Discuss behaviorismas the 2ndmajor force in psychology andwhy is behaviorism a “better” alternative than the first force of psychology which was the Freudian psychoanalytic theory.

Home Blog Discuss behaviorismas the 2ndmajor force in psychology andwhy is behaviorism a “better” alternative than the first force of psychology which was the Freudian psychoanalytic theory.

Discuss behaviorismas the 2ndmajor force in psychology andwhy is behaviorism a “better” alternative than the first force of psychology which was the Freudian psychoanalytic theory.

Note: Please cover the introduction (origins of behaviorism and its development). And, also discuss why it was better than psychoanalysis, but less not as good as….cognitive social learning theory (I guess). How did it evolve?

Locate the annotated bibliography and outline you created in the Topic 2 assignment. Using the outline you developed, the information from the annotated bibliography, and the feedback provided by your instructor, write a paper (2,000-2,250 words) that synthesizes the articles you have read and addresses the following:
Intro- Trace the origins of behaviorism and the impetus for its development. APPROX. 500
Discuss behaviorism as the 2nd major force in psychology and why is behaviorism a “better” alternative than the first force of psychology which was the Freudian psychoanalytic theory.
Name three crucial researchers in the school of behaviorism.
Analyze the contributions of these researchers to the development of behaviorism.
Annotated Bibliography
Clark, R. E. (2004). The classical origins of Pavlov’s conditioning. Integrative Physiological and Behavioral Science, 39(4), 279-294. Retrieved from http://eds.b.ebscohost.com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=0c5930f8-2858-4ab6-8798-4d950cba628d%40sessionmgr101&vid=1&hid=120
Clark examines the definition of classical conditioning through the lens of several researchers and traces its origin back to the late 1800s and the turn of the nineteenth century. The article offers insight into the development of classical conditioning in both the United States and Russia. While keeping with history, he credited Pavlov as the founder of classical conditioning. However, he describes the various positions of other researchers that weighed in and attempted to alter or clarify the stimuli-response process. Notably, Edwin Twitmyer, a U.S. doctoral student, made a “reflex” discovery before the Russian-born physiologist, Pavlov. Interestingly, Twitmyer never pursued his experimental findings beyond his initial observation while Pavlov’s findings are richly sketched in the fabric of psychology because of his commitment in the field of physiology. The author delivered a clear picture of the roles of Twitmyer and Pavlov in addition to other researchers: Watson’s classical conditioning, Hull instrumental conditional, and Skinner’s operant conditioning were all brought together and synthesized by Hilgard and Marquis, both are credited with coining the term ‘classical conditioning.’ The author who holds a Ph.D. in psychiatry sufficiently assessed how the term ‘classical conditioning’ came into being and the relevance of other researchers.
Digdon, N., Powell, R. A., & Harris, B. (2014). Little Albert’s alleged neurological impairment. History of Psychology, 17(4), 312-324. doi:10.1037/a0037325.
This article provides insight into the discrepancies of the historical account of Douglas “Albert” Merritte of the infamous Albert B. or Little Albert experiment. The study, itself, was conducted in the early 20s where a 9-month old baby was traumatized with a white rabbit for fear responses. The purpose of the article is to examine the claims of Baby Albert’s assumed mental deficiencies and determine whether there is validity to the accusations made by other scholars: it was noted that Douglas Merritte was actually Albert Barger, an unhealthy infant born around the same time as the “Little Albert.” Arguments and data were the primary sources used to discharge alleged inconsistencies, i.e. did the baby die before the final stage in the experiment, was the baby healthy or not, did Watson mislead other scholars? The author does a thorough job of tracing the accounts and shedding light on variations; however, the critics remain, and the skepticism still seems to engross the study as it is probably one of the most unethical experiments in the history of psychology. Although the discrepancies may be significant, the lack of ethics, which is a present concern, has caused the original analysis to be under immense scrutiny.
Green, C. D. (2009). Darwinian theory, functionalism, and the first American psychological revolution. American Psychologist, 64(2), 75-83. doi: 10.1037/a0013338.
Green of York University and published author argues that functionalism dominated the psychology playing field from the 1800s to the end of WWI. He discussed the fundamental flaws of functionalism, structuralism, and behaviorism with European psychology as a basis. In this article, he addresses the Darwinian Theory, Functionalism, and researchers who contributed to this era. Green identified the changes and notes that would not exist, if not for functionalism. He used the works of Darwinian- inspired functionalists like Chauncey Wright, William James, and Stanley Hall to validate his argument: Wright argued for natural selection to evolve into free will while Hall’s beliefs were only rooted in evolutionary theory. On the other hand, James argued that consciousness is the “fighter of to end.” While the author mentioned other researchers, the goal was to show that the developments and findings of various functionalists related to animal psychology, applied psychology, and mental variability gave way or made a path for behaviorism. This study is significant because it establishes the value and effectiveness of functionalism and how it relates the birth of American psychology and behaviorism.
Moore, J. (2011). Behaviorism. The Psychological Record, 61(3), 449-464. Retrieved from http://eds.b.ebscohost.com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=79258e82-6e07-4abb-9da8-65595f00f54c%40sessionmgr101&vid=1&hid=120
This article discusses early forms of psychology, providing the “general” definition of psychology when it focused solely on mental capacities and embraced introspection as the method of overcoming challenges and/or contributing to various behavioral characteristics. Moore, a professor of psychology, further outlines the different methods used as well as the limitations of functionalism and structuralism. This article presented the evolvement over the years by addressing the rise of behaviorism, beginning with John Watson and ending with the basic principles of radical behaviorism introduced by B. F. Skinner, the father of S-O-R neo-behaviorism. Notably, the article attempted to provide the reason behaviorism should be separated from psychology and the need for clarification of its general definition; however, the author was not able to portray any new information beyond the reasons presented in other works. Nevertheless, the information contained in this study is useful because it emphasizes the need for understanding the historical path of psychology and the developments that influence modern-day practices.
Watson, J. B. (1913). Psychology as the behaviorist views it. Psychological Review, 20(2), 158-177. doi:10.1037/h0074428
This article was written by the father of behaviorism when his position was that of a student seeking to understand the exact definition of psychology and associated terms like “feelings and sensations,” which varied from psychologist to psychologist. This contribution allows readers to understand the thoughts of the man that sought to separate behaviorism from psychology: the goal was to mirror the processes of other sciences that were observable, measurable, and predictable, and reproducible. While there was no particular population identified from this study, the author addressed his experiences to show the disconnection between the two sciences. From his vantage point, two recommendations were made: one was for psychology to change to show the how consciousness affected behavior or accept behaviorism as a stand-alone, natural science. Watson supported his claim that introspection had little value in closing the gap between behavior and consciousness (unique to psychology). Based on a thorough review of the literature, Watson seems to validate his position to detach behaviorism from psychology.
Origins of Behaviorism Outline
Many researchers influenced the behaviorism: John Watson, the father of behaviorism was the most influential in this movement. Behaviorism is the science of interpreting behaviors, independent of psychology. Behaviorists believe that behaviors should reflect other measurable sciences rather than focus on developments of the mind: it should be predictable and controllable. Since its inception and break from psychology, behaviorism remains a highly-debated topic. Behaviorism has a rich history and is grounded in structuralism and functionalism, owing much of the credit to likes of Ivan Pavlov, B.F. Skinner, Edward Thorndike, and Edward Tolman.

Development of Behaviorism
Functionalism is at the root of behaviorism
Functionalism is the American school of psychology
Functionalism is noted to be the comeback to structuralism that influenced applied psychology
The U.S. system was also influenced by Functionalist, John Dewey
Animal psychology is the cornerstone of experimental psychology
Many researchers use animals in their observations
Introspection was the method used to understand consciousness; however, it was limited because of subjectivity and inability to be measured or duplicated.
Beginnings of the study of behavior
Pavlov is a Russian physiologist that unintentionally took a position in the fabric of psychology.
Discovered “conditioning” in the famous dog and bell experiment
Watson American psychologist that expounded on Pavlov’s conditioning theory by applying principles to the infamous Little Albert experiment.
Discovered and coined the term “behaviorism.”
Behaviorism emerged as a separate discipline because Watson thought the definition of “psychology’ was too restricted and focused solely on mental consciousness to shape behavior.
Behaviorism does not concentrate on mental processes, but rather environmental factors that shape behaviors
It is observable, controllable, and predictable

B.F. Skinner, Radical Behaviorism
Studied neo or radical behaviorism (comprehensive look at behavior)

Intentional actions are influenced by the surrounding environment
Behavior which is reinforced tends to be repeated
Work is based on Watson and Thorndike’s work, operant conditioning.
Known for his operant conditioning and reinforcement theories, which shape performance or the will to learn. People learn from their environment.

Edward Thorndike
Studied animal intelligence that led to a new development called, law of effect, which suggest behavioral changes are because of rewards/consequences
Reflective of learning by consequence
He was a functionalist who founded the “trial-and-error” behavior by observing cats escape from caged positions

Known for his connectionism or learning psychology, behaviors change because of rewards/consequences

Edward Tolman, Cognitive Behaviorism
Studied cognitive processes or mapping, internal representation of external environment
Descriptive of information processing—input, store, output
His development added ‘purpose and intent’ and the ability to measure variables
Known for cognitive view on learning and latent learning, which mean the results of engagements may be delayed or imperceptible at time of learning

Behaviorism has been rightfully separated from general psychology. Psychology is the study of the mind, whereas behaviorism is the study of behavior. While they both share the same end goal, the approach for reaching wholeness is different: psychology attempts to address behavioral development through mental processes and behaviorism addresses determinants within the environment.

Add comment

Academic Research Pro