The Biological versus Behavioral Theory - Case Study Example

Compare and Contrast: The Biological versus Behavioral Theory Introduction Psychology or the study of human behavior is intricately bound in varioustheories and analytical elements. These theories cover different aspects of man, including his physiology, his environment, and his behavioral norms. As these theories attempt to analyze and explain human behavior, they focus only on particular aspects of a human being in order to arrive at plausible explanations for behavior. This is true for both the behavioral and biological theories in psychology. This paper shall now compare and contrast these two theories in an attempt to arrive at a clearer and more scholarly understanding of the psychological theories. This paper shall use various criteria or psychological affectations in order to thoroughly assess the subject matter at hand and to comprehensively evaluate the workings of the human mind and of human behavior. Discussion According to some experts, the biological and behavioral theories can be closely linked with each other. In analyzing human behavior, some authors and researchers look to the biological make-up of a person – in other words, his internal environment which would involve his brain processes, as well as the interaction of his hormones. His genetic predisposition is also considered in this theory as part of the factors influencing his behavior (Cichetti & Cohen, 2006). In further explaining human behavior, authors go one step further and consider the external environment of a person where the behavioral and sociological theories are often used to understand specific patterns of human interaction (Cichetti & Cohen, 2006). These authors then consider the relationship between these theories – the internal and the external environment in order to explain and understand human behavior. In other words, these two theories, as explained by some authors can, at some point during human development, interact and overlap with each other. However, inasmuch as they seem to be essentially related to each other in terms of continuity, they still are still basically different theories. One of the major differences between these two theories is the fact that the biological theory of psychology emphasizes that human behavior is shaped by biological and physiological processes (Bernstein, Penner, Clark-Stewart, & Roy, 2008). As was previously mentioned, psychologists explain that this theory evaluates the “psychological effects of hormones, genes, and the activity of the nervous system, especially the brain” (Bernstein, Penner, Clark-Stewart, & Roy, 2008, p. 18). So for instance, when an assessment of a person’s thinking is being undertaken, scientists would evaluate the person’s brain activity, his hormones, and even his genes in order to explain his type of thinking. As the biological theory focuses on what is innate and on the internal workings of the body to explain human behavior, the behavioral theory or behaviorism looks into behavior as the product of learning (Bernstein, Penner, Clark-Stewart & Roy, 2008). For the behavioral perspective, a person’s genes and biological make-up only serve as the raw material for human behavior; and what would instead shape a person’s manifested behavior are his learning experiences (Bernstein, Penner, Clark-Stewart & Roy, 2008). In this case, when psychologists would like to evaluate a person’s aggressive behavior, they may look into the person’s history and evaluate relevant systems – like that of reward and punishment and other learned patterns of behavior. The two theories also differ from each other in the sense that the biological theory, from an ontogenic perspective explains that “a structure or behavior develops, including the influences of genes, nutrition, experiences, and their interactions” (Kalat, 2009, p. 4). Furthermore, the biological theory emphasizes that one’s behavior, including one’s ability to control impulses manifests gradually from his infancy, up to his growing years, and such behavior can be explained through the gradual development of the frontal part of the brain. And as the biological theory focuses on the gradual development of the person’s brain as an explanation of human behavior, the behaviorist perspective chooses to consider observations of a person’s manifested behavior. B.F. Skinner, one of the more popular behaviorists, studied pigeons, rats, people, and other organisms in order to evaluate conditioned behavior. In his analysis, he declared that “behavior is personality. The environment shapes who we become, and who we become is determined by contingencies of reinforcement we have experienced” (Maitland, 2004, p. 211). Moreover, the behavioral theory focuses largely on a person’s environment, not so much on his internal elements, as seen in the biological theory – and explains that if the person’s environment is changed, then his behavior is also more likely to change. In applying these theories based on different manifested behaviors, it is possible to come up with a more obvious difference in application and comprehension. In considering the problem of weight management and of weight issues, the biological theory explains that people have a genetic predisposition to get fat (Dossey & Keegan, 2009). Because of such predisposition, a person cannot avoid getting fat no matter how much he eats. Moreover, his body may not possess the biological and genetic capability to stop eating, even if he is full or even as his biological processes already indicate fullness. The intervention for weight management based on the biological theory is focused on correcting excess weight by decreasing caloric intake in order to prevent the deposit of more adipose cells into the body (Dossey & Keegan, 2009). The behaviorist looks into the weight management issue or problem as a problem involving a learned response (Dossey & Keegan, 2009). In this sense, the behaviorist believes that a person is triggered by such learned response or behavior to eat. The learned behavior comes from emotional triggers or habits such as instances of joy where eating is becomes normal response; in instances of sadness, again, eating is the learned habit; and in instances of depression, the usual behavior response is eating. In the process of intervention, the behaviorist also focuses on applying behavior modification responses which “are aimed at controlling stimuli that result in actions that perpetuate overeating” (Dossey & Keegan, 2009, p. 417). The apparent difference between these two theories is also manifest when the problem of alcohol and drug abuse is considered. The biological perspective points out that a person has biological characteristics and properties which already predispose him to alcohol and drug abuse (Sims, 2005). Studies were able to establish that for some alcoholics, lower brain chemistries for elements which associate with addictive behavior, have been seen. These studies were able to establish that psychoactive drugs affect the chemicals in the brain through the action of different neurotransmitters (Sims, 2005). As interventions for alcohol and drug-seeking behavior, the biological theory points out results from a study which revealed that “the administering of amino acid precursors to a group of alcohol-dependent individuals produced higher levels dopamine and serotonin which, in turn, reduced the craving for alcohol” (Sims, 2005, p. 11). Since, the problem is biological the solution for the substance abuse is also biologically-based. The behavioral or the behaviorist theory views substance abuse differently from the biological theory. The behaviorist uses the Skinner’s Operant Conditioning theory in order to explain substance and alcohol abuse. For behaviorists, they explain that alcohol and drugs are viewed as ‘reinforcers’ by the substance abuser. In a study covering mice, alcohol-craving mice preferred alcohol to other substances as their reinforcer. In the study, it was established that the mice “will learn new behaviors and engage in high rates of a behavior to continue to get alcohol, in other words, they will work for it” (Thombs, 2006, p. 138). The addictive behavior is actually built or reinforced through negative and positive reinforcement, thereby implying that the initiation into alcohol and substance abuse is based on lack of reinforcement for alternative behavior and lack of punishment for using alcohol and drugs (Thombs, 2006, p. 140). Anger is also explained differently by the two theories. Based on the biological theory, anger is an innate drive which is common to all human beings; therefore it is within man’s nature to get angry regardless of other factors existent in the environment. They also point out that neurotransmitters which are deep in man’s brain activate a person’s anger via neural stimulation (Randolph, 2002). Through the biological and brain chemical interaction, a person’s anger may be triggered; intervention for such anger also involves the normalization of involved nerves and biochemicals. Anger is explained outside such biological processes by the behavioral theorists. According to the behaviorists, anger is “learned early on in life because it helps achieve goals” (Randolph, 2002, p. 10). This is often seen in families where children are taught to respond to authority with aggression, or to frustration with anger (Fraser, 1995). In this case, anger is based on what the child has been used to and what he has learned throughout the years. Biological theorists and behavioral theorists also view depression differently. Biological theorists consider studies which propose differences in the neurons and glial cells of the depressed patient. In fact, a recent study of 23 people suffering from major depression or bipolar disorder manifested with smaller and less densely packed neurons and even fewer glial cells in the portion of the brain which controlled their emotions and cognition (Vogel, 2000). Scientists further evaluated from the data that cell losses in the brain affect a person’s ability to handle stress and trauma, thereby triggering depression after prolonged stress (Vogel, 2000). For the behaviorists, they explain depression by studying patterns of behavior in a person – noting that some patterns are more adaptive than others. “For example, a person who is frequently passive will not gain many rewards and, according to the behaviorist theory of depression, is likely to become depressed” (Nolen-Hoeksema, 1990, p. 106). Behaviorists also assess depression in terms of gender and they note that women are less likely to use behavior patterns which minimize their control of their environment, therefore, they are more likely than men to be depressed (Nolen-Hoeksema, 1990, p. 106). A decreased sense of satisfaction with the world and a decreased control of the environment signify a loss of control and a loss of reward for a person. In the end, such loss of control and the decreased satisfaction with the world leads to a person’s depression. Conclusion The biological and behavioral theories are both psychological theories which help explain man’s behavior and mental processes. Authors point out a crucial link between these two theories – a link which often starts with the biological theory as the foundation of human behavior, followed by the behavioral theory which later manifests based on a person’s experiences. These theories are however different from each other in the sense that the biological theory focuses on a person’s physiological processes – his brain, his neurochemicals, and his hormones, in order to explain human behavior. On the other hand, the behavioral theory points out that human behavior is based on learned behavior – on a person’s experiences, on what he is conditioned to think, and how he is conditioned to behave. In problems and issues like alcohol abuse, drug addiction, weight management, depression, and anger or aggression, the difference between these two theories can be seen. The biological theory explains that alcohol abuse, weight management, drug addiction, depression, and anger are caused by problems in the neurochemical interactions in the brain. The biological theory explains how problems in the physiological functioning of the person cause the above problems. The behavioral theory, on the other hand explains that the problems as enumerated above are mostly credited to a person’s learned behavior, his habits, and his conditioned behavior. Depression then becomes a conditioned response to emotional trauma or stress; aggression becomes the response for hostility; and overeating becomes the conditioned response for extreme emotions (sadness or joy). The same is true for alcohol and substance abuse where the conditioned and uncorrected behavior of a person leads to a habit-forming behavior. Both of these theories adequately explain human behavior and they set forth logical and comprehensive explanations to various human conditions. They are also well-supported by scientific and scholarly articles which now merit their position in psychology as credible theories explaining human behavior. Works Cited Bernstein, D., Penner, L., Clarke-Stewart, A., & Roy, E., (2008) Psychology. Massachusetts: Houghton and Mifflin Publishers Cichetti, D. & Cohen, D. (2006) Developmental Psychopathology: Theory and method. Massachusetts: John Wiley & Sons Dossey, B. & Keegan, L. (2009) Holistic nursing: a handbook for practice. Massachusetts: Jones & Bartlett Fraser, M. (July 1996) Aggressive Behavior in Childhood and Early Adolescence: An Ecological-Developmental Perspective on Youth Violence. Social Work, volume 41, number 4, pp. 347-361 Kalat, J. (2009) Biological Psychology. California: Cengage Learning Maitland, L. (2004) 5 Steps to a 5 AP Psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill Companies Nolen-Hoeksema, S (1990) Sex differences in depression. California: Stanford University Press Randolph, N. (2002) Springhouse Review for Psychiatric & Mental Health Nursing Certification. Pennsylvania: Lippincott & Williams Sims, B. (2005) Substance abuse treatment with correctional clients: practical implications. New York: New York Haworth Press Thombs, D. (2006) Introduction to addictive behaviors. New York: Guilford Press Vogel, G. (2000) New Brain Cells Prompt New Theory of Depression. Neuroscience, volume 290, number 5490, pp. 258-259. Read More