How Behaviorism Works - Types and Uses of the Psychological Theories - Term Paper Example

Behavioral Theories - An Introduction: The concept of Behavioral theories can be traced back to Aristotle’s contribution in the form of the essay, ‘Memory’[Abr89]. In this essay, Aristotle focused on associating events such as lightning and thunder. Philosophers who agreed with the thoughts of Aristotle and gave additional contribution included eminent names such as Hobbs, Brown. Pavlov, Watson, Thorndike and Skinner were the final few who made crucial contributions to behavioral theories. While all of these eminent thinkers contributed significantly to Behavioral theories, Watson is credited for coining the term, Behaviorism. Behavorial theories have great implications in explaining criminal activities and societal flaws[See04]. How Behaviorism Works – As a Learning Theory: Behavioral theories assert that learning is a straightforward process that involves responses to stimuli. The strength of the responses is dependent upon the existence of any reward of reinforcement consistent with the needs and desires of the respondent[Rob00]. This theory believes that if a reward or reinforcement exists, which is consistent with the needs of the respondent, it is likely to strengthen responses. The key test, however is to figure out whether learning had occurred due to the reinforcements. B.F Skinner was the pioneer of empirical tests used to examine the question that whether learning would occur as a result of reinforcements. His perspective holds that the mind at work, cannot be exactly tested. Therefore, proponents of behaviorism are concerned with behavior as the sites of knowing, teaching and learning. The reinforcements or consequences of behavior can be both positive and negative. Positive consequences are rewards while negative consequences are punishments. These consequences help shape behavior and one of the keys to successfully teaching behavior is discovering the most appropriate consequence to shape it[ACh88]. Extinction, on the other hand, occurs when there is no consequence at all. Contributions from Ivan Pavlov demonstrated that neutral stimuli could be used to elicit responses from animals. John Watson and BF Skinner further expanded Pavlov’s work and shoed that these principles can be applied to human beings as well by adding the element of reinforcement. They showed that more complex responses, termed as ‘operant responses’, could be achieved by the introduction of reinforcement. Many behaviorists are of the view that all behavior can be determined by a combination of factors, including genetic factors, nature and nurture and conditioning elements[ACh88]. An important point of understanding is that behavioral theories are represented by a S-O-R paradigm. The organism is treated as a mystery, or a ‘black box’. The only information we have about the organism is through its overt behavior[Abr89]. This S-O-R paradigm, involves Stimulus, Organism and Response. The stimulus is presented to the organism and elicits a response. Types of Behavorial Theories: Behavorial theories are divided into three types Contiguity Theory Classical Conditioning Theory Operant Conditioning Theory Contiguity Theory: E.R Gutherie is credited for the work on the contiguity theory. While the theory continues to exist, it is not one of the most prominent of theories and is overtaken by the operant conditioning and classical conditioning theories[Win80]. The contiguity theory asserts that ay stimulus and response connected in time and space will tend to be associated. What this basically means is that if any association is observed, or assumed between a stimulus and response, that association will actually exist[Win80]. Examples A baseball player wearing a certain pair of socks on the day he hits three home runs will associate wearing the socks and hitting the homeruns. Similarly, a student who makes a good grade on an exam after using a new learning technique will associate the new technique with the high grade. Classical Conditioning Theory: Ivan Pavlov is credited for major contribution in the classical conditioning theory. Skinner came in later and added further insight into this theory. Classical conditioning starts with an innate or reflexive action. This action is involuntary, e.g. the salivation of starved dogs’ mouths. This response is caused by an unconditioned stimulus, and the action is called an unconditioned response[ACh88]. A separate stimulus, neutral stimulus, does not cause the unconditioned response, however, when repeatedly combined with the unconditioned stimulus and presented simultaneously, it can elicit the unconditioned response. The neutral stimulus is now transformed into a conditioned stimulus, and it can elicit the conditioned response (which is the same involuntary response as the unconditioned response)[ACh88]. Examples Harassment (Unconditioned Stimulus) is associated with feeling bad (Unconditioned Response). If this harassment happens at school for a long period of time, the child will associate harassment and school. The school ( Conditioned Stimulus) will then be associated with feeling bad (Conditioned Response). This association must be broken by the continuous absence of harassment when the child goes to school, thus breaking the relationship between conditioned stimulus and conditioned response. Operant Conditioning: The focus of operant conditioning is the impact of consequences on behavior. Voluntary behavior is the focus in operant conditioning[Abr89]. Examples: If the prize money of a wrestling competition is increased, wrestlers will be willing to take greater hits and suffer injuries to achieve the prize and earn extra money[Abr89]. Uses of Behavioral Theories: These theories help come to a conclusion that feedback is critical to learning. This stimulus-response method is used frequently in adult learning situations which involve a time sensitive responses by students to a stimulus. A prominent example of this theory’s practice is Arifcraft emergency procedures. These procedures are divided into two parts. The first, the time profound portion must be performed immediately by rote memory upon recognition of a stimulus – a horn, warning light, buzzer, bell etc. The aforementioned procedures are taught and practically applied using rote drills and passing the tests. The second part of the procedure, which may be viewed as indicative action is performed with obligatory reference to checklists and other reference material and is dependent on the level of learning and understanding of aircraft systems and their performance characteristics. Behaviorists focus on altering behavior by manifestations of learning. The focus is external behavior rather than internal will. Criticisms: This theory is criticized for being overly simplistic and ignores the cognitive and intellectual abilities possessed b humans to manipulate responses. Furthermore there is a propensity to establish a cause-effect relationship where one may not exist at all. The theory also overlooks internal, nurtured causes of behavior and associates everything with external stimuli[Abr89]. Social Structural Theories – An Introduction Social Structural theories are often used as basis for explanation of social behavior. There are several social structural theories that aim to justify behavior. The fundamental questions that these theories aim to answer are that how societies are organized by social institutions including the impact of family, educational, religious, economic and political institutions[Rob68]. The consensus or functionalist perspective is one that views society as a system consisting of mutually sustaining parts that is by and large characterized by broad normative consensus. According to this, various social institutions have their own particular specialized social functions to keep society running smoothly. Some of the key social structural theories are: Social Disorganization Theory Anomie Theory (Durkhem) Anomie/ Strain Theory (Merton) Institutional Anomie General Strain The explanation below shall seek to examine why social animals commit antisocial acts. Crime shall be the focus of discussion and the social structural theories shall assess the causes, and justifications of crime. Emile David Durkheim, a French sociologist was one of the prominent contributors of social structural theories. Robert K Merton also contributed to this field by proposing the strain theory[Rob68]. Durkheim was of the view that because crime is found at all times and in all societies, it is a normal and unavoidable phenomenon[Ste85]. Crime stands out because of the existence of organic solidarity. High degree of occupational specialization is a characteristic of modern societies and is known as the organizational solidarity. Criminals are outliers and are useful because they help identify boundaries of acceptable behavior. One justification of crime is that while all individuals seek to maximize their potential and achieve their goals, some of them fail to achieve them in legitimate ways. Social Disorganization Theory: Social disorganization refers to the breakdown, or dilution of community rules that ensure regulation. The mix of people with limited resources, and coming from different backgrounds and cultural traditions, are sometimes at odds with established norms of behavior of the specific society in which they reside. This also hinders the establishment of a sense of community[Soc10]. This theory, also termed as the ecological theory of disorganization, happens in three phases. The first phrase involves the influx of native or foreign immigrants seeking work and educational opportunities. This influx causes a value conflict and the loss of formal or informal social control leads to social disorganization. This social disorganization leads to a delinquishment of values and crime[Soc10]. Social disorganization occurs when the neighborhood looses collective efficacy. Collective efficacy refers to the shared power of a group or connected individuals to influence an outcome that the collective group seems desirable. Fallacies of the Social Disorganization Theory: A basic fallacy of the ecological theory of disorganization is that we simply cannot make inferences about individuals or groups on the basis of information derived from a larger population of which they are a part of. Furthermore, we cannot know for certain, whether the variances in delinquency rates result from the aggregated characteristics of communities rather than the characteristics of individuals selectively aggregated into communities[Ron95]. Anomie theory: Anomie refers to normlessness or absence of rules. Anomie is a term often used to describe the condition of normative regulation in society. This normative deregulation is more a result of absence of communal unity than that of formal regulation. While the society at large may not be united, communal unity exists in small, isolated and self sufficient smaller ‘societies’ because they share common experiences, have experiences similar circumstances, share common values and develop strong emotional ties to the collectivity[Fre99]. Strain Theory: Robert Merton was the person behind the strain theory. The strain theory considers crime inevitable. It asserts that crime is a normal response to conditions that limit opportunities for some individuals to achieve economic and social success that everyone strives for[Ste09]. The assumption of the strain theory is that the middle class, which forms the majority of the society, shares similar success goals. Every member strives to achieve these goals, and while some people can do it legitimately, others cannot. This disjunction causes individuals to seek illegitimate ways to achieve success. They rationalize these ways by asserting that many of them do not have the same level of grooming or luxuries needed to develop the needed skill set to achieve success legitimately. Difference in education standards, lack of infrastructural capacities, etc contribute to the rationalization of illegal ways of achieving success. This disjunction between goals and means leads to anomie[Ste09]. Modes of Adaptation: The social pressure of success elicits differing responses from individuals. The five modes of adaptation people show in response to social pressure are conformity, ritualism, innovation, retreatism and rebellion. Conformity occurs when members of the society accept the standards of success and the acceptable ways to achieve those standards. Ritualism refers to a situation when individuals reject cultural goals and the ways to achieve them, however he does not adapt to this situation in a criminal manner. Innovation refers to a situation when individuals accept the validity of cultural goals but does not accept the legitimate ways of achieving them. This is often the breeding ground for illegitimate motivations of attaining success[Ste09]. Retreatism refers to a situation when individuals reject both the culturally accepted goals and the institutionalized means of attaining them. This can lead to isolation from the society because individuals no longer aspire to achieve the success that is generally accepted. The most dangerous and threatening adaptation of individuals is rebellion. Rebellion refers to a situation wherein individuals reject both the goals and the institutionalized sources of attaining the goals. However, unlike retreats, they work actively, often in contradiction with established norms, to substitute the goals and ways and form ways that they feel are legitimate. The General Strain Theory: Robert Agnew was the pioneer of the general strain theory. He argued that strain results as a result of the removal of a positively valued stimuli or the presentation of a negative stimuli. This assertion is fairly intuitive in the sense that positive stimuli tend to strengthen responses whereas negative stimuli tend to weaken them. The presentation of negative stimuli is hence responsible for causing a strain; similarly the removal of positive stimuli is known to do the same. Strain is present in all circumstances in our lives, however the strength of the strain differs according to the magnitude, regency, duration and clustering. The important point of consideration is not what the strain is, but how the subject deals with the strain. Sub cultural Theories: The concept of status frustration holds a lot of strength in structural theories. Status frustration suggests that distinct criminal subcultures can be formed within society. Lower class individuals are the most likely to form such subcultures as they are the people who are the ones not given equal opportunities, or not having the needed skill set to succeed. Albert Cohen, in his book Delinquent Boys, proposes a mechanism by which lower class youth adapts to the limited avenues of success available to them[Kar09]. The underlying assumption of his mechanism is the existence of short run hedonism, which means that individuals are seeking immediate gratification with little or no regard to long term consequences. He suggests that much lower class crime and delinquency is expressive rather than instrumental. This means that there is no intentional or entrenched wrongness in actions. Young people, not due to a fault of their own, lack access to middle class avenues of success, approval and self worth. Because they cannot adjust to, what Cohen calls middle-class measuring rods, they experience status frustration. The real problem for Cohen is status frustration, not blocked opportunities. This implies that if lower class youth come to par with the middle class measuring rods, they can overcomes status frustration. Lower class youth desire approval and success, but because they cannot meet middle class criteria, they become frustrated[Gen11]. Opportunity Structure Theory: Richard Cloward and Llyod Ohlin extended strain theory into the opportunity extension theory. This theory asserts that in order to take advantage of the most rewarding illegitimate opportunities, aspirers often need an ‘in’, or a social group that rationalizes such motives. The existence and establishment of gangs is consistent with the explanation of the said theory. Some of the gang types that develop from the frustration generated by blocked opportunities include criminal gangs, conflict gangs and retreatist gangs[Ger05]. Evaluation of Social Structural Theories: Social Disorganization – Strengths: The social disorganization theory helps explain high crime rates in certain areas. It also accounts for integration and transition of deviant values and predicts crime rates from neighborhood activities. Social Disorganization – Weakness: The social disorganization theory cannot account for individuals and groups in the same neighborhood who are crime free or justify why a few individuals commit a highly disproportionate amount of time. Durkham’s Anomie Theory – Strengths: This theory helps emphasize the norms and social solidarity to restrain crime and points to situations that weaken them. This can help institutions strengthen norms that are consistent with the needs of the society and eradicate those that jeopardize the societies smooth functioning. Durkhan’s Anomie Theory – Weaknesses: The issue with Durkham’s theory is that is focuses on while societies and ignores differences in areas that are differentially affected by social deregulation. Merton’s Strain’s Theory - Strength: Merton’s strain theory explains high crime rates among the disadvantaged and how cultural norms create conflict and crime. It also explains various means of adapting to the strain. Merton’s Strain’s Theory – Weakness: This theory does not explain why individuals which are similarly affected by the strain do not react similarly to it. General Strain – Strength: General strain asserts that there are several forms of strain and that the way in which we cope with it is more important than the nature and strength of the strain. The theory also adds individual characteristics to the concept. General Strain – Weaknesses: General strain is criticized by structuralism theorists as reductionist because it fails to identify structural origins of the strain. Social Constructionist Theories In social theory, constructivists emphasize the social construction of reality. Human relations consist of thought and ideas and not essentially of material conditions or forces. This is the philosophically idealist element of constructivism which contrasts with the materialist philosophy of much social science positivism[And02]. According to constructivist philosophy, the social world is not a given: it is not something ‘out there’ that exists independent of the thoughts and ideas of the people involved in it. It is not an external reality whose laws can be discovered by scientific research and explained by scientific theory as positivists and behaviouralists argue. The social and political world is not part of nature. There are no natural laws of society or economics or politics. History is not an evolving external process that is independent of human thought and ideas. That means that sociology or economics or political science or the study of history cannot be objective ‘sciences’ in the strict positivist sense of the word[JDR02]. Everything involved in the social world of men and women is made by them. The fact that it is made by them makes it intelligible to them. The social world is a world of human consciousness: of thoughts and beliefs, of ideas and concepts, of languages and discourses, of signs, signals and understandings among human beings, especially groups of human beings, such as states and nations. The social world is an intersubjective domain: it is meaningful to people who made it and live in it, and who understand is precisely because they made it and they are at home in it. The social world is in part constructed of physical entities. But it is the ideas and beliefs concerning those entities which are most important: what those entities signify in the minds of people. The international system of security and defence, for example, consists of territories, populations, weapons and other physical assets. But it is the ideas and understandings according to which those assets are conceived, organized and used—e.g. in alliances, armed forces, etc. that is most important. The physical element is there, but it is secondary to the intellectual element which infuses it with meaning, plans it, organizes it and guides it. The thought that is involved in international security is more important, far more important, than the physical assets that are involved because those assets have no meaning without the intellectual component: they are mere things in themselves[Ray97]. It is helpful to emphasize the contrast between a materialist view held by neo realists (and neoliberals) and the ideational view held by constructivists. According to the materialist view, power and national interest are the driving forces in international politics. Power is ultimately military capability, supported by economic and other resources. National interest is the self-regarding desire by states for power, security or wealth[Mic08]. Inter subjective beliefs (and ideas, conceptions and assumptions) that are widely shared among people is the central ideational element upon which constructivists focus. Ideas can be held by different groups, such as organizations, policymakers, social groups or society. However,they must be shared widely to matter. Constructivists generally agree with Max Weber that they need to employ interpretive understanding (verstehen) in order to analyze social action. But they are not in agreement about the extent to which it is possible to emulate the scientific ideas of the natural sciences and produce scientific explanations based on hypotheses, data collection and generalization. On the one hand, constructivists reject the notion of objective truth; social scientists cannot discover a ‘final truth’ about the world which is true across time and place. On the other hand, constructivists do make ‘truth claims about the subjects they have investigated, while admitting that their claims are always contingent and partial interpretations of a complex world’. At the same time, it is fair to say that constructivists do not agree entirely on this issue. ‘Critical’ constructivists are much more skeptical about this position; they argue that ‘truth claims’ are not possible because there is no neutral ground where we can decide about what is true. What we call truth is always connected to different, more of less dominant, ways of thinking about the world[Fin97]. Flaws of Social Constructionism Theory Strong criticisms that frequently emerge about the theory are that constructionism is castigated on the grounds that either (a) it is not realist, or (b) it assumes realism[Ste06]. There is indeed a long tradition to the problem of realism and its antithesis, updated in recent years by philosophers such as Michael Dummett, Thomas Nagel, Hilary Putnam and John Searle. Nonetheless, it is clear that once one has taken the position of a committed realist, social constructionism quickly falls into place as a species of anti-realism. And depending on the particular target, it is only a simple matter of citation to show that any number of claims fulfill the criteria of anti-realism and hence are in error. This is even more so the case when one assumes that any position warrants itself by an implicit appeal to realism. I certainly do not wish to claim that there are no functions to such debates, and the articles in this issue highlight the importance of drawing out the consequences of these positions[Ste06]. But realism is notoriously difficult to justify from first principles—witness the debates in philosophy and elsewhere. There may indeed be good reasons to be a realist, but one of its consequences is the often obsessive concern with skepticism and error that inevitably follows. All manner of debates and positions can be recast into divisions of skepticism and its realist alternatives, often with considerable simplification. However, once one asks for a psychology that is explicitly realist (as opposed to a constructionist, phenomenalist, instrumentalist one, etc.), we are suddenly left with very little to go on. Now I want to be the first to admit that the lack of a large, explicitly realist, body of work in psychology is not an argument against realism. But it is not much of an advertisement either. Conclusion: The theories mentioned above have long lasting and generally applicative implications. These theories can be used as a point of reference when evaluating behavior of individuals, especially in cases contradictory to normal behavior. Furthermore, these theories have long lasting implications in practices such as criminology and international relations. The contributions of sociologists are immense and there is a lot of credit to be given to these eminent thinkers. These theories are usually globally applicable and form a framework for understanding human behavior in general rather than that of individuals of a specific country, state or region. These theories, however, have their backdrops. The criticisms are already mentioned in the specific sections, which clearly explain that while these theories can be used as a reference point, they are not immune to error. Abr89: , (Amsel 1989), See04: , (See 2004), Rob00: , (Greene 2000), ACh88: , (Catania & Skinner 1988), Win80: , (Hill 1980), Rob68: , (Merton 1968), Ste85: , (Lukes 1985), Soc10: , (Surhon, Timpledon & Marseken 2010), Ron95: , (Burt 1995), Fre99: , (Adler, Laufer & Merton 1999), Ste09: , (Briggs & Friedman 2009), Kar09: , (Opp 2009), Gen11: , (Vito & Maahs 2011), Ger05: , (Davis 2005), And02: , (Kukla 2002), JDR02: , (Ranskin & Bridges 2002), Ray97: , (Murphy 1997), Mic08: , (Young 2008), Fin97: , (Collin 1997), Ste06: , (Guzzine & Leander 2006), Read More