PSYC 215 Lecture Notes - Lecture 7: Radical Behaviorism, Relational Frame Theory, Behaviorism

28 views2 pages
Behaviorists also rejected the method of introspection but criticized functionalism because it was
not based on controlled experiments and its theories provided little predictive ability. B.F.
Skinner was a developer of behaviorism. He did not think that considering how the mind affects
behavior was worthwhile, for he considered behavior simply as a learned response to an external
stimulus. Yet, such behaviorist concepts tend to deny the human capacity for random,
unpredictable, sentient decision-making, further blocking the functionalist concept that human
behavior is an active process driven by the individual. Perhaps, a combination of both the
functionalist and behaviorist perspectives provides scientists with the most empirical value], but,
even so, it remains philosophically (and physiologically) difficult to integrate the two concepts
without raising further questions about human behavior. For instance, consider the
interrelationship between three elements: the human environment, the human autonomic nervous
system (our fight or flight muscle responses), and the human somatic nervous system (our
voluntary muscle control). The behaviorist perspective explains a mixture of both types of
muscle behavior, whereas the functionalist perspective resides mostly in the somatic nervous
system. It can be argued that all behavioral origins begin within the nervous system, prompting
all scientists of human behavior to possess basic physiological understandings, something very
well understood by the functionalist founder William James.
Skinner was influential in defining radical behaviorism, a philosophy codifying the basis of his
school of research (named the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, or EAB.) While EAB differs
from other approaches to behavioral research on numerous methodological and theoretical
points, radical behaviorism departs from methodological behaviorism most notably in accepting
feelings, states of mind and introspection as existent and scientifically treatable. This is done by
identifying them as something non-dualistic, and here Skinner takes a divide-and-conquer
approach, with some instances being identified with bodily conditions or behavior, and others
getting a more extended "analysis" in terms of behavior. However, radical behaviorism stops
short of identifying feelings as causes of behavior. Among other points of difference were a
rejection of the reflex as a model of all behavior and a defense of a science of behavior
complementary to but independent of physiology. Radical behaviorism has considerable overlap
with other western philosophical positions such as American pragmatism. Another way of
looking at behaviorism is through the lens of egoism, which is defined to be a causal analysis of
the elements that define human behavior with a strong social component involved.
This essentially philosophical position gained strength from the success of Skinner's early
experimental work with rats and pigeons, summarized in his books The Behavior of
Organisms and Schedules of Reinforcement. Of particular importance was his concept of the
operant response, of which the canonical example was the rat's lever-press. In contrast with the
idea of a physiological or reflex response, an operant is a class of structurally distinct but
functionally equivalent responses. For example, while a rat might press a lever with its left paw
or its right paw or its tail, all of these responses operate on the world in the same way and have a
common consequence. Operants are often thought of as species of responses, where the
individuals differ but the class coheres in its function-shared consequences with operants and
reproductive success with species. This is a clear distinction between Skinner's theory and SR
theory.
Skinner's empirical work expanded on earlier research on trial-and-error learning by researchers
such as Thorndike and Guthrie with both conceptual reformulationsThorndike's notion of a
stimulusresponse "association" or "connection" was abandoned; and methodological onesthe
Unlock document

This preview shows half of the first page of the document.
Unlock all 2 pages and 3 million more documents.

Already have an account? Log in

Document Summary

Behaviorists also rejected the method of introspection but criticized functionalism because it was not based on controlled experiments and its theories provided little predictive ability. He did not think that considering how the mind affects behavior was worthwhile, for he considered behavior simply as a learned response to an external stimulus. Yet, such behaviorist concepts tend to deny the human capacity for random, unpredictable, sentient decision-making, further blocking the functionalist concept that human behavior is an active process driven by the individual. Perhaps, a combination of both the functionalist and behaviorist perspectives provides scientists with the most empirical value], but, even so, it remains philosophically (and physiologically) difficult to integrate the two concepts without raising further questions about human behavior. For instance, consider the interrelationship between three elements: the human environment, the human autonomic nervous system (our fight or flight muscle responses), and the human somatic nervous system (our voluntary muscle control).

Get access

Grade+
$10 USD/m
Billed $120 USD annually
Homework Help
Class Notes
Textbook Notes
40 Verified Answers
Study Guides
Booster Classes
Class+
$8 USD/m
Billed $96 USD annually
Homework Help
Class Notes
Textbook Notes
30 Verified Answers
Study Guides
Booster Classes