One of the most scientifically robust theories in psychology is behaviorism, but it has a huge marketing problem.
One thing that all behaviorists agree on is that a science of behavior is possible. The behavior of humans and other animals can be described, explained and adjusted, just as chemists describe, explain and adjust reactions. "Radical behaviorism" is the variant proposed by B. F. Skinner, even states that a science of behavior can be a natural science. Pretty radical indeed, given that psychology is usually considered a "social science". However, Skinner's work has shown that this is indeed possible if you work within a few fixed boundaries:
Behaviorism gets a bad rap. It is criticized for being simplistic, mechanistic, treating people like pigeons in an operant conditioning chamber. Let's look at some of the more serious misunderstandings.
A persistent myth about behaviorism is that it ignores biological influences on behavior. That's not true though: it is just not interested in these factors, but in causes of behavior that can be controlled. After conception, we currently don't have many ways to influence the genetic causes of behavior.
Accepting these non-environmental influences does not mean that we should default to explaining behavior with biology. In many cases, we might just not have discovered the way a behavior is learned yet. Relying on innate causes as a default is a dangerous avenue because it leads to "final solutions" pretty quickly. But we will get to that later.
Because radical behaviorism is so focused on modifiable behavior, it is often concluded that behaviorists believe that all behavior can be conditioned. However, that is incompatible with acknowledging genetic and biological influences.
Behaviorists are said to disregard thoughts, emotions, motivation, the free will, and other things we can classify as "internal states". In fact, John B. Watson, who first established behaviorism, rejected the study of internal states completely. Instead, he held that behavior can be explained entirely by stimulus-response relationships while it is safe to ignore internal states. Radical behaviorists like Skinner, however, were more nuanced about that. Skinner argued that internal states exist and can be studied just like any other form of behavior. He did just not see them as valid root causes of behavior. Psychological theories that do this have been accused by Skinner of “mentalism” and internal states as root causes he labelled "explanatory fictions". Sigmund Freud's proposal of the Id, super ego and ego pass for that: their "dynamics" are said to cause behavior in psychoanalysis. Skinner disagreed and criticized the heavy emphasis on speculative inner processes at the cost of systematically describing root causes.
A classic example of mentalism is that of eating. "I eat something because I am hungry" would, according to Skinner, be a case of mentalism. To him, this phrase merely labels an internal state without explaining anything that actually influences the person's behavior. Instead, he would have argued, it is the food deprivation that caused the internal state of hunger. In other cases, eating can of course be explained by social cues in the environment (observing that colleagues go for lunch) or a specific learning history (having learned that eating reduces tension after periods of stress). Internal states are not immediately available for scientific study because they cannot be observed directly.
Skinner's scientific approach was based on the assumption that every individual is unique. This was reflected in his methodology. In contrast to many of his colleagues, he rejected group-level studies. His experiments involved single subjects in highly controlled environments anr the results were reported as individual records, not averages. Except for counting, Skinner rejected statistics.
For a contemporary psychologist, statistics is a huge part of the syllabus and I would not agree with Skinner that it is useless altogether. Still, I think that focusing individuals, rejecting mentalist explanations and studying observable behavior has strong advantages.
Noam Chomsky was one of the most famous critics of Skinner's work. He went as far as stating that "behaviorism is associated with manipulative political philosophies" - by which he supposedly meant fascism.
Anyone who knows a thing or two about fascism knows that an important assumption it holds is that people are different due to innate differences on the genetic and biological level. Most of them - even today - propose genetic programs like "eugenics" to "improve" their preferred group and pay little attention to environmental influences. They usually also propose some mix of segregation, deportation and genocide with the ultimate goal to keep their preferred group "pure", so that, in the end, will behave according to the fascist ideal.
When you believe that behavior is innate, you can't think of anything else to do but a final solution which involves a concentration camp.
(B. F. Skinner)
If your main assumption is that behavior can be changed and is largely due to environmental einfluences, this implies that changing and improving the environment is the way to go.
This is reflected by Skinner's comments on societal developments. For example, he criticized modern education because it tried to make all students learn at equal rates. Individuals vary in their learning rates and he strongly advised that everyone needs to advance at the same rate. Nowadays, this might sound like a truism for people from most western countries, but this was different a couple of decades ago.
While he acknowledged that punishment is the most common technique to control the behavior of others, he was not a fan of punishment. Also "control" sounds scary, like a toxic boyfriend trying to control his partner. Its technical meaning in the context of behaviorism, it means influencing behavior by altering the environment. Controlling behavior is possible by only using rewards and extinction, without resorting to punishment.
In "Science and Human Behavior", he concluded that punishment has too many unwanted, harmful consequences and that all possible alternatives should be exploited instead of punishment. In his chapter about psychotherapy he stated that most "mental disorders" psychotherapy treats are consequences of punishment.
These are the most important technical terms of behaviorism.
A consequence that increases the likelihood of a behavior occurring again. It can be positive (something pleasant) or negative (removing something unpleasant).
A consequence that decreases the likelihood of a behavior happening again. It can be positive (something unpleasant) or negative (removing something pleasant).
Stimulus control: a behavior is more likely in the presence of certain environmental cues. For example, only checking your smartphone when it buzzes.
A cue signaling that a reinforcement will happen after a specific response.
A previously reinforced behavior decreases in frequency when the reinforcement stops.
The rules governing reinforcements. For example, reinforcements can be fixed (i.e., occur every time a certain behavior occurs), or variable (not occur every time). Also the intervals can be fixed (reward occurs every two times the behavior is shown) or variable (intervals between rewards vary). For example, a slot machine produces wins at variable intervals (which makes them very addictive).
Gradually teaching a new behavior by breaking it down in steps and reinforcing these steps. For example, to teach a dog to fetch a stick, reward him for looking at the stick, then touching it, then picking it up, etc.
A learned beahvior occurs in new but similar situations. A child that learned to say "thank you" when getting a sweet might also say "thank you" when getting a new toy.
A relationship between a behavior and its consequences (like reward or punishment).
Any condition, event or factor that can influence behavior and can change. For example, the frequency or timing of reinforcement, environmental cues, or even the physical state of a person. Skinner used this term to emphasize that behavior is not random or a matter of "free will", but is shaped by measurable factors. Variables, when manipulated, can help us understand or change behavior.
=> Back This content has been proxied by September (3851b).Proxy Information
text/gemini