The reactions of the children were quite unambiguous. But Miller and Dollard themselves effectively showed that their theorising is no more than an unsustainable 'ratomorphism'. This is not a widely-quoted passage but it completely ruins the behaviouristic scheme upon which the book is based. The insights gained here are of some general importance, beyond pharmacology and modelling. Humans though while they are organisms are not just organisms - they are agents, entities with minds, purposes, desires and beliefs.
Physical movements are certainly susceptible of mechanical explanation.
And every human action involves physical movements. But to understand the physical movement is not to approach understanding the human action. The same physical movements involved in signing my name may be the bearers of quite different actions. The same physical movements may be involved in endorsing a cheque, signing a peace treaty or putting my name to a proposal of marriage. If this is true, we have yet to discover why the opposite has ever been believed, or how action explanations are possible in a scientific psychology which understands movement as being produced by the activities of a material brain.