Columbia Obstruction Box

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Columbia Obstruction Box (Engl. Obstruction , obstacle ') is an experimental set of general psychology and examines the systematic relationship between engine power and performance strength. To do this, rats have to go through a simple labyrinth under laboratory conditions. The experiment was first carried out in 1936 by the American psychologists Carl J. Warden , Thomas N. Jenkins and Lucien H. Warner . The researchers were able to show that learning and behavior (see behaviorism ) are motivation-dependent. The Columbia Obstruction Box has since been used in various forms in other studies (see Kurt Lewin ).

Construction and implementation

The experimental apparatus for the Columbia Obstruction Box Test is designed as a simple rat labyrinth (Fig. 1). The (male) test animal is placed in the start box (A). An obstacle (B, electrical floor grid) separates it from an instinct-specific incentive (C). This incentive can be, for example, water, food or a female willing to mate. Before the actual test, the animals receive preliminary training to find their way around the device.

In the main experiment, the specific drive strengths are varied by withdrawal. It is then documented how often the test animal overcomes the aversion to the obstacle within twenty minutes in order to compensate for its deficit. If it comes into contact with the specific incentive, the researcher puts it back in the start box.

Both the influence of motivational states (drive strengths) on behavior (behavioral intensity) and possible differences in the urgency of different drives were examined.

Results

With increasing withdrawal duration, the willingness to cross the electrical grid in order to receive the specific incentive increased. However, from increased drive strength it cannot automatically be concluded that the quality of behavior is increased (see Yerkes-Dodson law ).

In the experiment, water deprivation produced the highest drive strength (Fig. 2). Then, in descending order, food and sex.

criticism

It was discussed whether the number of grid crossings can even be considered a valid measuring instrument. There are a number of reasons against it:

  • Different learning strategies from the pre-training could lead to deviant behavior.
  • It is questionable to what extent the results remain constant if the duration of the observation is modified.
  • The (even if only brief) contact between the test animal and the instinct-specific incentive can hardly be regulated uniformly.
  • The attractiveness of the incentive , which can activate behavior even without a deficit, was not systematically recorded.

Individual evidence

  1. ^ Warden, CJ, Jenkins, TN & Warner, LH (1936). Comparative psychology . New York: Ronald.
  2. ^ Lewin, K. (1963). Field theory in the social sciences . Bern: Huber.
  3. ^ Rothermund K. & Andreas E. (2011). Motivation and emotion . Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.
  4. ^ Greenberg G. & Haraway MM (1998). Comparative Psychology: A Handbook . London: Routledge.