“el ws be frank, Tt appears to me that if we are to have # iene of behavior in the future, it must depart radi Willy fom its past and its present. This view has embold. | fil me tate witout reseraton that all sch con pls es ingfnets, maturation, hertgpility of behavior, wologspecticity, and ad Pee of the species (to be discussed in the fellowing ehapters), teas, and lea a counterpart of inte behavior JM obsolete and to propose the concept of behavioral | ftnients and, in the next chapter, the concept of behav- | loral potentials as new working theories for future behav- Joral investigations. V | The Theory of Behavioral Potentials: A New Solution to the Problem of the Nature — Nurture Relationship In “The Descent of Instinct,” Frank A. Beach (19552) presented a concise review of the origin and development of the concept of instinct. But he failed to inform us how the family controversy between the grandfather, Erasmus Darwin, who maintained that “all behavior was a product ‘of experience,” and his grandson, Charles Darwin, who asserted that behavior in man and animal was an inher- ited response or instinct resulting from natural selection, ‘was finally reconciled. It was the forefather of contempo- rary American psychology, the great William James (4890), who proposed the reconciliation for the Darwin family. James clarified the distinction betwoon instinctlr. To the preset dey, ths ichotony bento i Wt and ab or between what are tow vary Hillel innate or ‘inherited patterns and learned or ac. Wire patra, has been taken for granted by cele Hs, most pryctotogits and tone Sonos abo ne ‘tho interested in behavior. Tn the cal tventth century cane the work ofthe ets, mot thorugh, and most sone maser of he pycinlogy of inte the late Willa: Medes ire James ad metlystesed he imports oe of ih nstnt and habit in Beir, Deng made he tnt the muaspeing of behavior Inne and soe han iat had ee ape, nary. eee al ital. The canal pect, which was the coro the tinets, could! not be modifed by experiences or envi- lent; Both sensory and motor aspects weve subject to opsientl modeatins, The etal cores nee te eet basis: ae and around which all the future be- ior attr (the “sentiments and even tha ee ) with the “self-regarding sentiment” as its exer, were led. MeDougalls-deripon of thos noel is not eset diferent rm he erent res of Wie, motivation, and emotions. 1 must emphasize here that the cental‘core concept of Iino ibe ame he J pondeno the meditate sonore and moter acter Weleda nl, knowingly or otherwise, by ethologsts, especially tons and Tinbergen in thet attenpt to erie hee nc.” In fc, Lorena” concept of neal in connection with ippetive wor in Mebee wali under very thn and tosoeantn to The Theory of Behavioral Potentials | 107 MeDougall’s book, An Introduction to Social Paychol ogy (2908), had a tremendous impact on the American socal sciences. Until 1920 or ga, it was teu a bible for American students of social behavior, especially eco- 1 seems ironical that the name of the book and its au- thor have been practically forgotten even by those working on emotions, drives, and motivations and by the ethologiss. As current psychoanalyst are indebted to Freud, curcent students af emotions, drives, and motiva- tions should be very gratefl to MeDougall asthe pioneer ‘whose views othe emotional cores ofthe instincts have actually propagated the current coneepts—even though MeDougall did not invent the technique of implanting two electrodes to explore the sets of the emotions in the Iypothalamus. Peshaps one explanation forthe reluctance of American psychologists and zoologists to associate themselves with McDougall s the fact that he was a vital is, and vitalism does not seem to suit traditional Ameri- con patterns of thought (although the concept of innate behavior held by American students of behavior is only one step short of it). McDougall’ later favolvement in parapsychology further alienated him from those who, in reality, shouldbe his elase followers. Even science cannot escape histori irony. Jn 1919, in his paper “Are There Any Instincts?” Knight Dunlap fgst questioned the concept of instinet ‘unfortunately, his article failed then to receive the atten- tion it deserved. Two years later, however, I published a paper entitled “Giving Up Iestinets in Psychology” (aga1) and succeeded in cteating a tempest in a teapot. ‘The article appeared at the time when the heated debat on the revolt of radical bebaviorism was reaching a ol rnax, and philosophers and psychologists were unable to nnoderate their emotional outbursts. For several years, theSOF BEHLAVION DEvELOF MENT Yh | tue ovaae tWebato on instinet took the form of verbal warfare, with a iong emotional cast, instead of relying, on cold logical Yoasoning and facts derived from observation. ‘Thus engrossed, my critics failed to discern two bas frors in my frst two papers (1921, 1922) until 1955, When Beach pointed them out. Far guething, I had de- Tintenable position held by Charles Darwin's grandfather. Segpndly, while repudiating more complex innate patterns of behavior, T had accepted the notion | that reflexes were inborn (I called them “units of neue: tion”) and that, from them, the more complex behavior ppatterns in later life were integrated, ‘These two serious errors were MThended in my later ex= perimental and theoretical publications in the late 1920's and 1990's (1924, 1928, 1929, 1930, 19328-2, 1938-), ‘but such amendment was not noticed even by more re- cent critics, such as Beach, Lorenz, Tinbergen, Thorpe, _ Eibl-Eibesfed. It seems odd that I was charged with the claim that “the heart teaches the chick embryo how to peck” (Loretz) or that “the pecking behavior of the’ newly-hatched chick is a produet of head movements made by the embryo in the shell” (Beach, 19550-b). The picture of the development of behavior in the chick em- bryo as presented in Chapter TI should serve to clarify my’ present postion. Suffice it to point out here that I have not said that heartbeats have any direct bearing on the pecking behavior (but merely that they often serve as an ‘external stimulus for head movements), nor that pecking’ {sa product of head movements prior to hatching. What ‘was really implied in my early publications on the ontog- ‘eny of the embryonic behavior of the chick was that the posthatch pecking pattern has its developmental anteced- ‘nts prior to hatching. 1 referred to stich historical ant JG Kiet the existence of instincts and had insisted tha every ‘ebavior patra as asa This was « ple Fs Tani tothe The Theory of Behavioral Potentials | 09 cedents as head lunging, opening and closing ofthe beak swallowing, digestive activities, both mechanical and chemical, and the elimination of waste products before hatching. Whether the at of pecking requtes wo practice or depends on one ov more tials i of secondary impor tance, OF couse, the pattem of pecking as such does not sist prior to hatching 1 i postnatal response in an erwironmental context totally different from the environ. nent in the shell that requires reorgan teming of the previous patterns. It req strengthening and further improvement ofthe neuromus- cular system fnvolved in pecking; further improvement of the ability to alance in the standing postion; and further strengthening and coardination of the legs in wall ‘The head and the neck must also be strengthened and coordinated, and their postion must be changed they had been lying right under the yolk sac and the shell, forming a double bend, with one sie ofthe face covered by the wing; thus, fol extension of the head and the neck ‘were impossible before hatehing. In addition, the coord sation of visual pereeption with the head and the beak is ako a prerequisite. All such strengthening, improvement, snd repattering are necessary postnatal changes before pecking ean take place and hecome effective. Ifthe chick is isolated and put in a dark place after hatching, the length of time fn isolation and the removal of the yolk from the body pria to hatching introduce new factors in ‘te posthatching developmental history of pecking behav- Joe. In other words, pecking is such a complex process of prebatching and posthatching development, involving so inany morphological, physiological, and environmental factors, that it would be quite naive to argue whether it is “innate” of “learned” or whether or not this behavior lund already been acquired inthe shel ‘The anti-nstinct movement was not, however, so abor=