Behaviorism is a major trend in psychology, one that directly follows from functionalism, the branch of psychology that focuses on the biological significance of natural processes, including behavior. Behaviorist theory goes further in its rejection of the unique nature of mental events. It does so by declaring that psychology is the study of only observable behaviors. Therefore, purely mental events, events that occur outside the realm of behavior are not the subject matter of psychology. In terms of a definition, behaviorism is the study of the relationship between individuals' environments and their behavior, without consulting hypothetical events that occur within their minds (Carlson & Buskist, 1997).
This movement gained much attention and praise from the vast number of scientists who claimed other theories in psychology were invalid because they were not empirical, and as a result not quantifiable. Behaviorism, in contrast, maintains an objective stance to ensure that research findings will be valid and capable of being relied upon. Behaviorists achieve this objective stance by refusing to deal with what they call the "black box" of the mind. One cannot measure what goes on inside an individual's mind, or at least not with certain validity. One can, however, measure and find patterns in that individual's actions in his or her environment.
After many years of supremacy in the field of American psychology, the theory of behaviorism finds itself now on the defensive. Behaviorism's dominance in psychology restricted the science's subject matter to that of observable behavior. Thus, concepts like consciousness were considered to be outside the realm of psychology. As Burt (1962) writes, "psychology, having first bargained away its soul and then gone out of its mind, seems now...to have lost all consciousness" (p.229).
Many psychologists have turned against behaviorism and turned to the study of thinking and consciousness, known as cognitive psychology. This type of psychology utilizes an approach called information processing, or how information that is received through the different senses is "processed" by various systems in the brain. This concept of imagery occurs within the confines of the brain, and is therefore still hypothetical. However, the behavioral data compiled by questions asked about certain images are, in fact, empirical and objective. These new theories force the psychological world to say that one cannot base psychology purely on observable behavior, if one is truly to probe the mind. The data gained through cognitive psychology's methods are behavior-based. They beg the question, can any theory in psychology be valid without the foundation of behaviorism?
Psychology Is a Science
An Objective Science
Behaviorists see psychology as a natural science, with two important corollaries. The first corollary alleges that science, and specifically psychology, must be objective. The other is that psychology, as a science, must be empirically based as well. The theories and methods of B. F. Skinner are a good example of how behaviorism is perhaps the most objective sub-field within the domain of psychology. The late B.F. Skinner was a grand figure in the world of psychology, and more specifically within the realm of behaviorism. He claimed that behavior is greatly explained in terms of its consequences. Behavior, then, is consistent from one situation to the next because it is maintained by similar kinds of consequences across those situations. It changes only when the consequences for behavior change. As a result of the degree to which theorists confine themselves to behavior, their definition of personality itself becomes equivalent to and dependent upon that individual's behavior. Essentially, that what a person "is" is what a person "does." This briefly depicts Skinner's theory of operant conditioning, which arose out of his empirical data supporting his theses that there are relations between environmental stimuli and an individual's behavior. The term operant refers to the fact that an organism learns through responding to the environment. Skinner also asserted that positive or negative reinforcement (consequences)affect a subject's behavior, in that, the act will either be repeated or avoided (Carlson & Buskist, 1997 p.133).A good example of the objective thinking behind behaviorism is given in an argument that Zuriff (1986) cites. Skinner argues that research should be conducted not to test theorems, but to find orderliness in behavior. The search for orderliness is intuitive, rather than structured by scientific method. A theory is a formulation that uses a small number of terms to explain a large number of facts (p. 712).
Skinner therefore used operant conditioning to analyze behaviors in terms of the observable events and conditions that seem to vary with them, and to find said orderliness. As a result, most behaviorists refuse to state specific motivations for behavior and try to uncover the external events that strengthen its future probability and that either sustain or alter it. Hull's drive reduction theory is an exception. Operant behavior is changed by its consequences. A behavior is called "operant" because it "operates" on the environment. The outcome of any pattern of responses--or operants--determines how likely it is that the subject is more likely to perform similar responses again in the future. If a response is positively reinforced (met with favorable consequences), then the subject is more likely to perform it again. The learning to perform the same responses again and again in response to a favorable stimulus or consequence is called operant conditioning.
An Empirical Science
As a result of the fact that perception and report are conceptual, observation cannot be entirely independent of knowledge and belief. However, it should be possible to establish a continuum based on the degree to which knowledge and belief contribute to a data report. For example, Zuriff (1986) uses an example of the obvious difference of two reports describing the same event. The first report was, "Smith ran five miles," whereas the other stated, "Smith unconsciously tried to impress his friends with his running" (p.701). Descriptions that command universal consent from observers are at one end of the continuum whereas those generating much opposition are at the other.Therefore, although behaviorists differ in their theories of behavior and hence in their explanations of scientific research, theorizing, and theory confirmation, they all view science in terms of the behavior of the scientist. Behaviorists generally maintain a consequential doctrine (Hempel & Oppenheim, 1948). However, in the case against consciousness, they set forth methodological arguments rather than ontological ones(Zuriff, 1986 p.698). One of the greatest strengths of behaviorism, according to Marx (1986), is its foundational methodological advantage over all the competing perspectives (p.699).
Cognitive Psychology's Response to the Theories and Claims of Behaviorism
Psychology Is a Science Based on Inference
Although all psychological approaches are based on the study of behavior, they differ in how the behavior is used. The psychodynamic approach, such as in Freud's psychoanalysis, uses behavior as signs, inferring attributes and motives from the observable things the individual does. This differs from Skinner and other behaviorists in that they see the observed behavior as the basic unit, and the interest lies in determining what "controls" it (Mischel, 1993).Growing evidence from several lines of research has altered theoretical perspectives concerning how behavior is acquired and regulated. It has been documented that cognitive processes play a prominent role in the acquisition and retention of new behavior patterns.
Acquisition of response information is a major aspect of learning, as much as human behavior is developed through modeling. Thus, from observing others, one will form a conception of how new behavior patterns are performed, and on following occasions the symbolic construction serves as a guide for action. Consequences serve as an unarticulated way of informing performers what they must do to gain beneficial outcomes and to avoid punishing ones (Bandura, 1977). This assertion seems quite similar to the various theories behind behaviorism. However, Bandura is asserting that all the characteristics that behaviorism assigns to operant conditioning and a simple response to one's environment are in fact cognitive responses. As Bandura (1977) clarifies, "Reinterpretation of antecedent determinants as predictive cues, rather than as controlling stimuli, has shifted the locus of the regulation of behavior from the stimulus to the individual" (p. 192).
Objections to the "Black Box" Theory
It has been argued by most of the psychological community that behavioral theories are not truly explanatory. It is stated that, at best, the "black box" theories provide input-output laws, but do not explain said laws. Only by reference to events inside the "black box" can behavior be explained. Also, the general behavioral laws used in "black box" deductive explanations are simply descriptive of observed regularities. Behaviorists state them as givens rather than as the results of the internal or mental events propitiating them.Behaviorally oriented psychologists, in their attempt to ignore the "black box" of a mind, seem to dehumanize the person by ignoring his or her potential for freedom. In this sense behaviorists negate the entire concept of free will. For, as Boulding (1984) states, "In the case of humans we have a key to opening the black box of our minds in our capacity for reflection and communication. It seems the height of absurdity to dismiss this as 'operant control' of 'vocal musculature'" (p. 483).
Conclusion: Does Behaviorism Maintain its Validity?
The arguments in this article have attempted to outline the theory of behaviorism and the reactions against it from other theorists within the other sub-fields of psychology. In response to the arguments of behaviorism, psychodynamic, social, and cognitive psychologists have all voiced their opposition to the behaviorist theory. These psychologists state that it is too confined to the idea that psychology is the study of only observable behaviors. Therefore, behaviorism is clearly a theory that has strict limitations in the sense that it completely ignores mental events, or hypothetical feelings and consciousness, which occur outside the confined world of behavior.It can be argued that, although behaviorism is limiting, it is also very effective as a basis for investigating other theories. For example, the image processing of cognitive psychology has its base in behavior analysis. The future of psychology as a science depends on how effectively it can use behavioral methodology, instead of focusing on either the philosophical or ideological underpinnings of the behavioristic shape of its theories. Thus, behaviorism is a theory that still has basic applicability in both its theories and methods. However, it needs somewhat of a reconstruction in order to continue to be beneficial to the world of psychology as a great theory of personality (Zuriff, 1986). Such a retooling of the theories would make the considerable capacity of behaviorism's theories more applicable to the world of today, a world more willing to search the inner recesses of the human mind.
References
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191-212.Baum, W. M., & Heath, J. L. (1992). Behavioral explanation and intentional explanations in psychology. American Psychologist, 47, 1312-1317.
Boulding, K. E. (1984). B. F. Skinner: A dissident view. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 7, 483-484.
Broadbent, D. E. (1958). Perception and communication. London: Pergamon.
Burt, C. (1962). The concept of consciousness. British Journal of Psychology, 53, 229-242.
Carlson, N., & Buskist, W. (1997). Psychology: The science of behavior (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Harris, M. (1984). Group and individual effects in selection. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 7, 490-491.
Hempel, C., & Oppenheim, P. (1948). Studies in the logic of explanation. Philosophy of Science, 15, 135-175.
Marx, M. (1986). Neglect of psychology's silent majority makes a molehill out of a mountain: There is more to behaviorism than Hull and Skinner. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 9, 710-711.
Medin, D. L., & Ross, B. H. (1997). Cognitive psychology (4th ed.). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace.
Mischel, W. (1993). Behavioral conceptions. In W. Mischel, Introduction to personality (pp. 295-316). New York: Harcourt Brace.
Overskied, G. (1995). Cognitivist or behaviorist--who can tell the difference? The case of implicit and explicit knowledge. British Journal of Psychology, 86, 517-523.
Ratcliff, R., & McKoon, G. (1989). Similarity information versus relational information: Differences in the time course of retrieval. Cognitive Psychology, 21, 139-155.
Skinner, B. F. (1984). Selection by consequences. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 7, 477-510.
Zuriff, G. E. (1986). Précis of Behaviorism: A conceptual reconstruction. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 9, 687-724.