In what ways did the Brelands’ observation of instinctual drift contradict assumptions made by the behaviorists? How did Seligman’s preparedness continuum also contradict those assumptions?
Brelands’ started an enterprise which used different principles for teaching different skills to the animals. These animals were later put to different places, like amusement parks, conventions, television and others.
At first, the skills shown by the animals were extremely well. However, as time passed by, the instinctive behavior took over the learned behavior and the animal’s performance deteriorated with time. This replacement of learned behavior with instinctive behavior is known as instinctual drift.
After seeing instinctual drift Brelands’ showed that the observation done contradicted behaviorists’ three assumptions.
1. An animal reaches the situation of learning without genetic predisposition (tabula rasa).
2. The differences of different species are of no concern.
3. The responses shown by the animals are established through learning the stimulus it can detect.
Therefore, the conclusions drawn by Brelands cleared the fact that the behavior of these species cannot be detected without knowing their instinctive behavior.
Seligman learned from Brelands’ contradictions and realized the contradictions which his theory showed towards the behaviorists’ assumptions. He learned the fact that where some species makes group with others very easily, while others find it difficult to make or sometimes impossible. This difference among the species was explained by Seligman as a biological characteristic, which some species possess from the start.
This characteristic provides some species with the ability to form groups, whereas not prepared to form other things. Preparedness continuum sets the base to the association, and hence, shows the ability of the animal to learn it. Therefore, Seligman’s theory also contradicts the assumptions of behaviorists.