Final answer:
Lashley argued against associative chaining by showing through his research that rats could still navigate a maze after brain lesions, leading to his equipotentiality hypothesis which suggests complex neural networks instead of simple associative chains are responsible for cognitive tasks.
Step-by-step explanation:
Lashley's argument against associative chaining was grounded in his research observations that did not support the idea of a simple linear sequence of stimuli and responses (the engram), as suggested by previous theories of behaviorism. He found that rats could still navigate a maze even after parts of their brains were damaged, leading to his formulation of the equipotentiality hypothesis. This hypothesis posits that when one area of the brain involved in a specific memory function is compromised, other areas within that region can compensate and perform the same function. Lashley's findings suggest complex neural networks, rather than a simplistic chain of associations, are responsible for such cognitive tasks.
Modern psychologists like Eric Kandel have continued to build on Lashley's work, focusing on the role of synapses and neural circuits in memory storage. Kandel's research highlights the intricate processes behind the flow of information through neural pathways and supports the concept that memory storage is far more complex than previously envisioned by associative chaining theories.