TOTE model

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The TOTE model was published in 1960 as a descriptive model for studying purposeful behavior by George A. Miller , Eugene Galanter, and Karl H. Pribram . The abbreviation TOTE stands for the sequence “Test - Operate - Test - Exit” and is originally a model borrowed from cybernetics that was introduced in psychology to describe behavior. It is an extension of the behavioristic stimulus-response scheme.

According to the TOTE model, the action program consists of a hierarchical arrangement of test and action phases: Test phases are characterized by target values ​​that represent the desired conditions or goals. Action phases are characterized by activities for realizing these target values. The basic unit of an action program is a feedback circuit , which, due to its process characteristics, is referred to as a test-operate-test-exit or TOTE unit for short.

In the test phase, an actual value is compared with a target value ( test ). If the target value is not achieved, the action phase is run through during which an activity is carried out ( operate ). Due to the action, the action phase leads to an update of the actual value, which is compared with the target value in a further test phase ( test ). If the target value is still not achieved, the action phase is run through again, otherwise the feedback loop is left ( Exit ).

This model is related to trial-and-error learning because every attempt is an intervention in the environment and thus also an expectation of an effect. After all, it must be recognized that the intervention is a mistake and does not correspond to the target value, because otherwise no further attempts would be generated.

The TOTE process

TOTE model

The TOTE process has four phases and describes a demarcated sequence of behavior. The phases described by Miller, Galanter and Pribram are:

  • Test : An internal test sequence is run through which results in an incongruity between the current state of the organism and the (desired) reference state
  • Operate : An "operation" sets an activity to change the state
  • Test : A new test for incongruence follows. If the incongruence persists, a new operation process is initiated by a loop
  • Exit : After establishing congruence between the reference state and the current state (commonly known as TARGET-ACTUAL comparison), the behavior sequence is exited.

A stimulus, as it is known as a reaction determinant in the stimulus-reaction scheme, is thus described as an external input, which leads to an incongruence between the reference (TARGET) and the current state (ACTUAL). The following reaction leads to a change in the ACTUAL, whereby the new state is tested again against the SOLL. When congruence is reached, the reaction pattern is ended.

The classic representation is based on an example originally introduced into psychology by Kurt Lewin in 1926, in which a person wants to hang a picture on the wall and wants to hammer in a nail for it:

  • Test: Finding "There is no nail in the wall"
  • Operate: Hammer a nail into the wall with a hammer
  • Test: Check the penetration depth of the nail, if not penetrated far enough, hammer again
  • Exit: nail is seated → stop nailing

In this sense, a TOTE represents a sequence of targeted activities that consolidate into a functional unit of behavior. Typically this behavioral unit takes place below the threshold of consciousness and is an automatic scheme.

The complexity of the behavior unit within a TOTE unit can vary. In the example shown, hammering in a nail can be a TOTE unit, but the smaller unit of nailing itself can also be described as a TOTE (nail not far enough in the wall - hit the nail head with a hammer - check - finish) or the Arm movement itself (hammer head not yet on the nail - move towards the nail - hammer head on the nail? - move on or stop); the entire process of hanging up pictures can also be a DEAD, provided the actions are organized unconsciously (for example with professional picture hangers ...).

TOTE hierarchies

The test phase at the highest hierarchical level is characterized by the most general target value. The test phases at the next lower level are characterized by target values ​​that represent the goal formulated at the highest level as a set of sub-goals. The target value at the highest level is thus realized exactly when all subordinate target values ​​are realized. Finally, on the lowest level are the action phases. They are characterized by action elements that realize the target values ​​of the directly superordinate test phases. Complex action programs thus consist of a hierarchy of TOTE units. The action phases of higher-order TOTE units are each composed of a sequence of TOTE units.

Classification in psychology

The roots of the TOTE model in psychology can be seen in the behaviorists' stimulus-response scheme (so-called reflex arc ). According to this model of the conditioned response, a certain stimulus triggers a certain behavior . This elegant simplicity of the behavioristic model can also be found in the TOTE model, which, however, has been expanded by introducing a feedback sequence. Winfried Hacker's action regulation theory psychologized the cybernetic TOTE model by replacing it with the VVR-unit - comparison-change-feedback-unit.

As a computational model , the TOTE model is based on the human-computer analogy . The human being is seen as an information processing system whose behavior is controlled by programs . Representatives of computational models pursue the goal of determining the programs on which the behavior is based. This presupposes a more complex algorithm compared to the stimulus-response scheme of behaviorism . Before the development of computational models, it was assumed that the feedback on the execution of one action immediately initiates the execution of the next (direct coupling of stimulus to reaction - response-chaining hypothesis ). This model is extended by the introduction of a test phase with a decision on further operational activity. This corresponds more to empirical reality insofar as flexible actions cannot be adequately explained by the deterministic response-chaining model.

literature

  • Miller, GA / Galanter, E./ Pribram, KA: Plans and the structure of behavior , Holt, Rhinehart, & Winston. New York 1960:

supporting documents

  1. ^ Hacker, Winfried: General work and engineering psychology. Berlin: VEB Deutscher Verlag der Wissenschaften, 1973. p. 92.