History of Psychology - Literature review Example

History of Psychology History of Psychology Introduction An examination of experimental psychology is essentially a look at the very beginning of psychology. Most people today perceive psychology as primarily consisting of clinicians, practitioners, therapists and counselors that are trained in the helping profession. Although this perception might currently be true as over half of the APA’s members are recorded as identify themselves as practitioners, of note however is that it was not until 1945, towards the end of World War II that that the counseling and clinical areas of psychology were able to emerge on a large scale. Over the years, numerous psychologists have made contributions to the field. This paper will seek to identify two psychologists and analyze their contribution to the field. The paper will also examine an issue affecting today’s society and how this issue can be tackled using a psychological theory. Watson and the Concept of Behaviorism in Psychology Whereas a number of different psychological concepts and theories were proposed during the 1800’s and early 1900’s such as structuralism and functionalism, one of the most influential schools of thought in the field of psychology is that of behaviorism. When a functionalism-trained John B. Watson first described a totally new approach to psychology in the form of behaviorism, he is noted to have literally declared war on the establishment. The goals of this new school of thought were to study only the processes and behaviors that were fully observable and totally objective. In the new system described by Watson, there would be no discussion of mental concepts, no introspection, no mentions of consciousness and no study of the mind. In what was a pure scientific approach, Watson only sought to try and study behavior and wanted to make no assumptions beyond what was actually available to the senses. Although behaviorism is noted to have initially had a somewhat slow beginning, it eventually took off in the 1920s and alongside neo-behaviorism, it eventually became the dominant system of psychology for four decades (ODonohue & Kitchener, 1999). The concept of behaviorism as proposed by Watson defined what was a relatively narrow field of interest. While proposing the existence of a continuity between animals and man such that at various appropriate avenues, the study of animals could be used to understand humans, Watson also dictated that all mentalistic concepts were essentially useless. In this regard, he argued that reasoning, thinking and cognitive problem solving should not be regarded as psychology’s subject matter because it is not possible to directly observe them. Watson did not deny the existence of these processes, he only stressed that it was not possible to study them under a system of psychology that primarily stressed only on the study of directly observable behaviors (ODonohue & Kitchener, 1999). Watson held a strong belief in the concept of environmentalism such that the context and situations that a person happens to grow up in can serve to shape exactly how a person will tend to behave. In this sense Watson believed that the environment greatly controls our behavior and being able to understand exactly how a given environmental stimulus can elicit a particular behavioral response is the very basis of psychology. In his research, B.F. Skinner went on to expanded upon this theme as is demonstrated by in his work on operant (instrumental) conditioning. Although the behaviorist is noted to have attacked and demolished functionalism, a number of functionalist views managed to survive and were incorporated into the behaviorist approach. This is exemplified by the fact that behaviorists were also interested in how we are able to survive, adapt as well as function in our environment. However behaviorists had a vastly different approach towards the study of these topics. This relatively very narrow approach of only studying directly observable behaviors troubled many psychologists and this notably led to the creation of neo-behaviorism. In neo-behaviorism, it was now possible to study all theoretical constructs including those that are not directly observable as long as the actual behavior measured was found to be measurable (ODonohue & Kitchener, 1999). Watson’s behaviorism theory has manage to gain widespread support from a number of research studies, in one of these studies, Pavlov was able demonstrated behaviorism in dogs when he conditioned them to start salivating in response to a neutral stimulus in the form of a bell ringing (Coon et al., 2010). In yet another study to demonstrate behaviorism in humans, Watson and Rayner conducted the little Albert experiments which they were able to condition a young boy to develop a phobia for white rats although the child initially did not have this phobia. Jung’s Archetypes Jung’s Archetypes are models of personalities, behaviors or people that were developed by the Swiss psychiatrist Carl Jung. In developing the archetypes, Jung suggested that the psyche was ideally composed of three main components in the form of the ego, the collective unconscious as well as the personal unconscious. Jung postulated that the ego essentially represents the conscious mind while the personal unconscious is comprised of all memories including those that happen to have been suppressed. According to Jung, the collective unconscious is a relatively unique component in that this part of the psyche works to serve as a form of psychological inheritance. It contains all the experiences and knowledge that we happen to share as a species. Jung’s archetypes theory is challenged by Mills (2012), who points out that Jung makes a number of contradictory statements though out his theoretical corpus. According to Mills (2012), Jung’s obscurantism is evidenced by his stating that the archetypes is essentially pure unventilated nature but in what is perceived as a contradiction, Jung also argues that it is also transcendent, supra-personal and well beyond the sensible world. In criticizing Jung’s archetypes, Mills (2012) further points out that the archetypal collective may be viewed as a residue of archaic mind that is grafted onto our present-day psyche with a number of psychophysical correlates that work to fuse the body and mind. However, the numinous nature of the archetypes is seen to ultimately commit Jung to a transcendentalism that can be perceived as being non-corporeal in nature. In further criticism to Jung’s theories of archetype, Rosen et al. (1991) point out that the British scientist Rupert Sheldrake argues that Jung’s theory o the collective unconscious does not actually fit with the mechanistic theory of life and consequently, it should not be taken seriously within the current scientific orthodoxy. Crime and the Behaviorism Theory The problem of an ever increasing crime rate has for long been considered as a major concern across the United States. In a recent report released by the FBI assessing crime across the United States, it is estimated that during the year 2012 alone, there were an estimated 8,975,438 property crimes and 1,214,462 violent crimes that were reported to the various law enforcement agencies across the country. This includes 84,276 cases of forcible rape, 14,827 murders, 760,739 cases of aggravated assaults as well as 354,520 robberies. The theory of behaviorism as developed by Watson can help in the identification of the factors that result in the development of criminal behavior among individuals. This will help in the creation environmental conditions and stimuli that will help in reducing the likelihood of individuals developing criminal tendencies and attributes. The psychological theory of behaviorism postulates that human actions can be modified or even guided through the punishing of unwanted acts and rewarding of the desired ones. When this theory is applied to the field of criminology, it becomes possible to utilize behaviorist methodologies in the reformation of criminals. Through conditioning, subjects can be taught to learn how to choose socially acceptable behaviors and avoid criminal actions. Carlsmith et al. (2002), points out that from the perspective of behaviorism, punishment works to change the contingencies that are associated with various operant’s and in the process help in subduing certain behaviors. It is this notion of criminal behaviorism that constitutes the foundation of most of the currently utilized law enforcement practices. References Carlsmith, K. M., Darley, J. M., & Robinson, P. H. (2002). Why do we punish?: Deterrence and just deserts as motives for punishment. Journal of personality and social psychology, 83(2), 284. Coon, D., Mitterer, J. O., Talbot, S., & Vanchella, C. M. (2010). Introduction to psychology: Gateways to mind and behavior. Belmont, Calif: Wadsworth Cengage Learning. Mills, J. (2013). Jungs metaphysics. International Journal of Jungian Studies,5(1), 19-43. ODonohue, W. T., & Kitchener, R. F. (1999). Handbook of behaviorism. San Diego, Calif: Academic Press. Rosen, D. H., Smith, S. M., Huston, H. L., & Gonzalez, G. (1991). Empirical study of associations between symbols and their meanings: Evidence of collective unconscious (archetypal) memory. Journal of analytical psychology,36(2), 211-228. Read More