“Behaviorism, focal point on variables we can watch, gauge, manipulate; and avoid whatever is slanted, interior, and engaged i.e. mental (1998, C. George Boeree).” Behaviorism is an extremely old theory of character. One of the oldest hypothesis dates back to Rene Descartes. He brings in the idea of matter dualism, and called “the person a machine needy on outside events whose soul was the phantom in the machine (material dualism).” Meaning that what is cerebral, and things that are physical are totally disconnect. Modern behaviorism though modifies this theory in refusing to admit any internal workings of the intelligence. Behaviorist considers that, persons are nothing more than “mediators flanked by behavior and surroundings (Skinner, 1993).”
Because the internal workings or the human intelligence are ignored, adversary to the theory makes a strapping case against it. Behaviorism is incapable to give details human language, and reminiscence. Even though these disapproval point to a failure in this hypothesis. It isn’t deprived of that behaviorism can teach the globe a lot regarding human behaviors.
Theoretical Approach of Watson
Behaviorism as it is known today was founded on the ideas of John B. Watson. Watson claimed that behavior should be examined, rather than describe how the mind was working. He compete that it was possible to state humans and animals. In his well-known study, Watson conditioned a young child named Albert to terror a white rat. He did so by creating a loud noise when Albert strokes the rat. Scared by the loud noise, the child linked the rat to this feeling, and feared the rat the similar way he dread the noise.
Watson’s work was backed by the majority noted behaviorist B.F. Skinner. Skinner’s complete system is based on operant training. “The life form is in the process of operating on the environment (Skinner, 1993).” While operating, the creature encounters a special type of stimulus, called a strengthen stimulus, or just a reinforcer. This particular stimulus has the consequence of rising the behavior occurring just before the reinforcer.
Operant training is: “the behavior is followed by a result, and the nature of the result modifies the organisms’ propensity to repeat the behavior in the future (Behaviorism, 1997).” Skinner ran experiments to prove this by placing a rat in a confine called a Skinner Box. His cage would have a bar or handle on one wall that, when pressed, causes a little instrument to release a foot pellet. The rat would then rebound approximately the cage, doing whatsoever it is rats do, when he by accident presses the bar, a food pellet falls out. No doubt, the operant is the behavior just prior to the reinforcer, which is the foodstuff pellet.
In no time at all, the rat is irately peddling away at the bar. “A behavior followed by a strengthen stimulus results in an increased likelihood of that behavior occurring in the prospect (Stacy Breslau, 2003 ).” What if you don’t give the rat any additional pellets? After a few attempts, the rat will stop pressing the bar. This is called annihilation of the operant behavior. “A behavior no longer goes behind by the reinforcing stimulus results in a reduce likelihood of that behavior occurring in the expectations. (Stacy Breslau, 2003 )”
Now, if you were to turn the pellet machine back on, so that pressing the bar once more provides the rat by means of pellets, the behavior of bar-pushing will “pop” right back into continuation, much additional rapidly than it took for the rat to discover the behavior the first time. This is since the return of the reinforcer takes place in the context of a strengthening history that goes all the way back to the extremely first time the rat was reinforced for approaching on the bar. A question Skinner had to deal by means of was how we get to additional multifaceted sorts of behaviors.
Reference
Charles, C.M. Building Classroom Discipline. Addison Wesley Longman, Inc. New York. 1999.
Behaviorism and cognitive science are essentially used in teaching and learning. However, much of what happens in the traditional classroom in the past was based on the behavioral theories, which dominated American psychology from about 1920 to 1970. Among the key figures of the behaviorist movement was Burrhus Frederic Skinner (1938, 1953, as cited by Hofstetter, 1997), who perceived that “human behavior is powerfully shaped by its consequences”. Skinner bolstered the thought that “psychology was essentially about behavior and that behavior was largely determined by its outcomes”. Despite Skinner’s presumptions that have been proven effective in learning to train animals and helping humans how to modify their behavior, behaviorism was not enough in the actualization of education itself because in order to educate, an educator must do more than modify behavior. The students must be assisted in learning how to develop strategies for their own learning. This is basically the main reason why cognitive science appears to complement the shortcomings of behaviorism.
Main body
According to Drever’s (1964) Dictionary of Psychology, “cognition” is “a general term covering all the various modes of knowing – perceiving, imagining, conceiving, judging, reasoning”. It picks out those forms of abstract thinking and problem solving that are based upon the manipulation of either linguistic symbols (propositions) or iconic symbols (images). Cognitive psychology refers to the attempt to understand these various human faculties by means of systematic empirical observation and theory construction. Its origins lie in research conducted during the 1950s by Donald Broadbent, Jerome Bruner and George Miller (Gardner, 1985), although it was probably first generally acknowledged as a distinctive intellectual development with the publication of Ulric Neisser’s (1967) book, Cognitive Psychology.
The first reason why cognitive science superseded behaviorism is that of its view that fell short in fully explaining mental processes, feelings and learning without conditioning. It is vital when teaching and learning that the focus should center on learning how to learn, in which the orientation is predominantly considered as cognitivist point-of-view (Neisser, 1967).
Another shortcoming of behaviorism was its rejection of theory, embodied in the rejection of mentalism. Mentalism involves the “assignment of theoretical, hypothetical functions to the human — functions that determine and guide observable behavior” (Johnson-Laird 2004, p. 185). The rejection of theoretical mental functions can be related to a characteristic of the American psychological tradition, as expressed in both functionalism and pragmatism–the objection to the abstract, the fancy, and the fictional. Behaviorism was a peculiarly American invention, although with parallels, but not identities, found in Russian psychology.
Thirdly, behaviorism was criticized because of the narrow view of the “outward criteria” needed for “inner processes” in learning (Wittgenstein, 1953 as cited by Koethe, 1996). Behaviorist’s view does not say that familiarity with “what counts as the criterion for anyone’s being in such a state” lacks in the privileged means of determining when a particular person is actually in that state (Koethe, 1996, p. 100). Compared to cognitive psychology, behaviorism prioritizes the inner processes. As cognitive science was stemmed from the field of human factors research that was developed during the Second World War, it can tackle problems concerning human–machine interaction, unlike behaviorism. This work in cognitive psychology led to an interest in the control mechanisms governing intelligent behavior, to the idea of human thought and action as consisting of discrete stages of information processing, and inevitably to the use of the structure and function of the digital computer as a metaphor in theorizing about human cognition (Miller et al., 1960).
Fourth, behaviorist theories derive on producing change in desired direction, rather than develop capacity and skills to learn better. With regards to the locus of learning as to answer “where does learning happen, or what is learning centered around”, the behaviorist point of view perceives that learning happens in response to stimuli. Behaviorists focus on stimuli and the effectiveness of the reinforcements needed to achieve measurable behavioral change. Learning environments based on rewards for increments of desired change, currently used most often with learners who have limited cognitive skills, draw on behavioral theory. However, since behaviorists define learning solely in terms of changed behavior, they intentionally ignore what goes on inside the learner. A typical example would be programmed instruction, or a training session on how to use software. Cognitivists, by comparison, focus almost exclusively on what is happening inside the learner and on preexisting mental models as they affect the possibility of new learning (Ausubel, 1968). By changing these models, or cognitive structures, the cognitivist seeks to enable increasingly effective symbolic processing and problem-solving abilities—cognitivist goals for meaningful learning. For example, an instructor following good cognitivist practice would begin with a carefully structured overview, intending in this way to provide learners with adequate “anchors” for the new knowledge to follow.
Lastly, behaviorism arranges environment to elicit desired response compared to cognitive science, which focus on the structure content of learning activity. In this sense, cognitive psychology explored terrains previously off limits to behaviorism. It stimulated general revisions of behaviorist theories and models and developed different assumptions about the role of cognition in behavior. As Tyler (1981) claims in her assessment, “the period in which we are now living is characterized by major attempts to extend boundaries, assimilate, reorganize, synthesize. Of the many directions this effort is taking, probably the broadest and most significant is the construction of a cognitive psychology”. Thus, the introduction of new cognitive models and approaches do not signal the rise of a new, competing view of human behavior, but it complemented what behaviorism had left off. For example, cognitive psychology reduced behavior to components seen to operate causally in a sequence of discrete processing stages and it also studied behavior objectively from the standpoint of an outsider and isolated it from its social and historical contexts (Gillespie, 1992, p. 9).
Conclusion
Ultimately, cognitive science appears to have complemented behaviorism and played a central role in the growing reassessment of theory and research in learning, education and psychology. Although the behaviorist approach is now largely out of fashion, both in philosophy and psychology, the some of its approaches is not because it is still vital in developing explanations to mental processes. However, the development of cognitive science succeeds more effectively in promoting the relationships between the learner and the environment. This is because central to this relationship is the role of the individual and their experiences, where they can freely invent knowledge through inquiry and experimentation instead of acquiring facts, which are just spoon-fed to them.
References
Ausubel, D. P. (1968). Educational Psychology: A Cognitive View, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Drever, J. (1964). A Dictionary of Psychology, rev. H. Wallerstein, Baltimore: Penguin Books.
Gardner, H. (1985). The Mind’s New Science: A History of the Cognitive Revolution, New York: Basic Books.
Gillespie, D. (1992). The Mind’s We: Contextualism in Cognitive Psychology. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press
Hofstetter, F.T. (1997). Cognitive Versus Behavioral Psychology. In University of Delaware.
Johnson-Laird, P. N. (2004). 8 The History of Mental Models. In Psychology of Reasoning: Theoretical and Historical Perspectives, Manktelow, K. & Chung, M. C. (Eds.) (pp. 179-212). Hove, England: Psychology Press.
Koethe, J. (1996). The Continuity of Wittgenstein’s Thought. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Miller, G.A., Galanter, E. and Pribram, K. H. (1960). Plans and the Structure of Human Behavior, New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Neisser, U. (1967) Cognitive Psychology. New York: Appleton-Century Crofts.
Tyler L. E. ( 1981). “More stately mansions – Psychology extends its boundaries”. Annual Review of Psychology, 32, 1-20.
There are two theories that are profoundly applied in behaviorism that both radical and psychological behaviorism. These two theories are Skinner’s and Staats’s theories, which fall under radical and psychological behaviorism, respectively. These theories suggest that personality comprises of learned behaviors. Skinner’s theory presents the principles concerned with learning, while Staats’s theory provides details concerning the appliance of principles in terms of behaviors to assist in understanding personality. Given that persons come out of learning, Skinner accentuates that behavior ought to transpire, after which reinforcement proceeds.
Repertoires in detail
The behavioral tendency becomes more pronounced with the frequency and urgency in which reinforcements or rewards transpire. According to Staats, the learned behaviors are categorized into language-cognition behaviors, emotional-motivational behavior, and sensory-motor behaviors. Emotional-motivational repertoires are subject to adjustments in controlling nervousness and anger. Language-cognitive repertoire concerns the cognitive.
Preview of the two theories
Individual differences: persons vary in behavior according to their reinforcement histories.
Adaptation and adjustments: people develop goods behaviors and eliminate bad ones through behavioral modifications.
Cognitive processes: observable behavior is a better measure of psychological processes.
Society offers an environment for learning and shapes personality.
Biological processes and development: these influence feedback capabilities and learn the doings that lead to-constructiveness or chastisement.
Overview of Skinner’s theory
Describes conduct influences by either chastisement or reinforcements. Skinner never provided the causes of conduct for the variant personalities. He considered personality as a discipline contaminated with pre-scientific theoretical statements. The approach concentrates on the forecast and control of obvious and apparent behavior. The approach argues that grounds for behavior are external to the person in question. The theorist presents the idea that personality traits cannot be the grounds for behavior, given that inner grounds or reasons engage circular reasoning. Skinner concentrated on apparent behavior and external reasons for behavior. He also accentuated the significance of the management of behavior.
Operant conditioning: behavior is established through environmental upshots dependent on behavior. It also is considered as the choice of behavior through its outcomes.
Rate of responding: is considered to be the number of responses produced in a given period where a variation in this rate is perceived to be the substantiation of learning.
Skinner box is the appliance that offers a controlled environment for assessing learning. The device assisted in the examination and automated recording of the operant responses.
Operant responses: these are behaviors that are liberally generated by a living being.
Responses: is considered the discrete behavior presented by a living creature.
Reinforcement: behavior that is acclimatized to a certain environment ought to be toughened. According to Skinner, the instantaneous short-lived outcomes of behavior are prominent in comparison to the long-lived outcomes of behavior. Consequently, impetuous behavior can transpire if individuals never learn to holdup instant satisfaction.
Positive reinforcement is considered any motivation that toughens the conduct on which it has been presented as the conditional element. There are secondary, as well as, primary reinforcements where the secondary are the learned rewards while the primary reinforcements are the natural aspects.
Negative reinforcements are considered stimuli whose removal seeks to reinforce the behavior. These reinforcements vary from punishments, although both are not disposable and bear dissimilar upshots on behavior.
Reinforcement schedules
Continuous reinforcement
Partial reinforcement
Variable ratio
Fixed interval
Variable interval
The appliance of behavioral techniques
Operant behavior finds appliance in therapy and edification where it is utilized in the creation of design strategies that aim at augmenting preferred behavior and reducing redundant behavior for variant individuals (Staats 305).
Programmed instructions are utilized in education in an attempt to prevent the interruption of the class by uncontrollable students.
Staats theory overview
Staats offered detailed explanations concerning human personality through the transformation of these concepts into behavioral language. This conjecture expounds on individual disparities, psychological examinations, and biological influences. The foundation of human personality is established through learning. He confirms that behavior is upheld through reinforcement. The common interventions are the token-reinforcer and time-out practice. The time-out approach bears an appliance in schools for disrupting students. The children are often taken into time-out rooms.
According to the conjecture, emotional responses offer encouragements that make individuals advance or either avoid these responses in the instances of unconstructive emotions.
Fundamental Behavioral repertoires
Language-cognitive such as speech, thoughts
Emotional- motivational such as reactions to punishment and reward, emotional reactions to societal interactions
Sensory-motor such as feeding, social abilities
Situations
Situations present three dissimilar propositions concerning the behavior, also considered the three-function learning conjecture. According to this conjecture, situations give rise to consequences and attitudes, thus offering reinforcements that can direct a certain behavior for these personalities.
Psychological adjustments
In order for a person to perform effectively concerning adjustments, much learning is necessitated. Individuals with no basics concerning the behavioral repertoire usually exhibit behaviors that are estranged. Behavioral highlighting concerning circumstances of learning implies the significance of prohibition by transforming societal conditions that concentrate on society’s ways of existence.
Personality assessment
Psychological behaviorism reflects on personality tests as imperative in providing relevant information concerning behavioral repertoires. Dissimilar tests offer different assessments to individuals.
Act Frequency Approach (AFA) aims at quantifying personality traits through evaluation of the rate of recurrence of exemplary behaviors.
Conclusion
These two theories enhance individual understanding of personalities by providing detailed information from research conducted on living creatures. These presumptions find appliance in various environments such as school environments.
Reference
Staats, A. W. (1996) Psychological Behaviorism and Personality: A Multilevel Unified Approach from Basic to Applied. New York: Springer.
Psychology is one of the most diverse and interesting fields of study given the numerous developments is has gone through starting in the nineteenth century through the twentieth century and persisted in the twenty first century, now commonly known as modern-day psychology. Of all these developments, Edward Tolman, B.F. Skinner, and John Watson made important contributions to psychology and their different perspectives have found their way into modern-day psychology.
They all studied psychology from the behaviorism perspective and even though they differed on one aspect or the other, their perspectives are rooted on behaviorism. Watson was the father of behaviorism by introducing his perspective; popularly known as, classical behaviorism. Skinner borrowed heavily from Watson but made some alterations here and there as each sought to establish his school of thought.
Tolman holds a different view of behaviorism from that of Watson and Skinner. Deviating from the other schools of thought, behaviorists hold that, “all things which organisms do- including acting, thinking and feeling- can and should be regarded as behaviors” (Mclntyre, 2003). Due to the modification, they made on Watson’s initial behaviorist observations, Tolman, and Skinner form crucial part of neo-behaviorists as exposited in this paper as it compares and contrasts perspectives of these three great psychologists.
John Watson
As aforementioned, Watson was the father of behaviorism. Watson maintained that behavior resulted from motivation; that is, organisms had to be elicited to behave in a given way in response to the elicitation. In his bid to introduce and foster more objective science psychology, Watson claimed that emotions were not intrinsic, people did not just experience emotions; no, emotions were a response to provocation, later defined as stimulus.
His experiments majored on proving behind every behavior, there was a stimulus. The Little Albert experiment was one of Watson’s experiments to prove his claims.
Albert, a son to a laboratory worker would accompany his mother to a laboratory where he would play with reared rats for fun. In Watson’s view, the rats were stimulus to Albert’s playful behavior. Watson observed development of new behavior. The scary sound of hammer falling on a metal bar accompanied the presentation of rats to Albert to elicit his playful behavior. After seven consecutive presentations, Albert would cry every minute he saw the rats even after withdrawal of the scary sound (Watson & Rayner, 1920).
This showed that emotions and behaviors were a product of a stimulus and as Mclntyre (2003) notes, “This fear response ‘generalized’ to a new stimuli: Albert also showed fear (CR) when things (CS) similar to the fuzzy lab rat were presented (e.g., men with beards, dogs, fur coats, Santa Claus masks)”. This was Watson’s approach to behaviorism; behavior was a product of motivation. As aforementioned, his work was referred as classical conditioning and it plays a large part in modern-day psychology with Watson as the founding father.
B.F. Skinner
B.F. Skinner borrowed heavily from Watson’s perspective of behaviorism. Nevertheless, he added to what Watson had established to form the radical behaviorism school of thought. “While a graduate student, he invented the operant conditioning chamber and cumulative recorder, developed the rate of response as a critical dependent variable in psychological research, and developed a powerful, inductive, data-driven method of experimental research” (Mclntyre, 2003).
The operational conditioning gave Skinner prominence in psychology. Skinner theorizes that behavior is product of one’s environment. He integrated the issue of reinforcement in his theory by observing high chances of a given behavior were due to reinforcement. Reinforcement here means rewards whereby, a particular behavior would reoccur if rewarded but fade away in absence of rewards.
Skinner’s idea of reward/reinforcement ties closely to Watson’s idea of motivation hence making them similar. This form of reinforcement is popularly known as operant conditioning in contemporary psychology. Moreover, Goodwin (2005) notes, “bulk of Skinner’s writing was directed at convincing the world that an experimental analysis of behavior is the only hope for the future welfare of the human species” (p. 394), just like Watson.
Skinner differed slightly with Watson in that, “Watson argued against the use of references to mental states, and held that psychology should study behavior directly, holding private events as impossible to study scientifically. Skinner rejected this position conceding the importance of thinking, feelings, and ‘inner behavior’ in his analysis” (Mclntyre, 2003).
Simply put, Skinner holds that everything is behavioral, including emotions, which should be considered in behaviorism. Skinner’s theory has persisted into modern-day psychology with many contemporary psychologists using the operant conditioning extensively in their studies and research work. Controversy still exists as to whether emotions are part of behavior as Skinner indicated.
Edward C. Tolman
Tolman’s psychological perspective differed greatly with that of Watson and Skinner. Mclntyre (2003) posits, “although Tolman firmly behaviorist in his methodology, he was not a radical behaviorist like B.F. Skinner”.
According to Tolman’s observations, learning which would result to a behavior would occur without motivation or rein-forcer contrary to what Watson and Skinner had theorized. Tolman’s observation was; anything learned in one environment would be applicable in another environment, disqualifying Skinner’s views, moreover, he declared that behavior is not necessarily automatic reaction to a stimulus.
Therefore, his perspective became cognitive theory of learning. “He thought of learning as developing from bits of knowledge and cognitions about the environment and how organisms relate to it” (Mclntyre, 2003). Tolman became famous for introducing maze as touchstone research tool. In this experiment,
Tolman ‘trained’ rats to follow given pathways in a maze and observed that the food placed at the end of the maze did not dictate the rat’s learning ability directly, on the contrary this food, “merely influenced the animal’s motivation to complete the maze as quickly and accurately as possible” (Goodwin, 2005, p. 369). This observation differed with Watson and Skinner’s perspectives.
Tolman termed the ability of the rats to follow the maze through learning even without food as latent learning that would be improved in presence of a reward.
Nevertheless, his ideas lacked foundation because, “His research with rats in mazes did not produce much in the way of practical application. His plea for training children to have broad cognitive maps, for instance, gave little explicit guidance to parents…Tolman’s example seemed more like a good illustration of the dangers inherent in extrapolating too far beyond one’s data” (Goodwin, 2005, p. 373).
Tolman insisted behavior resulted from goals set in learning and he lacked sufficient scientific data to qualify his assumptions and observations. Nevertheless, Tolman’s perspective plays key role in modern-day psychology. His cognitive intervening variables link behaviorism to cognitive psychology, an important observation, and field of study in contemporary psychology.
Study of animal cognition in contemporary psychology is hinged on Tolman’s cognitive theory of learning. Therefore, Tolman differed with Watson and Skinner by denouncing the role of reinforcement or motivators in analyzing behavior. Moreover, he preferred to use mentalist variables supported by little or no scientific data. For instance, as aforementioned, his research with rats in maze lacked significant practical application in scientific studies.
Comparison
Watson, Skinner, and Tolman belong to the behaviorism school of thought in psychology. According to these three psychologists, behavior underscores the reason why people do things the way they do them. The only difference comes in giving details and expositing the principles underlying behaviorism.
According to Samelson (1981), these three psychologists agreed, “psychology must be a science, a fundamental principle of science is that its data must come from publicly observable phenomena and what is taken to be the subject matter of psychology, namely consciousness, does not satisfy that principle because it cannot be observed publicly” (p. 406). Therefore, Watson, Skinner, and Tolman agreed on several fundamental issues even though they differed on others.
Conclusion
Behaviorism school of thought in psychology owes its roots to Watson who theorized that behavior is a product of motivation and his perspective is popularly known as classical behaviorism. Skinner borrowed heavily from Watson and introduced operant conditioning, which states that behavior results from reward and environment wherein, continued rewarding of a given behavior would result to its reoccurrence while lack of reward the behavior fades away.
On the other hand, Tolman, though a behaviorist, differed with the reward, environment, and motivation part of behavior. He argued that behavior results from learning and reward and environment has little or no effect. Nevertheless, their differences notwithstanding, Watson, Skinner, and Tolman are founding fathers of behaviorism perspective in psychology, which has found wide application in modern-day psychology.
References List
Goodwin, J. (2005). A History of Modern Psychology. Second Ed. New Jersey; John Wiley & Sons.
Mclntyre, T. (2003). The History of Behaviorism. Web.
Samelson, F. (1981). Struggle for Scientific Authority: The Reception of Watson’s Behaviorism, Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 17, 399-425.
Personality theories enhance the understanding of human behaviors and attempt to explain their origins or causes. In reference to Hiriyappa (2012), many scholars developed personality theories in the 1900’s. Moreover, different scholars modified individual theories over time. While some of the theories are still applied today, others are no longer in use. The aim of the current research is to assess behaviorism and psychoanalytic personality theories.
The research analyzes the similarities and differences between the two theories. In this regard, two major similarities are identified. First, the theories are both deterministic as they seek to establish the causes of certain human behaviors. Secondly, the theories pay regard to the role of experiences in shaping human behavior. The differences lie in the fundamental concepts of the theories and the scientific nature of the investigations undertaken by Sigmund and Skinner in an effort to prove their perspectives. Although the theories have been described as polar opposites, this research reveals some similarities.
Introduction
According to Hiriyappa (2012), personality theories attempt to understand the nature of human beings. There are many theories that have been developed by different scholars to understand human behavior and the motives behind their actions. This essay focuses on the psychoanalytic theory by Sigmund Feud, and behaviorism by Skinner. Patterson and Joseph (2007) explain that John B. Watson initially developed the concept of behaviorism in the early 1900’s.
Later, Skinner modified the theory and focused on the principles of operant behavior. In reference to Skinner (1976), the environment plays a critical role in shaping human behavior, and human beings have specific response tendencies. The theory also recognizes time as an important factor in changing behavioral patterns. On the contrary, psychoanalytic theory notes that personality is determined by various conflicts between the conscious and subconscious mind (Schultz & Schultz, 2013).
Sigmund developed the theory in the 19th century, and it recognizes the presence of inner desires and experiences in life, which shape personalities. Generally, both theories seem to identify varying concepts that are responsible for the differences in personalities among human beings. The aim of the current research is to assess the differences and similarities between behaviorism and psychoanalytic theories.
Similarities
The two approaches are deterministic. This means that Feud and Skinner believed that other factors were responsible for human behavior (either internal or external factors). Specifically, behaviorism tends to focus on the environment as an external factor that affects human behavior. Additionally, Skinner recognized the fact that a negative environment results in negative behavior while a positive environment stimulates positive behavior.
Hiriyappa (2012) notes that behaviorism looks at the effects of consequences in shaping the behavior of human beings. Based on Skinner’s experiments, such consequences encompassed punishment or reinforcement. Consequently, the psychoanalytic theory is based on internal forces in the minds of human beings. These forces are conflicting and determine how people behave. Trimboli, Marshall, and Keenan (2013) note that the id, ego, and the superego are the forces identified by Feud, and are recognized as ‘energy systems’ within the human mind. These forces have been described as conflicting as they have contradicting roles.
Hiriyappa (2012) notes that behaviorism and psychoanalytic theories acknowledge the role of experiences in shaping human behavior. According to Schultz and Schultz (2013), behaviorists believe that past conditioning determines the personalities of humans in the present. Patterson and Joseph (2007) acknowledge that punishments and reinforcements can be used in behavior modification. In his experiment, Skinner was able to study operant behavior in rats.
Despite his efforts to reduce the number of reinforcements, the rats retained the conditioned behavior. Additionally, psychoanalysts believe that experiences are found in the unconscious level and determine behavioral patterns. Trimboli et al. (2013) note that the conscious and preconscious minds, as described by Feud, harbor positive experiences that affect future behaviors. Additionally, the unconscious mind is inaccessible and harbors negative motives, immoral thoughts, and selfishness. In reference to Freud (1997), the images in the unconscious mind present in the form of dreams and mannerisms. In summary, it is clear that experiences determine the future actions of human beings, as explained by both theories.
Differences
In reference to Schultz and Schultz (2013), one of the major differences between the two theories is the source of evidence that the two scholars used to support their arguments. Skinner based all his analyses and perspectives on observable behavior. He performed experiments on both humans and animals in an effort to study the motives behind certain behaviors and responses. One of his most common experiments involved the application of operant conditioning on rats (Skinner, 1976).
The theory appears to be more scientific in comparison to the psychoanalytic perspective. Additionally, the observations in behaviorism focused on measurable responses, physical stimuli, and the interaction between the two factors. Skinner subjected rats to certain stimuli and then observed the effects. As a result of the scientific nature of Skinner’s experiments, behaviorism has played a significant role today in understanding human actions. It is important to note that Skinner did not deny the existence of the role of cognition within the human brain. In his experiments, the findings had to be observable and not mere speculations.
On the contrary, Trimboli et al. (2013) report that psychoanalytic theories are not scientific and seem to be based on mere speculations. Specifically, Feud developed various hypotheses on the preconscious, conscious, and unconscious forces present in the human mind and their role in determining behavior. He never performed any experiments to prove the existence of these forces. In summary, Skinner’s approach is more scientific compared to the psychoanalytic theory. Despite the absence of scientific experiments in the psychoanalytic theory, it formed the basis for further research on the psychodynamic approach that is used in understanding human behavior.
There are differences in the basic concepts of behaviorism and psychoanalysis. According to Hiriyappa (2012), psychoanalysts believe that human mental functions have both conscious and unconscious levels. Moreover, childhood experiences play a role in determining how an individual’s future will be (Freud, 1997). When children are exposed to psychological stress, they are likely to develop negative behaviors in the future.
Positive experiences are likely to trigger the development of positive behavior. Feud’s experiments involved the interpretation of his patient’s problems based on the information that they provided. Specifically, he tried to make the patients aware of the presence of the conscious and unconscious levels in their minds. In the case of patients who were depressed, Feud believed that investigating the unconscious mind would assist them in overcoming their internal conflicts (depression). A psychoanalyst believes that internal forces within the human brain determine a person’s state of mind (Schultz & Schultz, 2013).
On the contrary, behaviorism does not focus on the internal cognitive aspects of the human brain (Hiriyappa, 2012). The focus of behaviorism is based solely on external observable factors within the environment. Moreover, the id, ego, and the superego aspects are absent in behaviorism. According to Trimboli et al. (2013), the id structure was described by Feud as unconscious and requiring prompt gratification. The ego is also unconscious and relies on the id for satisfaction. Lastly, the superego was described by Feud as a conscious and morally upright structure that regulates the id.
The two theories are different based on the systems that are relied upon, to tell the truth. Behaviorism relies on observable evidence in telling the truth, while psychoanalysis relies on the unconscious mind. Schultz and Schultz (2013) note that the notion of truth in psychoanalysis is explained by the events preceding an action. However, behaviorism looks at the present to uncover the truth. In this regard, it is important to note that behaviorists perceive the truth as obvious and argue that the mind cannot unveil the truth, as it is not observable. Psychoanalysts believe that the subconscious mind has the ability to provide evidence that is likely to lead to the truth.
Patterson and Joseph (2007) indicate that the psychoanalytic theory is ambiguous and difficult to prove. Moreover, these authors note that the absence of scientific methods makes the theory weak, as the hypotheses are just mere assumptions. Additionally, Schultz and Schultz (2013) argue that many psychologists are still applying the notion of operant conditioning, as explained by Skinner. The presence of scientific models in proving behaviorism makes the theory sufficient in explaining human behavior and personality. However, this does not mean that Feud’s theory is entirely useless as some of its aspects are still used by psychologists today.
Conclusion
Personality theories are critical in understanding human behavior and the reasons behind certain actions. Hiriyappa (2012) recognizes the presence of many theories that explain human behavior. This paper focuses on behaviorism and psychoanalytic approaches as personality theories. The research reveals that Skinner is well known for his experiments in behaviorism, while Sigmund Feud was one of the scholars responsible for the psychoanalytic theory.
The psychoanalytic theory acknowledges the role of the conscious, preconscious, and subconscious minds in determining behavior, while behaviorism recognizes the role of the environment (Schultz & Schultz, 2013). While the two theories have been described as polar opposites, two major similarities exist between them. First, the theories are deterministic as they try to explain the factors that result in certain behaviors. Second, both theories acknowledge the important role that experiences play in shaping future behaviors.
Various differences exist between the two theories. One of the most recognized differences in the scientific nature of the methods used to prove the fundamental concepts of the theories. Skinner applied scientific methods while Feud based his analyses on mere hypotheses. Another difference is the concepts that explain the two theories. While behaviorism recognizes the role of the environment in determining behavior, psychoanalysis looks at the conscious and subconscious structures within the human mind. In summary, Skinner’s behavioral theory seems to be more acceptable among psychologists today due to its scientific nature in comparison to Feud’s perspective.
References
Freud, S. (1997). The interpretation of dreams. Hertfordshire, England: Wordsworth Editions.
Hiriyappa, B. (2012). Development of personality and its theories. Bloomington, Indiana: Booktago.
Patterson, T. G., & Joseph, S. (2007). Person-Centered personality theory: Support from self-determination theory and positive psychology. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 47(15), 117-139.
Schultz, D. P., & Schultz, S. E. (2013). Theories of personality. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
Skinner, B. F. (1976). About behaviorism. New York: Vintage Books.
Trimboli, F., Marshall, R. L., & Keenan, C. W. (2013). Assessing psychopathology from a structural perspective: A psychodynamic model. Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic, 77(2), 132-160.
Behaviourists state that the observable student’s behaviour can be not only effectively measured but also modified to achieve the desired result. Changes in the environments and tasks, as well as the focus on reinforcers, can guarantee the student’s expected response in a form of the changed behaviour (Ertmer & Newby, 2013, p. 44). This paper aims to demonstrate how this approach can be integrated into the educational setting to change the student’s behaviour.
Set Behavioral Goals
Rad is inclined to make inappropriate comments when other students participate in the discussion, and he does not demonstrate a willingness to answer the teacher’s questions. Rad tries to avoid being asked by a teacher, and he chooses to provide irrelevant comments to interrupt the studying process to make the teacher focus on his behaviour rather than answers. In this context, the observed behaviour seems to be the skill deficit because Rad often does not know how to answer the teacher’s questions and chooses to hide the lack of competence. The desired behaviour for Rad is associated with ceasing the disruptive behaviours and increasing participation in-class activities. Rad is expected to demonstrate the interest in the lesson and provide answers to the teacher’s questions without making irrelevant comments. The student is also expected to cooperate with students effectively.
The behavioural goals determined for Rad are the following ones:
By the end of three months, Rad will listen attentively to the other students’ answers, being able to react to four out of five answers.
By the end of four months, Rad will participate in class discussions and answer the teacher’s questions while respectfully stating his opinion in three out of five cases.
By the end of three months, Rad will increase his cooperation with students while interacting in groups by 30%.
Determined Appropriate Reinforcers
Reinforcers are events or objects that are used by teachers to strengthen the desired behaviour. In this context, positive reinforcement is associated with using phrases, objects, or situations that are pleasant for students, and negative reinforcement is associated with removing unpleasant objects or consequences for students (Athens & Vollmer, 2010, p. 570). In the case of Rad, it is necessary to select reinforcers depending on the expected behaviours and set behavioural goals.
To help Rad to become an attentive listener who reacts to the students’ words without interrupting them, it is necessary to refer to adding points to Rad’s answer for mentioning specific details from the other students’ answers. As a result, Rad will have the opportunity to receive additional points while listening attentively to their classmates. This reinforcer is effective because it is associated with the second reinforcer that influences Rad’s participation in discussions. Rad is expected to answer the teacher’s questions regularly, accurately, and respectfully, and a positive reinforcer is the extension of the free time in the class in 3 minutes for each correct answer provided appropriately. This reinforcer helps the Instructor control the work-and-rest balance concerning Rad’s learning.
The other reinforcer is associated to improve Rad’s cooperation with classmates. Successes in the group’s work will be rewarded with the opportunity to choose the place for the group and rest activities as well as background music and visual aids. This reinforcer is important to make the environment comfortable for Rad to involve him in group activities for successful cooperation.
Selected Procedures for Changing Behavior
To achieve the desired behaviour, the Instructor focused on four main procedures to be implemented in case of Rad. First, it was necessary to demonstrate a specific model to explain how to listen to classmates’ answers, what aspects to note, how to react to their answers, and why such a behavioural model is beneficial for Rad. The model was selected to address the first behavioural goal. Second, to increase Rad’s motivation and address the lack of skills’ development, it was necessary to provide the support and consultation on the lesson activities at the end of the day and encourage the boy to prepare for the next lesson. Third, it was important to make the environment appropriate for cooperation and positive communication, and changes were made in the class to make it more attractive for group activities and interaction with classmates. Finally, more group activities in the form of the game were initiated by the Instructor to increase motivation, reduce stress levels, and improve collaboration.
Implemented Procedures and Recorded Results
The determined procedures were implemented simultaneously for four months. Rad has demonstrated a model of reacting to the classmates’ answers during discussions and informed about possibilities to add points to his answers if he was attentive. Rad stopped making irrelevant comments and focused on the students’ words. Rad was also provided with regular consultations regarding the home and class assignments to increase his confidence and motivation. If Rad participated in discussions and answered questions correctly during the lesson following the consultation, he had additional free time to spend it on playing computer games, walking in the garden, or listening to music. When group activities were planned, Rad was asked about his preferences regarding the setting and used aids. If Rad was working hard during the group activities, his notes were taken into account for planning the next group sessions. Rad demonstrated the willingness to participate in activities having the element of the game. If Rad rejected to cooperate with classmates or interrupted them, his free time was reduced in 3 minutes for each warning as punishment.
Changes in Rad’s behaviours were fixed with the help of Frequency Count to observe possible modifications in Rad’s listening activities; with Checklists to note Rad’s behaviours during the discussion sessions and state his answers, and with Anecdotal Record to note Rad’s behaviours during the group activities. It was found that the number of student’s irrelevant comments decreased by 40%, and he reacted to four out of five statements. The reaction of Rad to the teacher’s notices and questions improved, and he answered three out of five questions correctly and in an appropriate manner. Following Anecdotal Records, the cooperation improved in more than 45% because of the nature of group activities (game).
Evaluation and Revision
The effectiveness of behavioural changes in Rad was assessed with references to the comparison of actual results fixed with records and checklists and expected results. The evaluation indicated that Rad demonstrated changes in the behaviour within the determined period. However, the positive results regarding the changes in cooperative behaviour were mostly associated with the nature of game activities attractive for students. As a result, revisions are necessary to propose the additional strategies that will work to improve cooperation while focusing more on the nature of the interaction between classmates (Bloom, Iwata, Fritz, Roscoe, & Carreau, 2011, p. 20). Although the desired behaviour was achieved and Rad became more attentive and active at the lessons, it was possible to develop more reinforcers for Rad to guarantee flexibility for the Instructor while implementing procedures.
Conclusion
The combination of effective reinforcers and procedures to change the student’s behaviour should be determined with references to the desired behaviour, observable behaviour, and set goals. As a result of these activities, positive outcomes can be expected.
References
Athens, E. S., & Vollmer, T. R. (2010). An investigation of differential reinforcement of alternative behavior without extinction. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 43(4), 569-589.
Bloom, S., Iwata, B., Fritz, J., Roscoe, E., & Carreau, A. (2011). Classroom application of a trial-based functional analysis. Journal of Applied Behavioral Analysis, 44(1), 19-31.
Ertmer, P., & Newby, T. (2013). Behaviorism, Cognitivism, Constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 26(2), 43–71.
Learning is a process that puts together emotional, environmental, and cognitive experiences and influences for enhancing, acquiring, and making changes in one’s values, knowledge, skills, and views. The description of what happens is what constitutes the learning theories. Learning, therefore, has two values which include providing vocabulary and the conceptual framework for interpreting them and places to look for solutions in case of practical problems. This paper seeks to identify and describe two learning theories and the activities involved in the learning process (Tolman, 2000).
The learning theories can be grouped into the following categories: Behaviorism, which focuses on the observable behavior of human beings; cognitive, where learning is seen as a purely neurological and mental process; humanistic, in which emotions and effects have a role in learning; and social which recognizes that humans learn best when involved in group activities. Some of these theories developed from negative reactions of earlier theories while others developed as a result of taking the initial ones to a more sophisticated level. This paper will focus only on two learning theories chosen to aid the learners through the learning activities. That is the behaviorism learning theory and the cognitive learning theory (Jones, 2004).
The rationale for choosing the behaviorism learning theory lies in its foundation and principle of the stimulus-response act. All the behavior exhibited by learners can be explained without considering the state of consciousness. This learning theory is appropriate for learners because it assumes that the learner is passive essentially and only responds to the environmental stimuli. It is a good learning theory, especially where the learner starts from a clean state which is the case of our learners.
In order to ensure that the learning theory is being utilized fully, the tutor must see to it that the behavior of the learners is shaped via positive or negative reinforcement, whichever suits the purpose of learning. Both the negative and positive reinforcement has an increasing ability on the probability that the behavior antecedent will have to occur again.
Positive reinforcement indicates that there is an application of the stimulus while negative reinforcement has an indication of withholding the stimulus. Learning in this case of behaviorism theory is a change in the learner’s behavior. This learning theory is feasible to our learners in that it is built on the effects of the learner’s emotions which form part of great learning (Henle, 2003).
As a tutor, I also chose cognitivism as a learning theory to help our learners in their learning process. The rationale for choosing this learning theory is that it has its basis in the mind of the learner. It argues that the mind of the learner should remain open and understood. In this learning theory, a learner is viewed as one who processes information. The cognitivism learning theory is appropriate to learners because it majorly focuses on the mental activities of the learner.
It opens the learner’s mind. This learning theory is feasible in that it opens the human mind and views it as a valuable thing that is necessary in order to understand the manner in which people learn. So as to ensure the learning theory is utilized fully, the tutor helps the learners to explore their mental processes such as memory, thinking, problem-solving, and knowing. This learning theory is also best for the learners as it views knowledge as a symbolic or just schema of mental constructions. Here, learning is referred to as the change in the schemata of the learner. The cognitivism learning theory uses a metaphor of the mind, which in this case is the computer, where the information comes in, processed, and produces some outcomes (Tolman, 2000).
The activities involved in both the learning theories are similar and are a good example of the application of both theories. Some of the activities involved in these learning theories include the teacher directly involving the learners in the learning process and giving them group assignments as well as individual assignments. In a classroom set up, the teacher would do the following activities to ensure the two learning theories discussed above are utilized fully;
The teacher greets the learners and introduces the topic of study.
The teacher asks the learners what views they have concerning the topic of study and then comments on their opinions.
The teacher involves the learners in the study through group participation and assignments.
The teacher gives the learners class assignments and marks in class for evaluation of the whole lesson.
The teacher finally gives a take-home assignment for further evaluations (Jones, 2004).
In summary, the mentioned activities will be taken as the steps that the tutor will take in order to ensure the learning theories are followed and utilized fully for an effective learning process.
References
Henle, M. (2003). Gestalt Psychology and Therapy. New York: Cengage Learning.
Jones, M. (2004). Pedagogical Seminary. London: Springer.
Tolman, E. (2000). Psychological Review. Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Among the various types of educational theories, behaviorism and constructivism are the most popular with teachers. Behaviorism supports the notion that learning is affected by variations in the environment. Constructivism, on the other hand, sees learning as a way of searching for a particular meaning.
Whereas behaviorism encourages learning from experience, constructivism upholds that learning is a personal initiative. Nevertheless, in the application, the two theories have weaknesses. In view of that, they are appropriate for certain scenarios and cultures and not others. This means that a teacher must apply them carefully if he wants to succeed in teaching. This paper provides a brief analysis of behaviorism and constructivism educational theories.
Skinner and Watson, when developing the behaviorism theory, sought to demonstrate that it is possible to control or predict a behavior (Weegar and Pacis, 2012). This school of thought portrays learning as a way of acquiring new conduct. Accordingly, the environment affects the learning process. A class based on this theory dwells on obtaining facts, concepts, and abilities. A reward system is also an important element of a behaviorist class.
This system aims at motivating students who demonstrate positive learning behaviors. Weegar and Pacis (2012) reaffirm that educationists who use this theory occasionally employ a punishment regime to discourage negative learning behaviors.
The two types of conditioning are the most important elements of this theory (Weegar and Pacis, 2012). When a natural reflex reacts to a stimulus, classic conditioning takes place. An operant conditioning takes place when a stimulus is strengthened. Rewarding a response to a stimulus is a typical example of an operant conditioning.
The constructivism learning theory maintains that the acquisition of knowledge is marred with uncertainty (Jia, 2010). In this theory, students are the cornerstone of the learning process. In this regard, they learn on their own initiative. A teacher’s work is, thus, to motivate and guide the student in constructing knowledge.
According to Jia (2010), people who coined the constructivism theory believed that knowledge is not the final solution to our problems. In fact, it is basically an explanation or an assumption. Therefore, knowledge cannot be directly used to unravel some of the problems affecting mankind. “Most issues have to be analyzed based on the prevailing practical conditions” (Jia, 2010, p.197).
As a philosophy of learning, constructivism dwells on experiences. This means that we acquire knowledge by adjusting our minds to changes in the universe. In addition, this theory allows teachers to give students a chance to demonstrate their capability in dealing with issues arising from the learning process.
Behaviorism and constructivism theories originate from different philosophical ideas. Proponents of behaviorism theory believe that all students learn the same thing If environmental influences are right (Weegar and Pacis, 2012). To them, if prevailing conditions remain favorable, anybody can learn. In contrast, constructivists uphold that a learner constructs his own knowledge. Consequently, a student must develop his own understanding of education material.
Unlike behaviorism, this theory does not disregard mental activities as it considers individual capabilities. A constructivist is, thus, interested in a student’s ability to derive meaning while a behaviorist lays emphasis on how the content and environment will influence learning. Moreover, teachers indicate the relevance and usefulness of what people are learning through constructivism. Conversely, a behaviorist setup is designed in a way that allows people to learn from experience.
Individualism and constructivism theories have some weaknesses. Nonetheless, the severity of these weaknesses depends on their application. For instance, behaviorism is widely applied in areas where collective action is valued. Constructivism, in contrary, fits scenarios where individualism is preferred over collectivism. Behaviorism theory does not appreciate the influence a student has over his behavior.
Different individuals have different capabilities. For that reason, they must be given an opportunity to nurture their abilities. Behaviorism does not guarantee this. Although constructivism ensures that a person’s capability is utilized to the maximum, it does not consider the influence of the environment on an individual.
Nature is endowed with a number of choices and preferences aimed at meeting our needs. Nonetheless, the extent to which an individual adapts to his environment dictates whether these needs will be met or not. Constructivism, hence, denies a person a chance to interact with his surroundings.
The most widely applied educational theories are behaviorism and constructivism. Behaviorism theory states that learning occurs after a behavior undergoes a noticeable transformation. In most cases, this change is brought about by variations in the environment. Alternatively, the guiding principle of the theory of constructivism is that we learn in order to pursue certain meanings (Jia, 2010).
In addition, meaning calls for a student to understand the elements involved in learning. For a teacher to succeed, she needs to comprehend a student’s attitude. On the other hand, a student should not memorize, but generate her own meaning or analyze other people’s meaning. It is work noting that constructivism and behaviorism are applied in different settings. Accordingly, educationist must utilize them in situations that generate the right outcome.