Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-5jtmz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-25T12:53:30.964Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Two Factors are too Simplistic: A Response to Birnbrauer (1985)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 October 2014

Geoffrey N. Molloy
Geoffrey N. Molloy*
Affiliation:
Monash University, Victoria
Get access

Extract

In an earlier contribution to Behaviour Change, a five-factor framework which recognizes both environmental and internal mediating determinants of behaviour was presented (Molloy, 1984). The five factors constitute a dynamic interdependent system whereby a change in any one of the components affects one or more of the other elements. The model is intended as an heuristic device for formulating and testing hypotheses and to illustrate how human behaviour, beyond simple habits and reactions, is multiply determined.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Behaviour Change , Volume 2 , Issue 2 , June 1985 , pp. 148 - 150
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 1985

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Birnbrauer, J.S. (1985). Two factors are quite enough: A response to Molloy (1984). Behaviour Change, 2, 2–5.Google Scholar
Das, J.P., & Molloy, G.N. (1975). Varieties of simultaneous and successive processing in children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 67, 213–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Denkoswki, K.M., Denkowski, G.C., & Omizo, M.M. (1984). Predictors of success in the EMG biofeedback training of hyperactive male children. Biofeedback and Self-Regulation, 9, 253–263.Google Scholar
Eysenck, H.J. (1979). Genetics and the future of education. New Education, 1, 1–13.Google Scholar
MacKenzie, J.A., & Molloy, G.N. (1980). Individual differences and the elusive ATI. New Education, 2, 133–135.Google Scholar
Molloy, G.N. (1981). Sub-cultural differences on selected cognitive tasks. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 51, 105–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Molloy, G.N. (1984). A five-factor framework for conceptualizing human behaviour change: Old wine in newly arranged casks. Behaviour Change 1, 18–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Molloy, G.N. (1985). Behavioral approaches to the training of the mentally retarded. In Ashman, A.F. & Laura, R. (Eds.), Mental retardation: A futuristic perspective, New York: MacMillan Press.Google Scholar
Molloy, G.N., & Das, J.P. (1980a). Coding, planning and mental retardation: Theory, evidence and implications. Australian Journal of Developmental Disabilities, 6, 111–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Molloy, G.N., & Das, J.P. (1980b). Simultaneous and successive syntheses, planning strategies and education: A process approach toward an integrated theory. Australian Journal of Education, 24, 289–301.Google Scholar
Molloy, G.N., and Sharpley, C.F. (in press). Behavioural assessment strategies and experimental design. In King, N.J. & Remenyi, A. (Eds.), Behavioural health care: Practical guidelines for health professionals.Google Scholar
Pelham, W.E., & Murphy, H.A. (in press). Behavioral and pharmacological treatment of attention deficit and conduct disorders. In Hersen, M. & Breuning, S.E. (Eds.), Pharmacological and behavioral treatment: An integrative approach. New York: Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar