Question

In analyzing the evolution of early twentieth-century cognitive psychology, contemporary theorists often portray Edward Tolman's concept of "cognitive maps" as a radical, unheralded rupture from the dominant behaviorist paradigm of his era. This conventional narrative, while appealing in its dramatic simplicity, glosses over the incremental conceptual shifts occurring within behaviorism itself during the 1930s. Tolman's introduction of internal representations was less an ex nihilo revelation than a rigorous synthesis of latent ideas already circulating among reform-minded comparative psychologists. While Tolman undeniably provided the empirical apparatus that forced orthodox behaviorists to confront the limitations of stimulus-response models, characterizing his work as an entirely isolated rebellion minimizes the nuanced discourse of his contemporaries. Consequently, scholars who frame Tolman’s contribution in purely binary terms—as a solitary cognitive revolution overthrowing an unyielding behaviorist dogma—risk misrepresenting the subtle, evolutionary mechanics of theoretical paradigms in psychological science.

Which of the following best describes the author's attitude toward the conventional narrative regarding Edward Tolman's contribution to psychology?