Behaviorism, Functionalism and Cognitive Psychology: History and Modern Application - Coursework Example

Behaviorism, Functionalism and Cognitive Psychology: History and Modern Application 2009 Behaviorism, Functionalism and Cognitive Psychology: Historyand Modern Application Explaining human psychology and behavior is one the most intriguing and complex tasks associated with the science of psychology. Numerous outstanding thinkers repeatedly attempted to understand the behavior of other people and create effective tools and strategies to change it. The quest continues up to now, and the most obvious outcome of the efforts is the finding that human psychology is an overwhelmingly complex and multifaceted field. Almost every perspective that once claimed to discover the psychological determinants of human behavior was subsequently found to have serious limitations and replaced by a new theory. As a result, modern psychology is an amalgam of stances, theories and perspective that supplement or contradict each other. Functionalism Functional psychology or functionalism is a broad psychological school that became popular in the early decades of 20th century. Advocates of functional approach focused on the active (functional) adaptation of human consciousness to the environment (Vandenbos, 2006). Functional psychology relied on the work of William James, a pioneering American psychologist and philosopher, and the evolutionary theory developed of Charles Darwin. The primary concern of functionalists was to understand how the human mind and consciousness functions. Functionalists believed that this could be done via introspection: “Functionalists studied the mind not from the standpoint of its composition-its mental elements of structure-but rather as a conglomerate or accumulation of functions and processes that lead to practical consequences in the real world” (Schultz, & Schultz, 2008, p.145). As a result, functionalists rejected the traditional positivist philosophy of experimental research and advocated the potential of rational thought being concerned with the capability of the mind and practical value of psychological research. The essence of functional psychology was articulated by John Dewey, the brightest representative of functionalism, in his “The Reflex Arc Concept in Psychology” (1896). Dewey criticized the notion of elementarism and atomism that dominated early psychology. His criticism also covered the emerging school of behaviorism with its stimulus-response theory (Dewey, 1964). Although functional psychology failed to become a formal school, the concepts and principles formulated by representatives of this approach contributed greatly to the development of behavioral psychology (Schultz, & Schultz, 2008). An essential contribution of functionalism was recognition of the validity of research involving animals, children and people with psychiatric disabilities. Yet the most important contribution of functionalism to contemporary psychological practice was introduction of novel research methods and techniques such as mental tests, questionnaires and physiological measures (Biro, & Shahan, 1982). This legacy continues to play critically important role in modern psychological practice. Behaviorism The origins of behaviorist perspective, a theory successfully applied in modern psychological practice can be traced back to John Watson (1878 – 1958) whom was the first theorist to formulate the principles of modern behaviorism. His definition of this approach was highly practical: Watson believed psychology should be a purely objective field of knowledge used to accurately predict and control human behavior. Introspection and self-analysis in psychology were announced useless; besides Watson stated there were no difference between humans and animals thus neglecting the concept of the conscious and unconscious as such (Watson, 1913). Watson relied primarily on the Ivan Pavlov’s discovery of the mechanism of classical conditioning. Pavlov’s studies of dog’s digestion transformed the common understanding of learning and behavior. The scientist carried out a series of experiments in order to test his initial conclusions. He provided a sound or light signal that was immediately followed by some food placed in the dog’s moth. The dog started to perceive the signal in conjunction with the food and after several repetitions the dog salivated immediately after the signal even without any food. This fact made Pavlov introduce a new psycho-physiological concept of a conditional stimulus in distinction to an unconditioned stimulus (Littleton, Toates, & Braisby, 2002: 170-171). Although Pavlov revealed the phenomenon of classical conditioning during experimental studies, which involved animals, the key principle of this process proved valid in human behavior too. A good example of the classical conditioning in human behavior is the bell-and-pad technique that is often used to cope with bed-wetting in children. Two perforated metal sheets connected to a low-tension battery are placed under the bed sheet. When a child moistens the bed urine short-circuits the sheets, and the battery produces a laud alarm making the child wake up. After several alarms the child is able to wake up without the alarm: the sensation of a full bladder is finally connected to the necessity of waking up (Lattal & Chase, 2003). Skinner further elaborated on the behaviorist conception of behavior by paying attention not only to stimuli resulting in certain patterns of behavior, but also exploring the stimuli affecting the actor after performance. In a series of experiments involving rats and pigeons that were rewarded with food for pressing a lever in the Skinner box, the scientist observed that positive stimuli led to more frequent repetition of the act that caused them; he called such stimuli “reinforcers” (Littleton, Toates, & Braisby, 2002: 175-176). Skinner recognized situational influences as predominant factors that cause different reactions of children. The reactions largely depend upon the previous experience and genetic code of individual. Skinner also believed that analysis of specific mental states, which had been so popular in psychoanalytic theories and the concepts associated with such analysis were absolutely useless (Gross, 2005). The behaviorist perspective is based on the assumption that human behavior depends solely on the external stimuli: the person is given a certain stimulus, demonstrates certain reaction, and eventually finds out if this reaction is correct or wrong, dependent upon its outcome (whether it is followed by reinforcer or not). In case the same stimulus is provided again in future the child usually reacts in the way that showed its effectiveness in the past. Therefore, behavior of human being is shaped by the variety of stimuli available in the environment and the amount of reinforces for these stimuli. According to behaviorism, the most reliable way to explain human behavior is to analyze the situation in which such behavior occurs more frequently and identify the stimulus and the reinforcer. Cognitive Psychology The main feature of cognitive approach is the principle of conscious information processing. This principle postulates that people do not simply receive information and react to it but also interpret it according to the prior experience. The basic principle of this approach is the assumption that a person assimilates certain facts/concepts from the environment and internalizes them according to her own cognitive structure (Baars, 1988). The cognitive perspective implies that development of cognitive mechanisms (such as memory, thinking, sensory abilities, etc) and language are the main tools of learning behavior. Before the child can effectively master a certain behavioral pattern he should master language that helps correctly perceive the world around him. This aspect constitutes perhaps the most dramatic distinction between the behaviorist and cognitive views of learning. Social determination of the process of learning (Vygotsky), emphasis on the internal processes of learning (Piaget), and the role of teachers in organization of learning process (Bruner) represent other important foci points that contribute to the distinction of the cognitive perspective (Baars, 1988). Absence of agreement as for the inner processes that take place during learning as well as absence of applicable methods of their investigation is probably the main drawback of cognitive psychology. Conclusion Extreme biologization and primitivization of human psychology is the major drawback of behaviorism: behaviorists did not distinguish between humans and animals while the humanistic approach avoided this drawback highlighting uniqueness of the human condition. The cognitive perspective also avoids the pitfalls of behaviorism and seems to be one of the most credible approaches up to date: it underlies majority of pedagogical models that have been designed over the last several decades. However, absence of agreement concerning the inner processes that take place inside the child’s brain, coupled with absence of reliable methods to explore them is an essential drawback of the cognitive theories of learning. Although modern psychological science seeks to integrate the best features of different perspective in order to create an all-inclusive theory explaining children’s behaviour the progress has not been impressive up to now. However, while such theory may be of great benefit it is also difficult to argue that the phenomenon of children’s behaviour can not be effectively explained within the framework of the existing approaches. Versatile and often contradictory information coming from different perspectives is of great help for several reasons. Firstly, up to now there is no clear answer regarding what type of determinants dominates in each particular case, but it is already clear that they are likely to vary seriously from person to person. Therefore, versatile knowledge about the determinants and mechanisms of children’s behaviour will result in more informed choices to explain it in each particular case. Effectiveness of the existing interventions intended to produce certain change in behaviour has been demonstrated repeatedly despite the fact that they are often based on different approaches to human behaviour. Thus, numerous variations of the Cognitive Therapy (Beck et al. 1993) are based on the cognitive perspective; Motivational Enhancement Therapy (MET) is an off-spring of the humanistic psychology (Miller, 1996); and Behavioral Therapy employs the concepts and ideas of behaviorist stance (Clark & Fairburn, 1997). However, each of these methods has been repeatedly confirmed to be effective in changing behavioral patterns. This statement can be illustrated by the recent tendency toward development of therapies and interventions that rely on a combination of psychological theories. For example, cognitive and behavioral interventions have been traditionally considered independent and sometimes contradictory therapeutic methods. Behavioral therapists did not consider cognitive structure to be important in treatment interventions and focused primarily on the external behavioral reactions be observed and assessed. Cognitive therapists, in their turn, stressed the importance of human cognitions and emotions in the treatment process. As a result, the goal of a typical cognitive therapy was “... to reduce excessive emotional reactions and self-defeating behaviour by modifying the faulty or erroneous thinking and maladaptive beliefs that underlie these reactions” (Beck et al. 1993: 21). In a genuinely cognitive therapy, the therapist’s approach to focusing on cognitions was based on leading the patient through a series of questions, and the treatment was believed to reduce or eliminate the abnormal behavioral patterns by changing the patient’s way of thinking (Carroll, 1998). However, a number of highly effective practices and interventions have been developed recently on the basis of both behaviorist and cognitive theories. For example, the famous Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy (CBT) represents a merger of these two approaches: it focuses on cognitive and behavioral experiences of the patient viewing them as the entwined aspects of human behaviour (Beck, 1993). This tendency once again proves that every perspective that has emerged up to day is equally important in explaining human behaviour: there are no primary or secondary theories, and each of them contributed greatly to the current psychological practice. References Baars, B. J. (1988). A cognitive theory of consciousness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Beck, A. T., Wright, F. D., Newman, C. F., & Liese, B. S. 1993. Cognitive therapy of substance abuse, New York: Guilford Press. Biro, J.I., & Shahan, R. W. (eds.) (1982). Mind, Brain, and Function: Essays in the Philosophy of Mind. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press Carroll, K. 1998. A Cognitive-Behavioral Approach: Treating Cocaine Addiction, Rockville: National Institute on Drug Abuse. Clark, David M.; Fairburn, Christopher G. (1997). Science and practice of cognitive behaviour therapy. Oxford: Oxford University Press Dewey, John (1964) John Dewey on education: Selected writings. Chicago: University of Chicago Press Ellis, A. 1975. A New Guide to Rational Living, Prentice Hall. Gross, R. (2005). Psychology: the science of mind and behaviour. Hodder Arnold Lattal, K. A & Chase, P. N. (2003). Behaviour Theory and Philosophy. Plenum Littleton, K., F. Toates, & N. Braisby (2002). Three Approaches to Learning. In: Miell, D., A. Phoenix & K. Thomas (eds), Mapping Psychology. The Open University. Miller, W. R. (1996). Motivational interviewing: research, practice and puzzles. Addictive Behaviors 61(6): 835-842. Schultz, D.P., & Schultz, S.E. (2008). A History of Modern Psychology (9th ed.). California: Thomas Wadsworth. Vandenbos, G. R. (ed.) (2006). APA Dictionary of Psychology. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association Watson, J.B. (1913). “Psychology as the behaviorist view it”. Psychological Review, Vol. 20, pp. 158 – 177. Read More