History of Behaviorism - Essay Example

? Behaviourism is no longer relevant to Contemporary Psychology. Table of Contents Table of Contents Introduction The Rise of Behaviourism 3 The Decline and Fall of Behaviourism 8 Conclusion 10 References 11 Introduction The rise and fall of Behaviourism can be charted historically against related developments in the discipline of Psychology which drew upon its findings and experiments but simultaneously leveled a critique of its methods and biases. Behaviourism is important historically as it relates to the development of empirical methods of inquiry into the study of human motivation, and in establishing an objective methodology to search for order in mind, consciousness, and society in the late 19th and early 20th century. In this era, there was a growing dissatisfaction with the introspective methods of enquiry being used in Psychology, as reflected in Romanes (1882) and others searching for a more scientific approach. Behavioural theorists such as J.B. Watson and Edward Thorndike argued for a more objective approach to psychological understanding based on observable and replicable phenomena, and human behaviour was taken as a direct expression of the deeper operations of mind that could simultaneously be measured and studied in group experiments, such as clinical trials. Thorndike searched for “systematic laws of learning” in human behaviour, and Pavlov's classical conditioning experiments studied the instincts in a similar manner. (Jarvis, 1991, p.101) Watson (1925) argued that all of human behaviour was a product of experience, and he became known as a father of Behaviourism in America. (Williams, 2011) Clark L Hull (1943) proposed a theory about how associations between stimuli and responses were formed. In his view, the needs and drive reduction behaviour in individuals and groups was the result of stimuli (S) and responses (R). (Thomas, 2010) Similarly, general process learning theory was proposed by Teitelbaum (1966) and advocated that learning is a gradual process of attrition and accumulation, requiring contiguity. Therefore, all stimuli and responses were viewed as equally able to be conditioned and a function of equipotentiality. (Toates, 1986, p.22) The radical Behaviourism of B.F.Skinner (1938) posited that all human behaviour could be explained by the laws of associative learning or conditioning, and his reductionism of human consciousness and being was fiercely critiqued by Noam Chomsky, Ayn Rand, and other leading humanists who proposed challenges to radical behaviourism in 50s, 60s and 70s. (Graham, 2010) Chomsky (1965) also challenged behaviourist views on language acquisition, disputing the radical behaviourist viewpoint which argued that language was learned through the same associative process as any other routine. (Chomsky, 1967 & 1971) Nevertheless, some areas of contemporary psychology have obvious links to Behaviourism and learning theory such as Cognitive Behavioural Theory, Biological Psychology, Artificial Intelligence, etc., while other areas can be considered to have indirect links, such as Cognitive, Developmental, Abnormal, and Social Psychology. In summary, Behaviourism is no longer relevant to modern psychology primarily because its methodology and ideals are denigrating to human dignity following the experiences of totalitarianism and war in the 20th Century which saw the apotheosis of the Behaviourist theory that human beings are little more than conditioned machines in mass-societies. However, Behaviourism can also be seen to have declined historically because of advances in neuroscience and neurochemistry which stand ready to broaden human understanding of the biological nature of consciousness. The Rise of Behaviourism The rise of Behaviourism in the early 20th Century is an important development in Psychology as a discipline, as it does reflect the introduction of the scientific method, empirical standards, and experimental procedures into the field of research. With Freud, Jung, and other practicing theorists of Psychology in this era worldwide, there is a tendency to advance a theoretical framework of interpretation and then to fit the “facts” around the theory so that it appears consistent in practice. Yet, as Critical Theory and other post-war developments in philosophy and psychology suggest, there is significant risk and hubris involved with this type of approach, and thus Psychology as a “discipline” tended to revolve around leading figures who introduced a theory of interpretation and followers who developed a “school of thought” dedicated to its implementation. While this pattern could result in research, clinical studies, and findings that are considered valid and important historically, later researchers began to see this method as flawed and limited based on increased investigation and cross-cultural evaluation of the results in critical analysis. It is also this dissatisfaction with pseudo-scientific approaches to Psychology that also drove early Behaviourists like Pavlov, Watson, Thorndike, and Skinner to focus on methodologies that could be reduced to a limited number of variables and then tested in the manner of clinical medicine or experimental science. Yet, historically and in retrospect it appears that the Behaviourists themselves made the error of being too extreme in their reduction of the subject of human consciousness to materialist, mechanical, or objectivist standards and this led to their results being questioned and rejected by later researchers due to the manner in which they elevated reductionist conclusions about human nature to a higher power. In a sense, the Behaviourist viewpoint was important in building Psychology as an academic, scientific, and medical discipline, yet its view of human nature was so limited and extreme in reducing consciousness and the decision making process to a mechanical viewpoint, that they also became seen as a symbol of the greater moral problems of the era, such as the vast death and destruction resulting from the two wars and the mobilization of vast populations of human beings into violence on the basis of manipulative propaganda. In looking at the classic experiments of the Behaviourists, the phenomenon of “Pavlov’s Dogs” is seen in combination with Skinner’s operant conditioning chamber, and Thorndike’s puzzle boxes. (Graham, 2010) All of these experiments used a methodology of trapped or imprisoned animals being imprinted or conditioned according to what can be termed a mechanistic or “cause and effect” determinism that led the behaviourists to make broader generalizations about human nature and society. In this era, the processes of modernization were increasing, and with this industrialization, centralization, advances in technology, and other vast changes entering society in a transformative manner. The behaviourists may have had ego-driven beliefs that they were pioneering research into the nature of consciousness and being by demonstrating the mechanical laws of conditioned reflexes or the learning curves by which different species were able to manage to learn operant control of systemic variables. These experiments, in turn, relate to a larger portrait of how the behaviourists themselves viewed human society, both in Russia, the U.S., Europe, and elsewhere. As Thomas Szazs (1991) wrote, “Skinner has an absolutely unbounded love for the idea that there are no individuals, no agents - that there are only organisms, animals.” (Szas, 1991) Szazs and others like Chomsky, Rand, and humanist psychologists around the world gradually woke up in horror to the consequences of the worldview that the Behaviourists were positing. Skinner himself wrote, “The scientific analysis of behaviour is controlled by his genetic and environmental histories rather than by the person himself as an initiating, creative agent,” which is to say that a human being is essentially lacking any creative, moral, or higher capacities, and can be reduced absurdly to little more than an animal or machine by Behaviourist logic. (Szazs, 1991) This reductionism is morally offensive to deep thinking, feeling, and valuing human beings, but was immensely attractive and embraced by the forces in control of societies around the world. Thus, Behaviourism began an alliance that would see the discipline elevated to the highest echelons in the academic world across the globe, to be incorporated and integrated into advertising campaigns and industrial psychologies, as well as being adopted as a basis for propaganda in mass societies as a basis for manipulation of the new media that was being formed in film, television, magazines, etc. in cultures around the world. Behaviourism’s conclusions operated on two levels that can be considered extremely morally offensive to humanistic value systems. The first is through reducing the human being to an animal in a cage, or to a biological machine agent, and denying the higher capacities of creativity, morality, introspection, love, honor, conscience, etc. that humans traditionally derive their values from in culture. In comparison, it can be said that Jungian and other schools of humanistic psychology elevate these aspects of human consciousness in theory, but that Behaviourism explicitly reduces them to non-factors or non-existent variables in a materialistic and mechanical view of human nature. The second morally repugnant aspect of Behaviourism is the way that it believes that this reduction can be studied, manipulated, and used by institutions to control human beings. Watson, for example, earned a huge salary of $70,000 per year in 1930 for increasing the effectiveness of tobacco advertisements in society. (Hergenhahn, 1997) Watson discovered that blindfolded people could not distinguish the difference between brands of cigarettes, and then used his logic of Behaviouralist psychology to show that the use of different imagery in association with the brand name had a different result on sales and customer loyalty. (Hergenhahn, 1997) This proves how easily Behaviourist principles were used or integrated into advertising and propaganda in mass-societies like the United States and Russia, for the explicit purpose of manipulating people and changing public opinion. If Skinner stated there was no empirical difference between the animal in one of his cages and the human being in society, the knowledge gleaned from Behaviourist experiments could be used as a basis for social manipulation and propaganda in manners that remained unconscious to the individuals living in the era. (Chomsky, 1971) It is easy to see how Watson’s experiments with “Albert,” a baby he conditioned to fear a white mouse every time he saw it by striking a metal hammer, is equivalent with Pavlov’s dog experiments in Russia, who became conditioned to salivate on the ringing of a bell in associating the tone with being fed. (Hergenhahn, 1997) Yet, it must also be understood how the conclusions and logic of the Behaviourists were celebrated and embraced by the most powerful elements of global society at the time, i.e. the governments, the militaries, industry, corporations, and other institutions. These social groups and organizations, in a structuralist critique, embraced and elevated Behaviourism as a “science” precisely because its philosophy and methodology reflected what they were searching for, or a means to more efficiently control and manipulate individual human beings in a society according to their own purposes or to promote their own status, gain, wealth, and power. It is because these forces of control embraced and elevated Behaviourism in the academic environment, industry, or governmental institutions that the school became so successful and widespread, but it was not until later, with the rise of Humanistic Psychology that a counterforce or critical appraisal of Behaviourism began to develop that rejected the stereotypes, prejudices, and biases of this school. Importantly, much of this discussion occurred after the Second World War, when the true horrors of humanity reduced to a conditioned animal or machine became evident, and the need for moral reform in psychology became more thoroughly understood on a widespread basis. (Adorno, 1966) The Decline and Fall of Behaviourism Nevertheless, Behaviourism remained relatively strong even in the 1950’s, with much of the mass-media, advertising, and political propaganda of the era being influenced internationally by its principles and Behaviourist theorist occupying positions of tenure in academic institutions around the world. In a sense, it was less important that Behaviourism included ingrained biases and reductions of human nature to mechanistic or animalistic levels, but that it appeared scientific and could be taught to large groups of students systematically in a standardized format. In the 1960’s, new theories of Psychology were created that challenged the old paradigms of thought in the West, unearthing biases, corruption, and immorality in academic theory, while simultaneously seeking social reform of institutions. Humanistic Psychology or Third-Force Psychology developed in this era as a critical reaction to Behaviourism, and this movement would gradually undermine the authority or immorality of the Behaviourist school in seeking a more expanded view of human nature in theory and proposing a more liberating path for Psychology itself as a discipline. As Hergenhahn (1997) wrote, “A new science is needed, a human science. A human science would not study humans as the physical sciences study physical objects. Rather, a human science would study humans as aware, choosing, valuing, emotional, and unique beings in the universe. Traditional science does not do this and must therefore be rejected.” (Hergenhahn, 1997, p.510) In this context, Behaviourism is the heart of the old science, and it is this old science devoid of morality, reducing human beings to machines and viewing them as no different than animals in a cage that became morally problematic because this old science was also fueling the advancement of war technology across the globe and making the control of populations more efficient as part of industry, advertising, and propaganda. While Abraham Maslow, Carl Rogers, George Kelly, Rollo May, and others showed a “third way” across the abyss of Behaviourist immorality, Chomsky, Rand, Adorno, Marcuse, Szazs, and others also developed extensive moral and political critiques of Behaviourism which made clear its complicity in the system of war, propaganda, media manipulation, and industrial control of populations. Humanistic Psychology may draw upon aspects of Freudian theory, Jungian teachings, Existential schools, Gestalt understanding, clinical research, philosophy, religion, and experimental approaches to counseling and treatment, but it held as a fundamental tenet something that is diametrically opposed to Behaviourism, which is a respect for the human rights of every person. This respect included a dedication to the personal growth of individuals in mental & spiritual terms, success in career goals, family relationships, love, happiness, etc. as part of self-actualization or self-realization. In this manner what joins all of the various schools of Humanistic Psychology across their wide differences in approach and methodology is a shared belief in the dignity of the human being, in the value of morality and ethics, the cultivation of conscience, and dedication to the higher ideals of art, spirituality, religion, and philosophy as they have provided uplifting and liberating inspiration to human beings across history. If Behaviourism colludes with the worst aspects of industry, government, and war to make the controlling aspects of these groups and organizations more efficient by reducing the individual to a machine or animal devoid of higher worth and value, a mere function of social conditioning and cog in the greater systematic operation of the culture, Humanistic Psychology never sways from a dedication to the mysteries of consciousness, the depths of mind and being, the transcendent and immanent aspects of life that create the highest values for human civilization. It is this honoring of the human spirit, mind, or psyche that is required of Psychology, and which leads the broader society to reject Behaviourism on an ethical and moral basis from learned collective historical experience. Conclusion Historically, Behaviourism became no longer relevant to contemporary psychology primarily due to the moral awakening that occurred internationally in the aftermath of the Second World War. By this time, the influence of Behaviourism in academic circles, in industry, military organizations, media, advertising, propaganda, government, and other institutions was already well established around the world, both in the Soviet block and in the West. The use of Behaviourism to manipulate and control people in mass-societies shows how destructive the effects of reducing a human being to a machine or animal can be, because it denies the higher morality, ethics, creativity, and awareness that is required to make critical decisions in the face of historical problems like war and the Holocaust. Behaviourism is ethically or morally similar to totalitarianism because if human beings can be caged, conditioned, provided with false associations, and manipulated in order to be controlled, then the logic and reasoning behind these processes must be rejected. (Adorno, 1966) This is exactly what Humanistic Psychology, Critical Theory, and other post-war developments in philosophy, sociology, and psychology concluded in trying to make order from the failings of human civilization which resulted in so many deaths and the advent of the atomic era. The depths of human consciousness must be honored in Psychology, the creativity of mind cultivated, and the moral reasoning of conscience listened to, or else the ethical disasters of the Second World War could easily be repeated. Behaviourism colludes with the State in propaganda, with industry in manipulative advertising, and coercive institutions in making the control of mass-populations more efficient. Because of these ethical failings in application, Behaviourism has fallen and no longer is considered relevant as a discipline in contemporary Psychology. References Adorno, Theodore (1966). Negative Dialectics. Frankfurt am Main: Translation: Suhrkamp Verlag, 1970. RTF. Boeree, Dr. C. George (2006). B. F. SKINNER: 1904 - 1990. Personality Theories, 2006, viewed 13 Nov 2011, http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/skinner.html Chomsky, Noam (1967). A Review of B. F. Skinner's Verbal Behavior. In Leon A. Jakobovits and Murray S. Miron (eds.), Readings in the Psychology of Language, Prentice-Hall, 1967, pp. 142-143, viewed 13 Nov 2011, http://www.chomsky.info/articles/1967----.htm Chomsky, Noam (1971). The Case Against B.F. Skinner. The New York Review of Books, December 30, 1971, viewed 13 Nov 2011, http://www.chomsky.info/articles/19711230.htm Dewey, Russ (2007). The Search for Laws of Learning. PsyWeb, 2007, viewed 13 Nov 2011, http://www.psywww.com/intropsych/ch08_animals/thorndikes_puzzle_box.html Graham, George (2010). Behaviorism. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2010, viewed 13 Nov 2011, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/behaviorism/ Hergenhahn, B.R. (1996). An Introduction to the History of Psychology, Third Edition. Brooks Cole Publishing Company, 1997. Jarvis, Peter (1991). Twentieth century thinkers in adult education. Routledge, 1991, viewed 13 Nov 2011, http://books.google.co.in/books?id=sSYOAAAAQAAJ Kuhn, T.S. (1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Leahey, T.H. (2001). A History of Psychology: Main Currents in Psychological Thought. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Popper, K.R. (1991). Conjectures and Refutations. London: Routledge. Rand, Ayn (1999). The Stimulus and the Response: A Critique of B.F. Skinner. Chapter 13 of book, ‘Philosophy: Who Needs It,’ 1999, viewed 13 Nov 2011, http://www.sntp.net/behaviorism/ayn_rand_skinner.htm Szazs, Thomas (1991). AGAINST BEHAVIORISM - THOMAS SZASZ - A REVIEW OF B. F. SKINNER’S ABOUT BEHAVIORISM. Psychological Notes No. 5, 1991, viewed 13 Nov 2011, http://www.libertarian.co.uk/lapubs/psycn/psycn005.pdf Tega, Dave (2011). THORNDIKE'S LAWS of LEARNING - EDWARD THORNDIKE'S EXPERIMENTS. Associated Content, 2011, viewed 13 Nov 2011, http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/299947/thorndikes_laws_of_learning.html Thomas, Nigel J.T. (2010). The American Response: Behaviorist Iconophobia and Motor Theories of Imagery. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2010, viewed 13 Nov 2011, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mental-imagery/american-response.html Toates, Frederick M. (1986). Motivational systems. CUP Archive, 1986, viewed 13 Nov 2011, http://books.google.co.in/books?id=JVg7AAAAIAAJ Valentine, E.R. (1992). Conceptual Issues in Psychology. London: Routledge. Williams, Tonya (2011). Behaviorism. EDF 607, 2011, viewed 13 Nov 2011, http://pangea.tec.selu.edu/~twilliams/philosophical/behaviorism.html Wolpert, L. (1993). The Unnatural Nature of Science. London: Faber & Faber. Williams, Tonya (2011). Behaviorism. EDF 607, 2011, viewed 13 Nov 2011, http://pangea.tec.selu.edu/~twilliams/philosophical/behaviorism.html Read More