Psychological Foundations of Behavior

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Structuralism
Functionalism
Behaviorism
Comparison
Conclusion
References

Introduction

The two perspectives of psychology namely structuralism and functionalism are mentalisms which means that the mind is the main issue of every study. On the other hand behaviorism is a theme that suggests that behavior can be explained without necessary referring to the mental activities (Schultz & Schultz, 2008). The three are therefore different in how the mind is viewed. In this paper, both similarities and differences of the three perspectives of psychology will be considered. Both functionalism and structuralism are similar in that they explore the human mind and consider the conscious self.

Structuralism

Structuralism was the first major school of thought in psychology which was founded by Wilhelm Wundt. It focused on the elements of consciousness and broke down mental processes into basic components. “In Wudnt’s view, the mind had the power to organize mental elements voluntarily” (Schultz & Schultz, 2008). Structuralism relied on introspection which had a basic flaw and was the reason why structuralism died in psychology. Behaviorists also criticized structuralism claiming that the theory dealt with internal behavior. They argued that it was non-observable element and could not be measured accurately.

Functionalism

Functionalism was formed as a reaction to structuralism by William James and influences from evolutionary theory of Charles Darwin. Like structuralism, it was concerned with how the mind functions and therefore followed the basic element of introspection. Functionalism studied the mind as buildup of processes and functions that led to practical consequences in the real world (Schultz & Schultz, 2008). In most cases, it emphasized on individual differences which had a great impact in academic arena. However, just like structuralism, functionalism had many disbelievers. This is because it lacked clear definition, and thus led to introduction of behaviorism.

Behaviorism

Behaviorism dealt with “observable behavioral acts that could be described in objective terms” (Schultz & Schultz, 2008). It is a school of psychology that considers behavior as the measure of responses to stimuli without reference to conscious experience. In contrast the structuralism and functionalism, behaviorism is defined as the science of behavior and not the mind. Behaviorism can be illustrated by external stimuli and not necessarily the mental processes. The basis of behavior is the surroundings and not internal stimuli as in structuralism or functionalism.

Comparison

Both functionalism and structuralism have a number of similarities. Both of them have a key interest in mental processes as functionalism was formed due to flaws of structuralism. Moreover, both used introspection in exploring the human mind. Last but not least, both described a great desire for the school of psychology to become scientific one. While the two schools of thoughts had similarities, they also had differences.

As mentioned, functionalism was developed as a reaction against structuralism. It was suggested that processes would be better understood by function rather than the basis structure. Functionalism questioned how and why something happened. On the other hand, structuralism studied about what happened when an organism did something Functionalism dealt on evolutionary theories instead of modeling processes on the combination of mental elements. Breaking away from structuralism and functionalism, behaviorism concentrated on observable behavior influenced by environmental stimuli. This was against the internal mental processes which was against introspection and suggested a more scientific method.

Conclusion

Structuralism did not stand test of the time and it soon died. The practicability was too subjective and therefore would not hold to today’s standards. Functionalism soon disappeared as it lacked exactness required to facilitate its theory. However, despite its disappearance functionalism never died, as it became part of the mainstream psychology later (Schultz & Schultz, 2008).

References

Schultz, D.P. & Schultz, S.E. (2008). A History of Modern Psychology (9th ed.). California: Thomas Wadsworth.

Click Here To Order Now!