higher Nervous Activity in 1961, the California Conference on Brain and Behavior in 1961, and several others.
While a system of behavior based wholly on conditioned reflexes might be expected, at least superficially, to be highly mechanistic and reductionistic and not to draw a basic distinction between animal and human learning, Pavlov had, in his later years, prevented his system from having these defects. In 1927 he wrote: “Of course a word is for man as much a real conditioned stimulus as are other stimuli common to men and animals, yet at the same time it is so all-comprehending that it allows no quantitative or qualitative comparisons with conditioned stimuli in animals” ([1927] 1960, p. 407). In 1932 Pavlov asserted that speech, and especially the kinesthetic stimuli to the cortex from the speech organs, are second signals—signals of signals. These second signals are in essence abstractions of reality and means of generalization uniquely characteristic of human higher thought ([1932a] 1941, p. 69); and, similarly, also in 1932: “In man there comes to be .. . another system of signalization, a signalization of the first system . . . a new principle of neural action is [thus] introduced” ([1932b] 1941, p. 113). This is the Pavlov “second-signal system” principle that distinguishes verbal conditioning, or language acquisition, in man from first-signal conditioning in men and animals. And it is a principle that is clearly broader than that of most American behaviorists, for whom language is either a mediator operating essentially according to the laws of the reactions that it mediates or is merely a conditioned vocal reaction.
Psychopathology
From the very beginning Pavlov was concerned with the relation of conditioning to psychopathology (as indicated in the title of his 1903 address)—an unusual concern for that time. His interest continued, and in 1920, in Pavlov’s laboratory, N. R. Shenger-Krestovnikova demonstrated empirically how a conditioned reflex produces experimental neurosis. Thereafter Pavlov devoted a large portion of his experimental research and thought to this topic, supplementing his laboratory work with frequent visits to mental clinics. He postulated the “clash” of excitation and inhibition as the general cause of psychological disturbances and “protective inhibition” as a corrective cure. He assumed the existence of special psychopathological forms of neural action, which he termed “paradoxical,” “ultraparadoxical,” “totalinhibitory,” and “egalitarian”; he investigated them through unconditioned and conditioned behavioral manifestations. In the early 1930s K. M. Bykov, and E. Sh. Ayrapet’yants and V. L. Balakshina, began a stimulating series of experiments on interoceptive conditioning (conditioning in which direct stimulation of an internal organ is the conditioned stimulus). These experiments, which suggest promising leads to a fully objective science of psychopathology and of psychosomatics, are only now beginning to be duplicated in American laboratories. M. K. Petrova (1925) was an early pioneer in drug and sleep therapy, while a number of Pavlov’s other students made both diagnostic and therapeutic use of concepts based on interaction between the patients’ first-signal and second-signal systems.[See alsoNeurosis; Psychosomatic Illness.]
Pavlovian psychology, indeed learning psychology in general, has become so replete with tempting interpretations of psychopathology that unfortunately a good deal of uncritical writing has been published both in the United States and in the Soviet Union. Yet there is no denying the worth and soundness of the approach. In the Soviet Union it is the only one in existence, and in the United States it is gaining adherence in the face of competing approaches—notably psychoanalysis; there continue also to be many efforts to synthesize Pavlov with Freud.
Pavlov and American psychology
As already indicated, Pavlov, Bekhterev, and the earlier work of Sechenov had in essence set forth the requisite principles for an objective and behavioral psychology a number of years before Watson launched behaviorism. However, while Watson was generally apprised of the “Pawlow method” through a short English summary in 1909, he learned of the Russians’ systematic principles only in 1914, when as he stated himself, he read the 1913 French and German translations of Bekhterev’s Objective Psychology. Watson’s 1913 article, “Psychology as a Behaviorist Views It,” in which behaviorism was first promulgated, mentions nothing of Russian research, and there is no doubt that he developed his system wholly independently. Yet Watson related himself unequivocally to the Russian enterprise afterward. When he was elected president of the American Psychological Association, the title of his presidential address was “The Place of the Conditioned Reflex in Psychology” (Watson 1916). He continued to uphold the conditioned reflex as the high hope for a true science of man and society and to produce challenging Pavlov-like and Bekhterev-like laboratory experiments. Yet Watson’s conditioned-reflex edifice—and that of early classical behaviorism in general—was in the main only programmatic and general, lacking both Pavlov’s well-knit system and its abundance of empirical material. Between 1916 and 1930 American behaviorism dealt with a single “law” of conditioning rather than with system-forming interrelated “laws,” and the number of American experiments in the area was only 16 compared to the Russians’two hundred.
The development of systems of behavior based predominantly on the conditioned reflex was begun in the United States in the early 1930s, a few years after the English translations of Pavlov’s two major books on the topic. This period marked the rise of American neobehaviorism—primarily the work of C. L. Hull, B. F. Skinner, E. R. Guthrie, and E. C. Tolman. Roughly, the two systems, Pavlovian and American, differ in that Pavlov’s is a neurobehavioral, or S-N-R (stimulus ? neural process ? response), system, while American neobehavioristic systems are in the main positivistic, or autochthonous-behavioral, systems: S-R (stimulus ? response) or S-O-R (stimulus ? organism ? response), where O is a postulated matrix of mediating variables. Yet it is also true that in significant respects the difference between the Pavlovian system and the American neobehavioristic systems may well be less than the difference among the American systems themselves. Each American neobehavioristic system is broadly based on Pavlov-established conditioning laws or generalizations, plus its own superstructure.
In the United States and elsewhere outside the Soviet sphere, Pavlov has influenced all concepts of modifiable behavior or learning—what are known as the vertical dimensions of mind. However, in the Soviet Union itself his influence has also extended to mind’s horizontal dimensions—through the doctrine of types of nervous systems based on alleged genotypic individual differences in five phases of neural action (strength of excitation and of inhibition, mobility of each, and balance between the two). Roughly speaking, the doctrine posits that individual variations in unconditioned and conditioned effector reactions—in recent years also in electroencephalographic and biochemical reactions—demonstrate that the nervous systems of men and animals fall into several specific genetic types that most clearly differentiate all phases of living and behaving: from susceptibility to disease (and to ionizing radiation) and life expectancies, to work styles, motor deftness, modes of thinking, and of course temperament, personality, and emotional balance. Even variation in general intelligence—“general ability” in Russian terms—is held to be a function of the type of nervous system. To American researchers the doctrine seems hardly credible, yet it has not been tested in any significant manner outside the Soviet Union. [SeeGenetics, article onGenetics and Behavior.]
As of today one might argue with good reason and abundance of evidence that Pavlov’s neurobehavioral S-N-R system is gaining the upper hand over American pure behavioral systems—S-R andS-O-R. Recent spectacular advances in techniques of neural recording and interpretation of the information thereby obtained stress the need for integrating neural and behavioral data and relating the latter to the former. The earlier American view that the neural has no information significant to the analysis of the behavioral no longer holds. Modern psychology demands that the neural level have, and continue to have, an important role in behavioral analysis as neo-behaviorism is gradually being replaced by brain-behaviorism, which is in essence identical with Pavlovian higher nervous activity. There is also strong evidence that Pavlov was on the right track when he accorded true verbal conditioning, or language acquisition—what he called the second-signal system—a higher ontological status and when he refused to class it as merely a conditioned vocal reaction, thereby upholding the qualitative distinctness of man. Consider the clinical-neurological evidence that the human speech area is found in the associational cortex, while the mechanisms of mere vocalization—animal and human—are imbedded in the deep-lying mesencephalon. Moving away rightly from anthropomorphizing animals, psychology need not bounce to the other extreme—human zoomorphism.
Social science implications
In general terms Pavlov expressed a “deep, irrevocable and uneradicable conviction that this path [study of conditioned reflexes] is the path of the final triumph of the human mind over its last and uppermost problem—full knowledge of the laws and mechanisms of human nature and thus full, true, and permanent happiness . . . deliverance from present gloom and the purge of present-day shame in interhuman relations” ([1923] 19281941, vol. 1, p. 41). He did not specifically attempt to extend his principles to any system—or indeed any analysis—of social and societal behavior, holding social science to be embryonic. But Pavlov’s students and particularly Bekhterev and his students did thus utilize conditioning concepts. However, in the middle 1930s, sociology and social psychology ceased to be independent fields of study in the Soviet Union, and the entire approach lay fallow. The two fields are now being revived and, by all tokens, so is a Marxist-Leninist and Pavlovian approach to them. In the United States the systematization of social phenomena in terms of conditioned reflexes met with considerable approval in the 1920s and early 1930s, as witnessed by the influence of Allport’s Social Psychology. But in the mid-1930s phenomenology and psychoanalysis became dominant in both sociology and social psychology, presumably because they could more readily be applied to immediate social problems. There can be no doubt, however, that ultimately, as in the case of psychopathology, societal and individual social-attitudinal changes are intimately related to learning processes and conditioning principles. Thus, a Pavlovian social psychology and sociology that is critical, comprehensive, and well systematized may well re-emerge with the ongoing rapid development of psychophysiology in the United States.
Gregory Razran
works by pavlov
1874 O vliianii gortannykh nervov na krovoobrashchenie; O tsentrostremiternykh uskoriteliakh serdstebieniia (The Effect of the Laryngeal Nerve on Blood Circulation; The Afferent Accelerators of Tachycardia). S. Peterburgskoe Obschestvo Estestvoispytatelei, Trudy 5:lxvi-lxvii.
1878 Pavlov, Ivan P.; and Afanas’ev, M. Beiträge zur Physiologie des Pancreas. Pflüger’s Archiv für die gesamte Physiologie des Menschen und der Tiere 16, no. 2-3:173-189.
1883 Tsentrobezhnye nervy serdtsa (Efferent Nerves of the Heart). Arkhiv kliniki vnutrennykh boleznei 8: 645-719.
(1897) 1955 Lectures on the Work of the Principal Digestive Glands. Pages 83-148 in Ivan P. Pavlov, Selected Works. Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House. ? First published as Lektsii o rabote glavnykh pishchevaritel’nykh zhelez.
(1903) 1928 Experimental Psychology and Psychopathology in Animals. Volume 1, pages 47-60 in Ivan P. Pavlov, Lectures on Conditioned Reflexes. New York: International Publishers. ? First published as “Eksperimental’naiia psikhologiia i psikhopatologiia na zhivotnykh.” The translation of the extract in the text was provided by Gregory Razran.
(1904) 1928 The Psychical Secretion of the Salivary Glands. Volume 1, pages 61-75 in Ivan P. Pavlov,Lectures on Conditioned Reflexes. New York: International Publishers. ? First published in French in Volume 1 of the Archives internationales de physiologie.
(1906) 1928 Scientific Study of the So-called Psychical Processes in the Higher Animals. Volume 1, pages 81-96 in Ivan P. Pavlov, Lectures on Conditioned Reflexes. New York: International Publishers. ? First published in Lancet.
(1923) 1928-1941 Lectures on Conditioned Reflexes: Twenty-five Years of Objective Study of Higher Nervous Activity (Behaviour) of Animals. 2 vols. New York: International Publishers. ? First published as Dvadtsatiletnii opyt ob’jektivnogo izucheniia vysshei nervnoi deiatel’nosti (povedeniia) zhivotnykh. The translation of the extracts in the text was provided by Gregory Razran.
(1927) 1960 Conditioned Reflexes: An Investigation of the Physiological Activity of the Cerebral Cortex. New York: Dover. ? First published as Lektsii o rabote bol’shikh polusharii golovnogo mozga.(1929-1936) 1949 Pavlovskie sredy (Pavlov’s Wednesdays). 3 vols. Moscow and Leningrad: Akademiia Nauk SSSR. -* Stenographic records of Pavlov’s informal talks.
(1931-1936) 1954-1957 Pavlovskie klinicheskie sredy (Pavlov’s Clinical Wednesdays). 3 vols. Moscow: Akademiia Nauk SSSR.
(1932a) 1941 Physiology of the Higher Nervous Activity. Volume 2, pages 60-70 in Ivan P. Pavlov, Lectures on Conditioned Reflexes. New York: International Publishers. ? First published as “Fiziologiia vysshei nervnoi deiatel’nosti.”
(1932b) 1941 Essays on the Physiological Concept of the Symptomatology of Hysteria. Volume 2, pages 102116 in Ivan P. Pavlov, Lectures on Conditioned Reflexes. New York: International Publishers. ? First published as Proba fiziologicheskogo ponimaniia simptomologii isterii. The translation of the extracts in the text was provided by Gregory Razran.
Polnoe sobranie trudov (Complete Works). 5 vols. Moscow and Leningrad: Akademiia Nauk SSSR, 1940-1949.
Selected Works. Edited by J. Gibbons under the supervision of K. S. Koshtoyants. Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1955.
works about pavlov
Akademiia Nauk Sssr, Institut Fiziologii Imeni I. P. Pavlova 1954 Bibliografiia trudov I. P. Pavlova i literature o nem (Bibliography of the Works of I. P. Pavlov and of Works About Him). Moscow and Leningrad: Akademiia Nauk SSSR.
Anokhin, P. K. 1949 Ivan Petrovich Pavlov. Moscow: Akademiia Nauk SSSR.
Babkin, B. P. 1949 Pavlov: A Biography. Univ. of Chicago Press.
Carpenter, H. C. H. 1936 Ivan Petrovich Pavlov. Royal Society of London, Obituary Notices of Fellows 2:1-24.
supplementary bibliography
Hilgard, Ernest R.; and Marquis, Donald G. (1940) 1961 Hilgard and Marquis’ Conditioning and Learning. Revised by Gregory A. Kimble. 2d ed. New York: Appleton. ? First published as Conditioning and Learning.
Hull, Clark L. 1943 Principles of Behavior: An Introduction to Behavior Theory. New York and London: Appleton.
Ivanov-Smolenskii, Anatolii G. (1927-1952)1954 Essays on the Patho-physiology of the Higher Nervous Activity According to I. P. Pavlov and His School.Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House. ? First published in Russian.
Konorski, Yerzy 1948 Conditioned Reflexes and Neuron Organization. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Negovskii, Vladimir A. 1954 Patofiziologiia i terapiia agonii i klinicheskoi smerti (Pathophysiology and Therapy of Agonia and Clinical Death). Moscow: Medgiz. ? Published in German in 1959 by the Akademie Verlag.
Petrova, M. K. 1925 Curing Experimental Neuroses in Dogs. Arkhiv biologicheskikh nauk 35:3-16. ? First published in Russian.
Razran, Gregory 1961 The Observable Unconscious and the Inferable Conscious in Current Soviet Psychophysiology: Interoceptive Conditioning, Semantic Conditioning, and the Orienting Reflex. Psychological Review 68:81-147.
Razran, Gregory 1965 Russian Physiologists’ Psychology and American Experimental Psychology. Psychological Bulletin 63, no. 1:42-64.
Sechenov, Ivan M. (1863)1935 Reflexes of the Brain. Pages 263-336 in Ivan M. Sechenov, Selected Works.Moscow: State Publishing House for Biological and Medical Literature. ? First published as “Refleksi golovnogo mozga” in the journal Meditsinskii vestnik.
Skinner, B. F. 1938 The Behavior of Organisms: An Experimental Analysis. New York: Appleton.
Voprosy neuroradiologii. 1962 Akademiia Nauk SSSR, Institut Vysshei Nervnoi Deiatel’nosti, Trudy Pathophysiological Series 10. ? The whole volume is devoted to the problems of neuroradiology. An English translation is available from the Office of Technical Services, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Watson, John B. 1913 Psychology as a Behaviorist Views It. Psychological Review 20:158-177.
Watson, John B. 1916 The Place of the Conditioned Reflex in Psychology. Psychological Review 23:89-116.