Hubbry Logo
Edward ThorndikeEdward ThorndikeMain
Open search
Edward Thorndike
Community hub
Edward Thorndike
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Edward Thorndike
Edward Thorndike
Edward Thorndike
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Edward Lee Thorndike ((1874-08-31)August 31, 1874 – (1949-08-09)August 9, 1949) was an American psychologist who spent nearly his entire career at Teachers College, Columbia University. His work on comparative psychology and the learning process led to his "theory of connectionism" and helped lay the scientific foundation for educational psychology. He also worked on solving industrial problems, such as employee exams and testing.

Key Information

Thorndike was a member of the board of the Psychological Corporation and served as president of the American Psychological Association in 1912.[1][2] A Review of General Psychology survey, published in 2002, ranked Thorndike as the ninth-most cited psychologist of the 20th century.[3] Edward Thorndike had a powerful impact on reinforcement theory and behavior analysis, providing the basic framework for empirical laws in behavior psychology with his law of effect. Through his contributions to the behavioral psychology field came his major impacts on education, where the law of effect has great influence in the classroom.

Early life and education

[edit]

Thorndike, born in Williamsburg, Massachusetts was the son of Edward R and Abbie B Thorndike, a Methodist minister in Lowell, Massachusetts.[4] Thorndike graduated from The Roxbury Latin School (1891), in West Roxbury, Massachusetts and from Wesleyan University (B.S. 1895). He earned an M.A. at Harvard University in 1897. His two brothers (Lynn and Ashley) also became important scholars. The younger, Lynn, was a medievalist specializing in the history of science and magic, while the older, Ashley, was an English professor and noted authority on Shakespeare.

While at Harvard, he was interested in how animals learn (ethology), and worked with William James. Afterwards, he became interested in the animal 'man', to the study of which he then devoted his life.[5] Edward's thesis is sometimes thought of as the essential document of modern comparative psychology. Upon graduation, Thorndike returned to his initial interest, educational psychology. In 1898 he completed his PhD at Columbia University under the supervision of James McKeen Cattell, one of the founding fathers of psychometrics.

In 1899, after a year of unhappy initial employment at the College for Women of Case Western Reserve in Cleveland, Ohio, he became an instructor in psychology at Teachers College at Columbia University, where he remained for the rest of his career, studying human learning, education, and mental testing. In 1937 Thorndike became the second President of the Psychometric Society, following in the footsteps of Louis Leon Thurstone who had established the society and its journal Psychometrika the previous year.

On August 29, 1900, he wed Elizabeth Moulton. They had five children, among them Frances, who became a mathematician.[6][citation needed]

During the early stages of his career, he purchased a wide tract of land on the Hudson and encouraged other researchers to settle around him. Soon a colony had formed there with him as its 'tribal' chief.[5]

Connectionism

[edit]
Thorndike's original apparatus used in his puzzle-box experiments as seen in Animal Intelligence (Jun 1898)

Thorndike was a pioneer not only in behaviorism and in studying learning, but also in using animals in clinical experiments.[7][verification needed] Thorndike was able to create a theory of learning based on his research with animals.[8] His doctoral dissertation, "Animal Intelligence: An Experimental Study of the Associative Processes in Animals",[9] was the first in psychology where the subjects were nonhumans.[7][verification needed] Thorndike was interested in whether animals could learn tasks through imitation or observation.[10] To test this, Thorndike created puzzle boxes. The puzzle boxes were approximately 20 inches long, 15 inches wide, and 12 inches tall.[11] Each box had a door that was pulled open by a weight attached to a string that ran over a pulley and was attached to the door.[11] The string attached to the door led to a lever or button inside the box.[11] When the animal pressed the bar or pulled the lever, the string attached to the door would cause the weight to lift and the door to open.[11] Thorndike's puzzle boxes were arranged so that the animal would be required to perform a certain response (pulling a lever or pushing a button), while he measured the amount of time it took them to escape.[8] Once the animal had performed the desired response they were allowed to escape and were also given a reward, usually food.[8] Thorndike primarily used cats in his puzzle boxes. When the cats were put into the cages they would wander restlessly and meow, but they did not know how to escape.[12] Eventually, the cats would step on the switch on the floor by chance, and the door would open.[12] To see if the cats could learn through observation, he had them observe other animals escaping from the box.[12] He would then compare the times of those who got to observe others escaping with those who did not, and he found that there was no difference in their rate of learning.[8] Thorndike saw the same results with other animals, and he observed that there was no improvement even when he placed the animals' paws on the correct levers, buttons, or bar.[10] These failures led him to fall back on a trial and error explanation of learning.[10] He found that after accidentally stepping on the switch once, they would press the switch faster in each succeeding trial inside the puzzle box.[10] By observing and recording the animals' escapes and escape times, Thorndike was able to graph the times it took for the animals in each trial to escape, resulting in a learning curve.[12] The animals had difficulty escaping at first, but eventually "caught on" and escaped faster and faster with each successive puzzle box trial, until they eventually leveled off.[12] The quickened rate of escape results in the s-shape of the learning curve. The learning curve also suggested that different species learned in the same way but at different speeds.[10] From his research with puzzle boxes, Thorndike was able to create his own theory of learning. The puzzle box experiments were motivated in part by Thorndike's dislike for statements that animals made use of extraordinary faculties such as insight in their problem solving: "In the first place, most of the books do not give us a psychology, but rather a eulogy of animals. They have all been about animal intelligence, never about animal stupidity."[13]

Thorndike meant to distinguish clearly whether or not cats escaping from puzzle boxes were using insight. Thorndike's instruments in answering this question were learning curves revealed by plotting the time it took for an animal to escape the box each time it was in the box. He reasoned that if the animals were showing insight, then their time to escape would suddenly drop to a negligible period, which would also be shown in the learning curve as an abrupt drop; while animals using a more ordinary method of trial and error would show gradual curves. His finding was that cats consistently showed gradual learning.

Adult learning

[edit]

Thorndike put his testing expertise to work for the United States Army during World War I, participating in the development of the Army Beta test used to evaluate illiterate, unschooled, and non-English speaking recruits.

Thorndike believed that "Instruction should pursue specified, socially useful goals." Thorndike believed that the ability to learn did not decline until age 35, and only then at a rate of 1 percent per year. Thorndike also stated the law of effect, which says behaviors that are followed by good consequences are likely to be repeated in the future.

Thorndike identified the three main areas of intellectual development. The first being abstract intelligence. This is the ability to process and understand different concepts. The second is mechanical intelligence, which is the ability to handle physical objects. Lastly there is social intelligence. This is the ability to handle human interaction.[14]

  1. Learning is incremental.[8]
  2. Learning occurs automatically.[8]
  3. All animals learn the same way.[8]
  4. Law of effect– if an association is followed by a "satisfying state of affairs" it will be strengthened and if it is followed by an "annoying state of affairs " it will be weakened.
  5. Thorndike's law of exercise has two parts; the law of use and the law of disuse.
    1. Law of use– the more often an association is used the stronger it becomes.[15]
    2. Law of disuse– the longer an association is unused the weaker it becomes.[15]
  6. Law of recency– the most recent response is most likely to reoccur.[15]
  7. Multiple response– problem solving through trial and error. An animal will try multiple responses if the first response does not lead to a specific state of affairs.[15]
  8. Set or attitude– animals are predisposed to act in a specific way.[15]
  9. Prepotency of elements– a subject can filter out irrelevant aspects of a problem and focus and respond only to significant elements of a problem.[15]
  10. Response by analogy– responses from a related or similar context may be used in a new context.[15]
  11. Identical elements theory of transfer– This theory states that the extent to which information learned in one situation will transfer to another situation is determined by the similarity between the two situations.[8] The more similar the situations are, the greater the amount of information that will transfer.[8] Similarly, if the situations have nothing in common, information learned in one situation will not be of any value in the other situation.[8]
  12. Associative shifting– it is possible to shift any response from occurring with one stimulus to occurring with another stimulus.[15] Associative shift maintains that a response is first made to situation A, then to AB, and then finally to B, thus shifting a response from one condition to another by associating it with that condition.[16]
  13. Law of readiness– a quality in responses and connections that results in readiness to act.[16] Thorndike acknowledges that responses may differ in their readiness.[16] He claims that eating has a higher degree of readiness than vomiting, that weariness detracts from the readiness to play and increases the readiness to sleep.[16] Also, Thorndike argues that a low or negative status in respect to readiness is called unreadiness.[16] Behavior and learning are influenced by the readiness or unreadiness of responses, as well as by their strength.[16]
  14. Identifiability– According to Thorndike, the identification or placement of a situation is a first response of the nervous system, which can recognize it.[16] Then connections may be made to one another or to another response, and these connections depend upon the original identification.[16] Therefore, a large amount of learning is made up of changes in the identifiability of situations.[16] Thorndike also believed that analysis might turn situations into compounds of features, such as the number of sides on a shape, to help the mind grasp and retain the situation, and increase their identifiability.[16]
  15. Availability– The ease of getting a specific response.[16] For example, it would be easier for a person to learn to touch their nose or mouth than it would be for them to draw a line 5 inches long with their eyes closed.[16]

Development of law of effect

[edit]
Further information: Law of effect

Thorndike's research focused on instrumental learning, which means that learning is developed from the organism doing something. For example, he placed a cat inside a wooden box. The cat would use various methods while trying to get out, but nothing would work until it hit the lever. Afterwards, Thorndike tried placing the cat inside the wooden box again. This time, the cat was able to hit the lever quickly and succeeded in getting out from the box.

At first, Thorndike emphasized the importance of dissatisfaction stemming from failure as equal to the reward of satisfaction with success, though in his experiments and trials on humans he came to conclude that reward is a much more effective motivator than punishment. He also emphasized that the satisfaction must come immediately after the success, or the lesson would not sink in.[5]

Eugenics

[edit]
This article is part of a series on
Eugenics
Historical trajectory
Pre-war academic proponents
Post-war academic remnants
Pamphlets and manifestos
Organizations
Without significant post-war activity
With significant post-war activity
Related

Thorndike was a proponent of eugenics.[17] He argued that "selective breeding can alter man's capacity to learn, to keep sane, to cherish justice or to be happy. There is no more certain and economical a way to improve man's environment as to improve his nature."[18] He stated:

I hope to have made it clear that we have much to learn about eugenics, and also that we already know enough to justify us in providing for the original intellect and character of man in the future with a higher, purer source than the muddy streams of the past. If it is our duty to improve the face of the world and human customs and traditions, so that men unborn may live in better conditions, it is doubly our duty to improve the original natures of these men themselves. For there is no surer means of improving the conditions of life.[17]

And furthermore:

It is no part of my office to moralize on these facts. But surely it would be a pitiable thing if man should forever make inferior men as a by-product of passion, and deny good men life in mistaken devotion to palliative and remedial philanthropy. Ethics and religion must teach man to want the welfare of the future as well as the relief of the cripple before his eyes; and science must teach man to control his own future nature as well as the animals, plants, and physical forces amongst which he will have to live. It is a noble thing that human reason, bred of a myriad unreasoned happenings, and driven forth into life by whips made aeons ago with no thought of man's higher wants, can yet turn back to understand man's birth, survey his journey, chart and steer his future course, and free him from barriers without and defects within. Until the last removable impediment in man's own nature dies childless, human reason will not rest.[17]

Thorndike on education

[edit]

Thorndike's Educational psychology began a trend toward behavioral psychology that sought to use empirical evidence and a scientific approach to problem solving. Thorndike was among some of the first psychologists to combine learning theory, psychometrics, and applied research for school-related subjects to form psychology of education. One of his influences on education is seen by his ideas on mass marketing of tests and textbooks at that time. Thorndike opposed the idea that learning should reflect nature, which was the main thought of developmental scientists at that time. He instead thought that schooling should improve upon nature. Unlike many other psychologist of his time, Thorndike took a statistical approach to education in his later years by collecting qualitative information intended to help teachers and educators deal with practical educational problems.[19] Thorndike's theory was an association theory, as many were in that time. He believed that the association between stimulus and response was solidified by a reward or confirmation. He also thought that motivation was an important factor in learning.[20] The Law of Effect introduced the relation between reinforcers and punishers. Although Thorndike's description of the relation between reinforcers and punishers was incomplete, his work in this area would later become a catalyst in further research, such as that of B.F. Skinner.[21]

Thorndike's Law of Effect states that "responses that produce a desired effect are more likely to occur again whereas responses that produce an unpleasant effect are less likely to occur again".[22] The terms 'desired effect' and 'unpleasant effect' eventually became known as 'reinforcers' and 'punishers'.[22] Thorndike's contributions to the Behavioral Psychology Society are seen through his influences in the classroom, with a particular focus on praising and ignoring behaviors. Praise is used in the classroom to encourage and support the occurrence of a desired behavior. When used in the classroom, praise has been shown to increase correct responses and appropriate behavior.[23] Planned ignoring is used to decrease, weaken, or eliminate the occurrence of a target behavior.[23] Planned ignoring is accomplished by removing the reinforcer that is maintaining the behavior. For example, when the teacher does not pay attention to a "whining" behavior of a student, it allows the student to realize that whining will not succeed in gaining the attention of the teacher.[23]

Beliefs about the behavior of women

[edit]

Unlike later behaviorists such as John B. Watson, who placed a very strong emphasis on the impact of environmental influences on behavior, Thorndike believed that differences in the parental behavior of men and women were due to biological, rather than cultural, reasons.[24] While conceding that society could "complicate or deform"[25] what he believed were inborn differences, he believed that "if we [researchers] should keep the environment of boys and girls absolutely similar these instincts would produce sure and important differences between the mental and moral activities of boys and girls".[26] Indeed, Watson himself overtly critiqued the idea of maternal instincts in humans in a report of his observations of first-time mothers struggling to breastfeed. Watson argued that the very behaviors Thorndike referred to as resulting from a "nursing instinct" stemming from "unreasoning tendencies to pet, coddle, and 'do for' others,"[26] were performed with difficulty by new mothers and thus must have been learned, while "instinctive factors are practically nil".[27]

Thorndike's beliefs about inborn differences between the thoughts and behavior of men and women included arguments about the role of women in society. For example, along with the "nursing instinct," Thorndike talked about the instinct of "submission to mastery," arguing that because men are typically physically larger than women, "Women in general are thus by original nature submissive to men in general."[28] Such beliefs were commonplace during this era.[29]

Thorndike's word books

[edit]

Thorndike composed three different word books to assist teachers with word and reading instruction. After publication of The Teacher's Word Book in 1921,[30] two other books were written and published, each approximately a decade apart from its predecessor. The second book in the series, its full title being A Teacher's Word Book of the Twenty Thousand Words Found Most Frequently and Widely in General Reading for Children and Young People,[31] was published in 1932, and the third and final book, The Teacher's Word Book of 30,000 Words,[32] was published in 1944.

In Appendix A to the second book, Thorndike gives credit to his word counts and how frequencies were assigned to particular words. Selected sources extrapolated from Appendix A include:

  • Children's Reading: Black Beauty, Little Women, Treasure Island, A Christmas Carol, The Legend of Sleepy Hollow, Youth's Companion, school primers, first readers, second readers, and third readers
  • Standard Literature: The Bible, Shakespeare, Tennyson, Wordsworth, Cowper, Pope, and Milton
  • Common Facts and Trades: The United States Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, A New Book of Cookery, Practical Sewing and Dress Making, Garden and Farm Almanac, and mail-order catalogues

In the preface to the third book, Thorndike writes that the list contained therein "tells anyone who wishes to know whether to use a word in writing, speaking, or teaching how common the word is in standard English reading matter" (p. x), and he further advises that the list can best be employed by teachers if they allow it to guide the decisions they make choosing which words to emphasize during reading instruction. Some words require more emphasis than others, and, according to Thorndike, his list informs teachers of the most frequently occurring words that should be reinforced by instruction and thus become "a permanent part of [students'] stock of word knowledge" (p. xi). If a word is not on the list but appears in an educational text, its meaning only needs to be understood temporarily in the context in which it was found, and then summarily discarded from memory.

Thorndike's influence

[edit]

Thorndike contributed a great deal to psychology.[33] His influence on animal psychologists, especially those who focused on behavior plasticity, greatly contributed to the future of that field.[34] In addition to helping pave the way towards behaviorism, his contribution to measurement influenced philosophy, the administration and practice of education, military administration, industrial personnel administration, civil service and many public and private social services.[11] Thorndike influenced many schools of psychology as Gestalt psychologists, psychologists studying the conditioned reflex, and behavioral psychologists all studied Thorndike's research as a starting point.[11] Thorndike was a contemporary of John B. Watson and Ivan Pavlov. However, unlike Watson, Thorndike introduced the concept of reinforcement.[15] Thorndike was the first to apply psychological principles to the area of learning. His research led to many theories and laws of learning. His theory of learning, especially the law of effect, is most often considered to be his greatest achievement.[11] In 1929, Thorndike addressed his early theory of learning, and claimed that he had been wrong.[8] After further research, he was forced to denounce his law of exercise completely, because he found that practice alone did not strengthen an association, and that time alone did not weaken an association.[8] He also got rid of half of the law of effect, after finding that a satisfying state of affairs strengthens an association, but punishment is not effective in modifying behavior.[8] He placed a great emphasis on consequences of behavior as setting the foundation for what is and is not learned. His work represents the transition from the school of functionalism to behaviorism, and enabled psychology to focus on learning theory.[8] Thorndike's work would eventually be a major influence to B.F. Skinner and Clark Hull. Skinner, like Thorndike, put animals in boxes and observed them to see what they were able to learn. The learning theories of Thorndike and Pavlov were later synthesized by Clark Hull.[11] His work on motivation and attitude formation directly affected studies on human nature as well as social order.[11] Thorndike's research drove comparative psychology for fifty years, and influenced countless psychologists over that period of time, and even still today.

Accomplishments

[edit]

In 1912, Thorndike was elected president for the American Psychological Association. In 1917 he was elected as a Fellow of the American Statistical Association.[35] He was admitted to the National Academy of Sciences in 1917.[36] He was one of the first psychologists to be admitted to the association. Thorndike is well known for his experiments on animals supporting the law of effect. He was elected to the American Philosophical Society in 1932 and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 1934.[37] That same year, Thorndike was elected president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.[5]

Criticism

[edit]

Thorndike's connectionism has been criticized for being too simplistic and reductionistic.[38] His law of effect and puzzle box methodology were subjected to detailed criticism by behaviorists and many other psychologists.[39] The criticisms over the law of effect mostly cover four aspects of the theory: the implied or retroactive working of the effect, the philosophical implication of the law, the identification of the effective conditions that cause learning, and the comprehensive usefulness of the law.[40]

Because of his "racist, sexist, and antisemitic ideals", amid the George Floyd protests of 2020, the Board of Trustees of Teachers' College in New York voted unanimously to remove his name from Thorndike Hall.[41][42]

Selected works

[edit]

Articles

[edit]

Miscellany

[edit]
  • Thorndike, Edward Lee (1899). "Instinct". Boston, Ginn & Co. in Biological Lectures From The Marine Biological Laboratory of Woods Holl, 1899.
  • — (1899). "The Associative Processes in Animals". Boston, Ginn & Co. in Biological Lectures From The Marine Biological Laboratory of Woods Holl, 1899.

See also

[edit]

Notes

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Edward Thorndike

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Edward Lee Thorndike (August 31, 1874 – August 9, 1949) was an American psychologist and educator renowned for pioneering empirical research on learning through animal experimentation, formulating the law of effect, and advancing connectionism as a theory of associative learning bonds between stimuli and responses. Often regarded as the founder of educational psychology, Thorndike applied quantitative methods to study human learning, intelligence measurement, and pedagogical efficiency, emphasizing trial-and-error processes over instinctual or insightful explanations. Thorndike's seminal puzzle box experiments, conducted in the late 1890s, involved confining hungry cats in enclosures requiring specific actions—like pulling a string or pressing a lever—to escape and access food, revealing that successful behaviors repeated more quickly over trials while unsuccessful ones diminished, thus empirically grounding the law of effect: satisfying outcomes strengthen stimulus-response connections, while annoying ones weaken them. This work rejected anthropomorphic interpretations of animal cognition prevalent in prior studies, such as those by George Romanes, and laid foundational principles for operant conditioning later expanded by B.F. Skinner. In educational applications, Thorndike developed standardized tests for reading, arithmetic, and , compiled extensive word-frequency to curricula, and advocated for data-driven reforms in schooling, arguing that learning transfer occurs only through identical elements between tasks rather than faculties—a view challenging . As a at from onward, he influenced generations of educators by promoting measurable outcomes and behavioral metrics over subjective ideals, though his hereditarian leanings on intelligence sparked debates with environmentalists like John Dewey. Thorndike's broader legacy includes over 500 publications, including Animal Intelligence (1911) and Educational Psychology (1903–1924, in multiple volumes), which shifted psychology toward objective, laboratory-based inquiry and quantifiable laws of behavior, profoundly shaping applied fields like animal training, child development, and instructional design.

Biography

Early Life and Education

Edward Lee Thorndike was born on August 31, 1874, in Williamsburg, , the second son of Edward Roberts Thorndike, a Methodist minister who had previously practiced in , and his Abigail. The family later resided in Lowell, , where Thorndike attended public schools and exhibited early signs of intellectual ability, such as solving mechanical puzzles at age three that stumped older siblings. Raised in a strictly religious household, he initially considered the ministry but gravitated toward scientific pursuits influenced by readings in evolutionary biology. Thorndike entered Wesleyan University in Middletown, Connecticut, in 1891, pursuing a science-oriented curriculum despite family expectations of clerical training. He graduated in 1895 with a Bachelor of Arts degree, having developed an interest in psychology through exposure to works by Herbert Spencer and Thomas Huxley. In 1895, Thorndike enrolled at to study literature but soon shifted to under , conducting initial experiments on learning using makeshift puzzle boxes with cats in his landlady's . He received a second degree from Harvard in 1896 and a in 1897. Dissatisfied with Harvard's facilities for animal research, Thorndike transferred to in 1897, where he worked under and completed his Ph.D. in 1898 with a dissertation examining trial-and-error learning in animals, later published as foundational work in .

Academic Career and Personal Life

Thorndike commenced his academic career in 1898 as an instructor in psychology at the College for Women of Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio. The following year, in 1899, he moved to Teachers College, , initially as adjunct professor of psychology, and was promoted to full professor in 1901. He remained at Teachers College for the duration of his professional life, retiring in 1940 and serving as professor emeritus until his death on August 9, 1949. Throughout this period, Thorndike focused on advancing educational psychology, mentoring numerous students, and conducting on learning processes. In his personal life, Thorndike married Elizabeth Moulton on , 1900. The couple had four children, all of whom pursued careers in academia: Elizabeth Frances Thorndike, born in 1902, became a ; Edward Moulton Thorndike a ; Robert Ladd Thorndike a psychologist; and Alan L. Thorndike a professor of English. Thorndike's family provided a stable foundation that complemented his intensive scholarly pursuits, with his children reflecting a familial emphasis on intellectual endeavors.

Experimental Foundations

Animal Intelligence and Puzzle Box Experiments

Edward L. Thorndike initiated systematic experimental studies of animal learning in the late 1890s while at Columbia University, focusing on associative processes rather than anthropomorphic interpretations prevalent in prior anecdotal accounts. He devised puzzle boxes—enclosed apparatuses from which animals could escape only by performing specific actions, such as pressing a panel, pulling a string loop, or opening a catch—to access food placed outside. These experiments primarily involved cats, though he also tested dogs, chicks, fish, and monkeys, aiming to quantify learning through repeated trials measuring escape times and behaviors. Thorndike's approach rejected subjective inferences of animal reasoning, emphasizing observable trial-and-error mechanisms over insight or imitation. In a typical setup, a hungry cat was confined in one of approximately 15 varied puzzle boxes, each requiring a unique instrumental response to unlatch the door, such as displacing a weighted string attached to a lever. Initial trials showed cats engaging in random, inefficient actions like clawing bars or biting wires, with escape times often exceeding 100 seconds; for instance, one cat in Box A took 160 seconds on the first trial, reducing to shorter durations over successive exposures as the correct response was isolated and repeated. Learning curves demonstrated gradual improvement, not abrupt realization, with errors diminishing as irrelevant responses weakened and the effective action strengthened through immediate reinforcement via food access. Thorndike documented over 100 trials per animal across boxes, recording precise latencies and behavioral sequences to argue that association formation, not cognitive deliberation, drove adaptation. These findings, detailed in Thorndike's 1898 dissertation and expanded in his 1911 book Animal Intelligence: Experimental Studies, established empirical foundations for understanding learning as a mechanical stamping-in of stimulus-response connections, challenging romanticized views of animal minds promoted by figures like George Romanes. Cats showed no evidence of learning by observation, as trained animals did not facilitate novices in separate tests, underscoring individual trial-based acquisition. The puzzle box methodology influenced subsequent behaviorist paradigms, including B.F. Skinner's operant conditioning chambers, by prioritizing quantifiable contingencies over mentalistic explanations. Thorndike's data revealed consistent patterns: performance asymptoted near minimal response times (e.g., 2-5 seconds), but without transfer of training across dissimilar boxes, highlighting specificity in associative learning.

Core Theories of Learning

Connectionism

Thorndike's connectionism posited that learning fundamentally consists of the formation and modification of associations, or bonds, between sensory stimuli (S) and motor responses (R), established through repeated experiences rather than insight or reasoning. This S-R framework emerged from his early experimental observations of animal behavior, where successful responses to environmental cues were reinforced over unsuccessful ones via trial-and-error processes. Thorndike argued that these connections constitute the basic units of habit formation, with intelligence arising from the accumulation and efficiency of such bonds rather than innate faculties or mentalistic processes. The theory was first articulated in Thorndike's 1898 dissertation, Animal Intelligence: An Experimental Study of the Associative Processes in Animals, which analyzed data from puzzle-box experiments involving cats, dogs, and chicks escaping enclosures to access food rewards. In these setups, animals initially exhibited random actions, but over trials, the latency to escape decreased as specific S-R connections—such as pulling a loop in response to the sight of a baited lever—were selectively strengthened, demonstrating learning curves that approximated exponential improvement. Thorndike quantified this by measuring response times across 50–100 trials per animal, rejecting anthropomorphic interpretations like "understanding" in favor of mechanical association-building, which he termed "stamping in" effective bonds. Connectionism integrated principles of from earlier philosophers like and but grounded them in empirical quantification, emphasizing that bond strength varies with of conjunction and recency of . Thorndike extended the model beyond to , proposing that complex skills decompose into S-R connections trainable through practice, with transfer to situations elements—a view supported by his later studies showing minimal without stimulus similarity. This mechanistic approach influenced subsequent behaviorists like Pavlov and Skinner, though Thorndike distinguished his theory by incorporating affective consequences (e.g., satisfaction) to modulate connection vigor, prefiguring reinforcement concepts without relying solely on contiguity. Empirical validation came from controlled replications, such as those confirming steeper learning curves for rewarded responses in rodents and children performing serial tasks.

Law of Effect and Reinforcement Principles

Edward Thorndike derived the Law of Effect from his puzzle box experiments conducted between 1898 and 1901, in which animals such as cats learned to escape enclosures by manipulating latches or levers through trial-and-error actions. In these setups, animals initially exhibited random behaviors, but over repeated trials, the specific responses leading to release—such as pulling a string—occurred more quickly and directly, with escape times decreasing from averages of over 2 minutes on initial trials to under 10 seconds after multiple exposures. This pattern indicated that successful outcomes reinforced the association between the stimulus situation and the effective response. Thorndike formalized the in his 1911 Animal Intelligence, stating that "of several responses made to the same situation, those which are accompanied or closely followed by satisfaction to the will, other things being equal, be more firmly connected with the situation, so that, when it recurs, they will be more likely to recur; those which are accompanied or closely followed by discomfort... will have their connections... weakened." The principle emphasized the causal of consequences in modifying , with satisfying states strengthening stimulus-response (S-R) bonds and annoying states weakening them, independent of conscious reasoning or . This law established foundational reinforcement principles in learning theory, positing that behaviors are shaped by their outcomes rather than internal mental processes. Positive reinforcers, as satisfying consequences, increase the probability of response repetition, while negative outcomes diminish it, forming the basis for later behavioral concepts like operant conditioning. Thorndike's empirical data from over 100 trials across species, including cats, dogs, and chicks, supported the law's generality, showing consistent strengthening of adaptive connections without evidence of instinctive trial selection. By 1932, Thorndike refined the formulation to prioritize positive reinforcement, arguing that punishment's effects were less direct and often confounded by avoidance learning.

Opposition to Transfer of Learning

Thorndike challenged the prevailing doctrine of formal discipline, which asserted that rigorous training in subjects like or classical languages cultivated general mental faculties such as , , or reasoning, thereby enhancing across unrelated domains. In collaboration with , he conducted experiments from 1898 to 1901 testing transfer effects, such as training in estimating the areas of geometric figures and measuring subsequent improvements in judging lengths, weights, or volumes; results demonstrated negligible positive transfer, with gains typically under 1-2% beyond what practice alone explained. These findings, published in 1901, indicated that broad mental strengthening was illusory, as transfer occurred only when tasks shared specific, identifiable elements rather than through abstract faculty development. Building on this empirical basis, Thorndike formulated the of elements, positing that the extent of transfer is proportional to the number and closeness of common stimulus-response bonds between the original learning situation and the new one. For instance, in perceptual tasks, on similar shapes yielded minor improvements (e.g., 5-10% in analogous estimates) due to overlapping sensory cues, but dissimilar tasks showed no reliable carryover, contradicting claims of universal mental . Thorndike extended this to educational practice, arguing in his 1903 work Educational Psychology that curricula should prioritize practice in targeted skills over presumed general , as from over 50 experiments across motor, perceptual, and cognitive domains consistently supported specificity over generality. This position influenced subsequent learning theory by emphasizing causal mechanisms rooted in associative connections rather than innate faculties, though later researchers noted limitations, such as underestimating near-transfer in complex skills. Thorndike's critique, grounded in quantifiable outcomes from controlled studies involving hundreds of participants, shifted educational focus toward functional, evidence-based methods, rejecting unsubstantiated assumptions of as empirically unfounded.

Applications in Educational Psychology

Intelligence Measurement and Testing

Thorndike pioneered objective methods for measuring intelligence in educational settings, emphasizing quantitative scales over subjective ratings to assess intellectual capacity through performance on standardized tasks. His approach stemmed from connectionist principles, positing that intelligence reflects the efficiency and extent of associative bonds formed in response to stimuli, measurable via samples of cognitive output such as completion exercises, vocabulary knowledge, and arithmetic reasoning. This contrasted with earlier introspective or anecdotal assessments, advocating instead for empirically derived norms based on large-scale testing of schoolchildren. A key innovation was the CAVD intelligence scale, developed in the early 1920s as part of the Institute of Educational Research at , comprising subtests for Completion (sentence gaps filled via reasoning), Arithmetic (numerical problems), Vocabulary (word meanings), and Direction (following instructions). The scale aimed to quantify " CAVD" on a ratio basis, where each unit represented equal increments in difficulty, calibrated through item analysis on thousands of students to ensure psychometric rigor. Scores yielded an "altitude" metric, correlating strongly with academic achievement and predicting learning potential more reliably than age-ratio IQs, which Thorndike critiqued for assuming uniform developmental uniformity across ages. In his 1926 book The Measurement of Intelligence, co-authored with colleagues including E.O. Bergman and Ella Woodyard, Thorndike detailed the construction of such scales from data collected between 1922 and 1925, involving over 200,000 test administrations to refine item difficulties and establish norms. The work promoted multifactor assessment, rejecting a singular (g) factor in favor of domain-specific measures like verbal and numerical , while incorporating attributes such as level (highest task solvable), range (variety of responses), area (breadth of applicability), and speed (rapidity of execution). This framework influenced post-World War I , including adaptations for systems, by prioritizing scalable, objective tools over Binet-style exams. Thorndike's testing emphasized for educational outcomes, with CAVD scores showing consistent correlations (around 0.70-0.80) with later , though he cautioned against overinterpreting absolute scores to environmental influences on connection formation. His methods advanced causal realism in by grounding in observable behaviors rather than inferred mental essences, paving the way for modern standardized assessments while highlighting limitations like cultural specificity in verbal tasks. Repeated administrations of CAVD revealed modest practice effects but stable rank orders, supporting its use for tracking growth over time.

Principles of Teaching and Curriculum Design

Thorndike advocated for a scientific approach to grounded in empirical , emphasizing the formation and strengthening of specific stimulus-response connections through controlled practice and consequences rather than intuitive or traditional methods. In his 1906 work The Principles of : Based on , he outlined methods to verify instructional effectiveness via observable outcomes, rejecting untested assumptions about general mental discipline. Central to this were his laws of learning: readiness, requiring mental preparation to avoid frustration and maximize satisfaction from success; exercise, promoting repetition to solidify bonds; and effect, where rewarding outcomes reinforce behaviors while discomfort weakens them. These principles informed instructional strategies such as drills for skill acquisition, immediate feedback to guide adjustments, and motivation via achievable successes to build persistence. Thorndike stressed individual differences in capacity, recommending tailored pacing and content to match students' abilities, measured through quantitative assessments rather than uniform progression. For subjects like arithmetic or reading, he prescribed breaking tasks into elemental components—e.g., repeated addition drills over abstract principles initially—to foster automaticity before integration. In curriculum design, Thorndike's opposition to broad transfer of training, demonstrated in experiments showing negligible generalization from one domain to another (e.g., no intellectual gains from Latin grammar to unrelated reasoning), led him to prioritize domain-specific content aligned with practical societal needs. He rejected faculty psychology's claim that certain disciplines universally enhance intellect, arguing instead for empirical selection of material based on measurable efficiency in producing desired competencies, such as vocational skills or basic literacies over classical studies presumed to cultivate vague "powers of mind." Curricula should thus atomize knowledge into verifiable units, sequenced by difficulty and reinforced through practice, with ongoing testing to refine content and discard ineffective elements. This efficiency-oriented framework influenced early 20th-century reforms, favoring standardized, outcome-driven education over holistic or developmental models.

Adult Learning and Lifelong Education

In 1928, Edward L. Thorndike, along with collaborators Elsie O. Bregman, J. Warren Tilton, and Ella Woodyard, published Adult Learning, a comprehensive empirical investigation into age-related changes in learning capacity based on surveys of prior and new experimental from the Institute of at Teachers College, Columbia University. The study measured in tasks such as memorization, problem-solving, and skill acquisition across age groups, revealing that learning efficiency does not decline sharply after but persists robustly into hood. For instance, adults aged 20 to 30 demonstrated superior over adolescents aged 14 to 18 in learning artificial languages like , while no significant age differences appeared in vocational skills such as shorthand and typewriting among secretarial school students. Thorndike's analyses quantified the decline in learning speed and retention during middle adulthood at less than 1% per year, applicable across varying levels of general ability, thus contradicting contemporary assumptions of rapid post-youth deterioration. This gradual trajectory implied that chronological age alone does not preclude effective learning, with individual differences—rooted in innate factors like intelligence—exerting greater influence than maturation. Retention rates for learned material also showed minimal age-based erosion until later decades, supporting the conclusion that adults retain the power to form new associations and habits central to Thorndike's connectionist framework. These findings underscored the feasibility of structured programs, as Thorndike argued that warranted extending instructional methods proven effective in to mature learners, provided stimuli were appropriately reinforcing under the . In his 1935 follow-up work Adult Interests, he documented sustained and for among older adults, further bolstering the case for lifelong educational opportunities without presuming decline. Thorndike's data-driven rejection of age as a primary barrier influenced early for , emphasizing measurable outcomes over anecdotal about plasticity.

Perspectives on Human Differences and Heredity

Eugenics and Improving Human Capacities

Thorndike viewed intellect and character as predominantly shaped by , with individual differences persisting despite environmental influences, as evidenced by consistent familial patterns in cognitive tasks such as arithmetic performance. In a study of 732 children, he noted that the top performers completed over 100 problems in 15 minutes, compared to just 5 for the lowest group, attributing such disparities primarily to innate capacities rather than or maturity. He drew on kinship data from researchers like and Frederick Adams Woods, where biological sons of eminent men showed a thousandfold greater likelihood of eminence than adopted sons, underscoring the heritability of intellectual and moral traits. To improve human capacities, Thorndike promoted eugenics through selective breeding, advocating positive measures to encourage reproduction among those with superior intellect and character, and negative measures to limit it among the inferior, such as the feeble-minded. He argued that such selection could elevate the population's average intellect substantially over 10 to 20 generations, estimating that restricting breeding to the top 10% would yield rapid gains without deleterious side effects, as high intellect correlated positively with morality, sanity, and health. Thorndike rejected Lamarckian inheritance of acquired traits, asserting in his 1910 work on education that improvements from teaching are confined to one generation and do not transmit hereditarily, thus necessitating eugenic intervention for enduring racial advancement. His reasoning emphasized quantitative potential, likening eugenics' effects to agricultural breeding successes, where selective practices had dramatically enhanced traits like wheat yield or horse speed; he claimed analogous methods could alter humanity's capacity to learn, maintain sanity, uphold justice, or achieve happiness. Thorndike cited no inverse fecundity costs for superior stock, using royal family analyses to support claims of compatibility between high achievement and reproduction rates. While acknowledging environmental limits in equalizing innate differences, he prioritized heredity as the primary lever for societal progress, integrating these views with his broader connectionist framework on fixed learning potentials.

Sex Differences in Abilities and Behavior

Thorndike's investigations into sex differences emphasized empirical measurement of school abilities through standardized tests administered to children and adolescents. In his 1903 monograph Heredity, Correlation and Sex Differences in School Abilities, derived from studies at , he analyzed performance across subjects like arithmetic, language, and reasoning, finding negligible average differences between boys and girls, with males scoring slightly higher only due to minor advantages in age or prior training rather than inherent traits. This conclusion challenged prevailing assumptions of broad female inferiority, attributing apparent gaps to environmental confounders rather than fixed biological disparities in central tendency. A core finding was greater variability in male abilities, evidenced by statistical computations from test distributions showing boys' scores deviated more from the mean—typically 5 to 10 percent wider—resulting in disproportionate representation at both superior and inferior extremes. Thorndike posited this variability as biologically rooted in , influencing outcomes like higher male rates of exceptional intellect or deficiency, and supported it with correlation analyses linking familial traits to individual performance. He extended this to behavioral domains, arguing that reduced female variability, combined with weaker "fighting " or competitive drive, contributed to fewer women matching peak male achievements in domains requiring persistence or risk. In Educational Psychology (Volume III, 1913–1914), Thorndike integrated these observations into discussions of individual and group differences, affirming heredity's dominant causal role in variability while acknowledging environment's modulation of averages. A 1925 collaborative study with Ella Woodyard, examining over 1,000 adolescents aged 13 to 18 via intelligence scales, replicated minimal mean differences but confirmed persistent male variability across cognitive measures, suggesting developmental stability from childhood into puberty. These patterns aligned with Thorndike's connectionist framework, where innate bonds in abilities and instinctive behaviors varied more widely in males, though learning laws applied universally without sex-specific modifications.

Racial and Ethnic Variations in Traits

Thorndike's investigations into racial variations in traits formed part of his empirical quantification of human differences, emphasizing measurable disparities in intellectual and behavioral capacities across groups. In Educational Psychology (1910), he analyzed data from M.J. Mayo's comparisons of White and Black students in New York City public schools, including high school cohorts where 150 Black students, averaging seven months older than their 150 White counterparts, exhibited inferior scholarship records, with only 30% reaching the median White achievement level and a 24% gap in English performance. Variability was slightly lower among Black students, with 80% falling within a narrower range than Whites. Thorndike interpreted these patterns as indicative of underlying differences in original tendencies, estimating average racial deviations in innate capacity at 3-10 units, potentially widening to 10-50 in higher-order traits like analysis and association. These variations, Thorndike argued, arose from interactions between —rooted in remote ancestry or race—and environmental factors such as and social conditions. He cited Galton's assessment that intellectual inferiority to Europeans approximated one-eighth the span between eminent figures like and the lowest idiocy, attributing much to endowments rather than solely nurture. While acknowledging environment's malleability, Thorndike maintained that innate racial predispositions imposed limits, as illustrated in his example: "If it be true, for example, that the is by unintellectual and joyous, this does not imply that he may not be made more intelligent by wiser ." Twin studies he referenced supported 's dominance in mental traits, with correlations of 0.69-0.90, suggesting racial differences similarly reflected genetic legacies more than transient influences. Thorndike's later reflections reinforced this hereditarian-environmental framework without rejecting group-level disparities. In "Racial Inequalities" (), he addressed persistent racial differences in abilities, linking them to hereditary components alongside environmental disparities, consistent with his earlier volumes like Educational Psychology, Vol. III (1913-14), which systematically parsed race, , and effects through statistical correlations. Ethnic variations received less distinct treatment in his corpus, often subsumed under broader racial categorizations, though his quantitative methods implied applicability to differences in traits like and character, as explored in eugenics-related writings where original capacities tied to ancestral lines. Empirical from his era's testing, which he pioneered, consistently documented such gaps, predating modern debates on biases.

Major Publications and Tools

Key Theoretical Works

Thorndike's foundational theoretical work, Animal Intelligence: Experimental Studies (1911), presented results from puzzle-box experiments with cats, demonstrating trial-and-error learning as the primary mechanism of animal association formation. In these studies, animals escaped enclosures by manipulating latches, with success rates increasing through repeated trials due to the strengthening of stimulus-response connections reinforced by satisfying outcomes. This led to his articulation of the law of effect, positing that responses followed by pleasure are stamped in, while those followed by pain are stamped out, laying the groundwork for connectionism as a theory emphasizing modifiable neural bonds over instinct or insight. In Educational Psychology (1903), a three-volume treatise, Thorndike extended these principles to cognition, arguing that learning proceeds via identical associative laws across , with readiness, exercise, and effect as core factors governing connection strength. Volume I focused on general principles, Volume II on originality in children, and Volume III on individual differences, advocating quantitative measurement of mental functions to inform pedagogy. He critiqued faculty psychology, insisting abilities are specific and cumulative rather than general traits, supported by empirical data from school performance correlations. The Elements of Psychology (1905) synthesized his behavioral approach, rejecting introspection in favor of observable habits and instincts, while detailing connectionist mechanisms for perception, memory, and reasoning as chained associations. Later, Human Nature and the Social Order (1940) refined these ideas amid social applications, integrating heredity's role in varying connection-forming capacities across individuals. These works collectively established learning as mechanistic and measurable, influencing empirical psychology by prioritizing data-driven laws over anecdotal or anthropomorphic interpretations.

Word Books and Vocabulary Resources

Thorndike developed empirical word to guide educators in prioritizing instruction based on actual usage patterns in English texts, emphasizing in by focusing on high- words. His , The Teacher's Word (), compiled an alphabetical of words derived from analyzing approximately 625,000 words from , 3,000,000 words from the and English , and 300,000 words from readers and other educational materials. This ranked words by their and dispersion across sources, providing teachers with data-driven tools to select terms most likely encountered by students, thereby optimizing and reducing instructional overload. An expanded edition, A Teacher's Word Book of the Twenty Thousand Words Found Most Frequently and Widely in General Reading for Children and Young People (1932), extended the analysis to 20,000 words, incorporating broader corpora from juvenile and to refine vocabulary priorities for progressive reading levels. These lists quantified word utility through metrics like total occurrences and spread across documents, enabling educators to tailor spelling, reading, and composition exercises to empirical realities rather than intuition. Thorndike's most comprehensive work in this area, The Teacher's Word Book of 30,000 Words (1944), co-authored with Irving Lorge, analyzed over 18 million words from diverse sources including prose fiction, scientific texts, and juvenile books, yielding frequency counts and semantic indices for 30,000 entries. This edition introduced adjustments for multiple meanings and contextual variations, enhancing its utility as a reference for textbook authors, lexicographers, and language researchers seeking to align materials with natural language patterns. The methodology involved manual tallying of running words, prioritizing objective counts over subjective judgments to promote evidence-based vocabulary resources. These publications laid foundational data for subsequent frequency dictionaries and influenced standardized testing, basal readers, and computational linguistics by establishing corpus-based approaches to lexical analysis, though later critiques noted limitations in corpus diversity and exclusion of spoken language. Educators applied the lists to construct graded word banks, with high-frequency terms (e.g., the top 1,000 covering roughly 70-80% of text occurrences) forming core curricula, as verified by Thorndike's dispersion index ensuring wide applicability.

Legacy and Scientific Impact

Influence on Behaviorism and Modern Psychology

Thorndike's experimental work with puzzle boxes in the late 1890s demonstrated that animals learn through trial-and-error, forming stimulus-response connections strengthened by successful outcomes, as detailed in his 1898 dissertation Animal Intelligence. This empirical approach emphasized observable behaviors over introspection, laying groundwork for behaviorism's rejection of unobservable mental states. His Law of Effect, formulated in 1905, posited that behaviors followed by satisfying consequences are more likely to recur, while those followed by discomfort diminish—a principle directly inspiring B.F. Skinner's operant conditioning theory developed in the 1930s. Connectionism, Thorndike's broader , viewed learning as the strengthening of neural bonds through repeated associations, quantified via laws like readiness, exercise, and effect. This framework influenced early behaviorists like by prioritizing environmental contingencies and measurable responses, contributing to the behaviorist dominance in from the 1910s to the 1950s. Thorndike's insistence on data-driven laws of learning shifted the field toward scientific rigor, enabling applications in reinforcement schedules and contingency management that Skinner formalized in works like The Behavior of Organisms (1938). In modern psychology, Thorndike's principles underpin (ABA), used in treatments for autism and behavioral disorders since the 1960s, where positive mirrors his to shape behaviors empirically. His connectionist ideas persist in computational models of learning, such as neural simulating S-R associations, though integrated with cognitive elements post-1960s . continues to draw on his findings from 1901 experiments, showing limited without identical elements, informing and acquisition . These contributions emphasize causal mechanisms via environmental feedback, validated through replicable experiments rather than subjective reports.

Enduring Contributions to Education and Measurement

Thorndike established as a distinct scientific field by applying experimental methods from animal learning to human instruction, emphasizing empirical evaluation of teaching . His 1903 textbook integrated laws of learning, such as the —stating that satisfying outcomes strengthen behavior-stimulus connections—into pedagogical practices, promoting repetition, drills, and to enhance retention and acquisition. This approach shifted from rote toward measurable outcomes, influencing to prioritize specific, improvements over vague ideals of character formation. In measurement, Thorndike pioneered quantitative techniques for assessing educational progress and abilities, authoring over 450 works that advanced standardized testing and intelligence evaluation. He advocated for objective scales to gauge learning efficiency, critiquing subjective methods and introducing rigorous statistical analysis to determine validity and reliability in assessments. His 1904 publication An Introduction to the Theory of Mental and Social Measurements laid foundational principles for scaling psychological and educational traits, enabling precise comparisons across individuals and groups. Thorndike's on transfer of , detailed in his 1901 , demonstrated of skills across domains, challenging classical notions of formal and redirecting educational efforts toward targeted, domain-specific instruction. This finding endures in modern debates on breadth versus depth, supporting vocational and practical models. His insistence on data-driven reform extended to school administration, where he promoted metrics and outcome-based , precursors to contemporary educational metrics like standardized achievement tests.

Criticisms and Contemporary Reassessments

Methodological Critiques of Connectionism

Thorndike's connectionism, developed primarily through puzzle box experiments with cats from 1898 to 1901, faced methodological scrutiny for its experimental design constraining animals to mechanical, specific responses such as lever pulls for escape, potentially artifactually emphasizing trial-and-error over insightful problem-solving. Gestalt psychologists, including Wolfgang Köhler in his 1917 chimpanzee studies, critiqued this setup for denying subjects an holistic view of the problem environment, which in more permissive enclosures allowed sudden perceptual reorganizations leading to insight rather than gradual S-R bond formation. Such restrictions, Köhler argued, reflected experimenter bias toward associationism, as the boxes' complexity forced randomness without opportunity for cognitive restructuring. The measurement of learning via time-to-escape metrics in these trials overlooked confounds like habituation to novelty or diminished fear responses across repetitions, which could mimic connection strengthening without verifying causal S-R mechanisms. Thorndike's typical use of single animals per apparatus, with learning curves plotted from 50–100 trials, provided limited replication and neglected inter-subject variability, reducing generalizability. Critics noted the artificiality of these confined setups diverged from natural foraging behaviors, questioning ecological validity for broader learning principles. Operationalization of the relied initially on inferred "satisfaction" from consummatory acts like eating post-escape, introducing subjectivity that behaviorists such as Clark Hull later challenged, advocating observable traces over Thorndike's drive-based annoyances. Experiments testing the of exercise, such as subjects repeating line drawings without feedback in the early , revealed repetition alone failed to improve , necessitating revisions but exposing methodological challenges in disentangling practice from . Extrapolation from animal data to human connectionism drew methodological objection for bypassing validation through parallel human studies on complex cognition, as simple escape tasks inadequately modeled abstract reasoning or language-mediated associations. While Thorndike quantified bonds via correlation coefficients in later works like The Fundamentals of Learning (1932), assuming additive S-R strengths ignored potential nonlinear interactions, a limitation evident in failures to predict transfer without identical elements. These critiques, rooted in rival paradigms like Gestaltism, underscored connectionism's vulnerability to design-induced biases favoring mechanistic interpretations over multifaceted causal processes.

Ethical and Ideological Objections to Hereditarian Views

Critics of Thorndike's hereditarian positions, which posited that genetic factors predominantly determine differences in intelligence, learning ability, and moral traits across individuals and groups, have argued that such views ethically undermine human dignity by implying inherent hierarchies that warrant differential treatment. Thorndike explicitly endorsed eugenics, advocating selective breeding to enhance traits like sanity, moral sentiment, and intellectual capacity, as stated in his 1931 work Human Nature and the Social Order, where he claimed it could "alter man's capacity to learn, to keep sane, [and] to cherish justice." Opponents contended this framework devalues individuals based on unalterable biology, potentially justifying coercive measures like restricted reproduction or immigration to exclude those deemed genetically inferior, practices that echoed broader eugenic policies enacted in the U.S. during the early 20th century, including forced sterilizations affecting over 60,000 people by 1938. Ideologically, hereditarianism clashed with environmentalist paradigms dominant in progressive education and anthropology, which emphasized nurture's supremacy in shaping abilities and rejected innate group differences as artifacts of culture or opportunity. John Dewey, a leading progressive educator, implicitly opposed Thorndike's genetic determinism by championing democratic schooling that assumed broad malleability through experiential learning, viewing ability-based tracking as antithetical to egalitarian ideals of equal potential for all children regardless of background. Similarly, anthropologist Franz Boas critiqued hereditarian emphases like Thorndike's during public forums, protesting characterizations that pitted environmentalism against heredity and insisting on culture's overriding role in traits such as cranial index variations among immigrant groups, which he demonstrated changed within one generation due to U.S. environments. Boas's work, including his 1912 studies on immigrant body forms, aimed to dismantle biological determinism, arguing it fueled pseudoscientific racism and imperialism by naturalizing inequalities. These objections intensified post-World War II, associating hereditarianism with abuses, though Thorndike's predated them and focused on positive incentives rather than elimination. Critics from left-leaning academic circles, often prioritizing over empirical estimates, portrayed such views as morally corrosive for perpetuating class, racial, and sex-based exclusions in —Thorndike's that prolonged schooling was inefficient for average-ability children, for instance, was seen as elitist of resources. However, these critiques frequently overlooked twin and studies emerging by the mid-20th century, which quantified at 50-80% in adulthood, suggesting ideological commitments to blank-slate drove much opposition rather than falsifying data. Sources advancing ethical condemnations, such as those in progressive , exhibit systemic biases against biological realism, as evidenced by the field's historical suppression of variance components in that align with Thorndike's causal priors.

Empirical Validity in Light of Modern and

Thorndike argued that intellectual differences among individuals, families, races, and sexes were primarily determined by rather than environment, as outlined in his 1913 work and subsequent analyses of ancestry's in traits. He viewed original , shaped by genetic , as the dominant causal factor in cognitive capacities, influencing his for eugenic policies to preserve superior lineages. Contemporary behavioral largely validates Thorndike's emphasis on for within populations. Meta-analyses of twin and studies estimate narrow-sense at 50-80% in adulthood, rising with age as shared environmental effects diminish. Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have identified of genetic variants explaining up to 20-25% of IQ variance via polygenic scores, confirming a polygenic consistent with Thorndike's connectionist view of inherited mental connections. These findings hold across diverse samples, underscoring causal genetic influences over purely experiential ones, though estimates vary by and . For racial and ethnic group differences, which Thorndike attributed partly to hereditary racial superiority, empirical data present a mixed but supportive picture for a genetic component amid environmental confounders. Average IQ gaps—such as 15 points between Black and White Americans, and higher scores for East Asians—persist after controlling for socioeconomic status, education, and adoption into advantaged environments, as shown in the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study where Black adoptees scored below White and Asian counterparts despite equivalent rearing. Admixture and regression-to-the-mean studies further indicate genetic mediation, with IQ correlating to ancestral proportions in admixed populations. Brain size differences, heritable and predictive of IQ, align with observed group patterns (e.g., East Asians > Whites > Blacks), bolstering biological causality. However, mainstream academic consensus, often shaped by institutional pressures against hereditarian interpretations, attributes gaps primarily to culture and discrimination, dismissing genetic evidence as insufficient. Polygenic scores underperform across racial groups due to linkage disequilibrium differences, yielding predictions far below observed gaps under hereditarian models. Yet, this critique overlooks allele frequency variations and historical selection pressures, with recent analyses affirming that within-group heritability implies potential between-group genetic effects absent strong counterevidence. Thorndike's hereditarian framework thus retains partial validity, as modern data refute full environmentalism while highlighting the need for unbiased, large-scale genomic studies to disentangle causes.

References

  1. https://www.verywellmind.com/edward-thorndike-biography-1874-1949-2795525
  2. https://www.simplypsychology.org/edward-thorndike.html
  3. https://www.tc.columbia.edu/articles/2003/september/thinking-outside-of-the-box-100-years-of-educational-psycho/
  4. https://ubwp.buffalo.edu/history-of-cds/edward-lee-thorndike-1874-1949/
  5. https://www.readinghalloffame.org/sites/default/files/deceased_member_files/a_look_at_his_contributions_to_learning_and_reading.pdf
  6. https://people.wou.edu/~girodm/643/Thorndike_vs_Dewey.pdf
  7. https://www.betterhelp.com/advice/psychologists/edward-thorndike-and-his-influence-on-psychology/
  8. https://www.goodtherapy.org/famous-psychologists/edward-thorndike.html
  9. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/history/edward-l-thorndike
  10. https://edkardas.com/Courses/LearningTheory/Thorndike.pdf
  11. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1950-01562-001
  12. http://biographicalmemoirs.org/pdfs/thorndike-edward-1.pdf
  13. https://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Thorndike/Animal/chap2.htm
  14. https://www.britannica.com/science/Thorndike-puzzle-box
  15. https://behavioralinquiry.com/2018/09/19/what-cats-taught-thorndike-about-learning/
  16. https://archive.org/download/animalintelligen00thor/animalintelligen00thor.pdf
  17. https://www.appstate.edu/~steelekm/classes/psy5300/Documents/chance-72-433.pdf
  18. https://www.instructionaldesign.org/theories/connectionism/
  19. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2005-05010-002
  20. https://www.appstate.edu/~steelekm/classes/psy5300/Documents/Thorndike1898.pdf
  21. https://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Thorndike/Animal/chap5.htm
  22. https://www.learning-theories.org/doku.php?id=learning_theories:connectionism
  23. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1999-16101-013
  24. https://dictionary.apa.org/law-of-effect
  25. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1969-17038-001
  26. https://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Thorndike/Transfer/transfer1.htm
  27. https://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Thorndike/Transfer/transfer2.htm
  28. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/psychology/transfer-of-learning
  29. https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/92177/ImmediateAndDelayedTransfer.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
  30. https://aaalab.stanford.edu/assets/papers/earlier/Rethinking_transfer_a_simple_proposal_with_multiple_implications.pdf
  31. http://detsndt.ac.in/nmeict-files/nmeict-los/edupsycho/ep11/11.4.1/
  32. https://gwern.net/doc/iq/1927-thorndike.pdf
  33. https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/pioneers-of-modern-testing/1999/06
  34. https://awspntest.apa.org/doi/10.1037/h0053896
  35. https://archive.org/download/measurementofint00thoruoft/measurementofint00thoruoft.pdf
  36. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015000265028
  37. http://www.educationanddemocracy.org/SF/Thorndike.htm
  38. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/mono/10.4324/9781315009742/principles-teaching-edward-thorndike
  39. https://archive.org/details/principlesofteac00thor
  40. https://classicalu.com/wp-content/uploads/thorndike-and-dewey-article.pdf
  41. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1929-00108-000
  42. https://doi.apa.org/doi/10.1037/h0071414
  43. https://biographicalmemoirs.org/pdfs/thorndike-edward-1.pdf
  44. https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Popular_Science_Monthly/Volume_83/August_1913/Eugenics:_With_Special_Reference_to_Intellect_and_Character
  45. http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Thorndike/education
  46. https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/001465594
  47. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdf/10.1086/212287
  48. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED175740
  49. https://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Hollingworth/sexdiffs.htm
  50. https://archive.org/download/educationalpsych00tor/educationalpsych00tor.pdf
  51. https://archive.org/details/animalintelligen00thor
  52. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2003-00027-000
  53. https://www.thriftbooks.com/a/edward-lee-thorndike/245614/
  54. https://www.betterworldbooks.com/author/edward-lee-thorndike/4073
  55. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/238887710_Thorndike%27s_Legacy_Learning_Selection_And_The_Law_Of_Effect
  56. https://www.amazon.com/Elements-Psychology-Edward-L-Thorndike/dp/054813216X
  57. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Edward-L-Thorndike
  58. https://pure.mpg.de/pubman/item/item_2395369_2/component/file_2395368/Thorndike_1921_Teachers_Wordbook.pdf
  59. https://archive.org/details/teacherswordbook00thoruoft
  60. https://books.google.com/books/about/A_Teacher_s_Word_Book_of_the_Twenty_Thou.html?id=-hpPAAAAYAAJ
  61. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ425359
  62. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015004082247
  63. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/0270271910120201
  64. https://edtechbooks.org/studentguide/behaviorism
  65. https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-the-law-of-effect-2795331
  66. https://www.structural-learning.com/post/thorndikes-theory
  67. https://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Thorndike/education
  68. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2003-02627-005
  69. https://orientalcollege.in/assets/uploads/assignment/assignment-1735217148-sms.pdf
  70. https://pigeon.psy.tufts.edu/psych26/kohler1.htm
  71. https://repository.lib.ncsu.edu/bitstreams/22c4a4ba-b80d-4e95-8480-315927fa0157/download
  72. http://biographicalmemoirs.org/pdfs/boas-franz.pdf
  73. https://www.ghi-dc.org/fileadmin/publications/Annual_Lecture_Series/Culture_versus_Biology.pdf
  74. https://docs.rwu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1021&context=sed_fp
  75. https://arthurjensen.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Intelligence-Race-And-Genetics-Conversations-With-Arthur-R.-Jensen-Frank-Miele-256p_081334008X.pdf
  76. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316367654_Hereditarianism
  77. https://socialsuccess.info/review_thorndike_intelligence_and_its_uses_author.html
  78. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-021-01027-y
  79. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2795492
  80. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6526420/
  81. https://www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Rushton-Jensen30years.pdf
  82. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8604262/
  83. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33529393/
  84. https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202501.0379/v1
  85. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09515089.2019.1697803
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.