The behaviourist approach developed over a number of years and was influenced by a number of pioneering thinkers and scientists/psychologists. I have seen 1913 mentioned as a ‘birth date’ for the approach, however, Pavlov’s work on dogs which was to become crucial to the perspective started many years earlier.
Behaviourism developed largely out of dissatisfaction with the psychodynamic approach and earlier theories of consciousness. Freud had set out to create a scientific study of the mind but his methods and resulting theory were most unscientific. His methods relied on introspection and subjective interpretation by analysts, his theory was based on hypothetical constructs and non-testable or verifiable ideas.
John Watson (he of Watson & Raynor fame and Little Albert) wanted a theory of behaviour that was testable. The problem was in the early decades of the twentieth century there was no way of recording brain activity let alone mental processes. Result … ignore the workings of the brain, treat it as a black box, receiving information from the environment (stimulus) and creating a reaction (response). At its simplest behaviourist psychology is simply that: stimulus-response (S-R) psychology.
Watson built his theory on the earlier work of others, most notably Ivan Pavlov and Edward Thorndike.
Pavlov’s work on the digestive system of dogs in the late nineteenth century had given rise to one way of learning, classical conditioning. Edward Thorndike’s work on observation of learning in various species had led to his “Law of Effect.” He claimed that animals learn by trial and error. A successful outcome (reinforcement) will result in that behaviour being repeated whereas a negative outcome (punishment) will result in that behaviour becoming extinct. This formed the basis of Skinner’s later work on operant conditioning.
John Watson himself coined the term ‘behaviourism’ in 1913, though being American he spelt it incorrectly (behaviorism)!
Classical and operant conditioning were there at the birth of behaviourism and were later joined by their younger bastard brother (or sister) social learning theory.
Behaviourists therefore believe that we are a product of our environment. At birth we are a ‘tabula rasa’ or blank slate. Our genetic make-up is largely ignored. Our personality, intelligence, achievements and behaviour are shaped by the environment in which we are reared. Behaviourism is therefore at the extreme nurture of the nature-nurture debate. However, like the psychodynamic theory it is determinist, seeing our outcomes as under the control of our environment rather than of our unconscious minds.
Classical conditioning
Pavlov noticed that his dogs would start to salivate when they heard the footsteps of the research assistant who they knew was going to feed them. Pavlov realised that the dogs had learned to associate food with the footsteps and wondered if this association would extend to other things, most famously the ringing of a bell.
Behaviourism developed largely out of dissatisfaction with the psychodynamic approach and earlier theories of consciousness. Freud had set out to create a scientific study of the mind but his methods and resulting theory were most unscientific. His methods relied on introspection and subjective interpretation by analysts, his theory was based on hypothetical constructs and non-testable or verifiable ideas.
John Watson (he of Watson & Raynor fame and Little Albert) wanted a theory of behaviour that was testable. The problem was in the early decades of the twentieth century there was no way of recording brain activity let alone mental processes. Result … ignore the workings of the brain, treat it as a black box, receiving information from the environment (stimulus) and creating a reaction (response). At its simplest behaviourist psychology is simply that: stimulus-response (S-R) psychology.
Watson built his theory on the earlier work of others, most notably Ivan Pavlov and Edward Thorndike.
Pavlov’s work on the digestive system of dogs in the late nineteenth century had given rise to one way of learning, classical conditioning. Edward Thorndike’s work on observation of learning in various species had led to his “Law of Effect.” He claimed that animals learn by trial and error. A successful outcome (reinforcement) will result in that behaviour being repeated whereas a negative outcome (punishment) will result in that behaviour becoming extinct. This formed the basis of Skinner’s later work on operant conditioning.
John Watson himself coined the term ‘behaviourism’ in 1913, though being American he spelt it incorrectly (behaviorism)!
Classical and operant conditioning were there at the birth of behaviourism and were later joined by their younger bastard brother (or sister) social learning theory.
Behaviourists therefore believe that we are a product of our environment. At birth we are a ‘tabula rasa’ or blank slate. Our genetic make-up is largely ignored. Our personality, intelligence, achievements and behaviour are shaped by the environment in which we are reared. Behaviourism is therefore at the extreme nurture of the nature-nurture debate. However, like the psychodynamic theory it is determinist, seeing our outcomes as under the control of our environment rather than of our unconscious minds.
Classical conditioning
Pavlov noticed that his dogs would start to salivate when they heard the footsteps of the research assistant who they knew was going to feed them. Pavlov realised that the dogs had learned to associate food with the footsteps and wondered if this association would extend to other things, most famously the ringing of a bell.
Although the terminology seems daunting, if you just remember that conditioning refers to learning it helps. The unconditioned response is one that does not require learning, such as a reflex. You do not learn to salivate to food it happens naturally from birth. In the case of Little Albert, the unconditioned stimulus is being frightened by a loud noise.
A conditioned response on the other hand needs to be learned, such as salivating to the sound of a bell or being frightened of white rats.
A conditioned response on the other hand needs to be learned, such as salivating to the sound of a bell or being frightened of white rats.
|
|
The cruelty of Pavlov
Despite the jokes, ‘that rings a bell’ etc. and Pavlov’s fluffy image as a man that made his dogs salivate to the sound of a bell, his research was quite unpleasant. The dogs were clearly mistreated and fitted with surgically fitted catheters to collect every drop of saliva. In follow up studies, children were also used as the picture to the left illustrates. |
Operant conditioning
Edward Thorndike ‘founded’ this form of learning when in 1911 he described his so called ‘law of effect.’ Working on a variety of species he reported that a behaviour followed by favourable consequences would cause the behaviour to be repeated whereas one followed by negative consequences would result in the behaviour being less likely in future.
However, it was BF (Burrhus Frederick) Skinner that popularised operant conditioning through research carried out on rats and pigeons in his Skinner boxes.
Students are often confused about the difference between these two forms of conditioning.
To discover the precise effect of reinforcement and punishments on behaviour Skinner would observe animals in laboratory conditions where environments could be tightly controlled.
Edward Thorndike ‘founded’ this form of learning when in 1911 he described his so called ‘law of effect.’ Working on a variety of species he reported that a behaviour followed by favourable consequences would cause the behaviour to be repeated whereas one followed by negative consequences would result in the behaviour being less likely in future.
However, it was BF (Burrhus Frederick) Skinner that popularised operant conditioning through research carried out on rats and pigeons in his Skinner boxes.
Students are often confused about the difference between these two forms of conditioning.
- Classical conditioning is simply the association of two events that occur together, bell and food, rat and loud noise etc., which then results in a response being transferred from one to the other, e.g. fear, salivation. The response is often an automatic one such as a reflex.
- Operant conditioning requires that a behaviour be performed and the consequences of this, punishment or reward, determine whether that behaviour will be repeated in future. ‘Operant’ since the animal/person operates on the environment and then faces the consequences, positive or negative.
To discover the precise effect of reinforcement and punishments on behaviour Skinner would observe animals in laboratory conditions where environments could be tightly controlled.
|
Other behaviourist phenomena: Extinction This refers to the cessation of the behaviour or the association. In classical conditioning if Pavlov failed to ring the bell when the food was presented or in operant conditioning if Skinner stops feeding the rat when it presses the lever. Higher order conditioning. Best explained using Pavlov’s dogs as an example. Pavlov trained his dogs to salivate to a bell by pairing it with food. He then paired the bell with a light, eventually resulting in the dogs salivating to the light….even though it had never been paired with food. In human terms most of our associations are probably higher order, for example our association of money with pleasure. Money has no intrinsic pleasure-giving value, but it can be exchanged for all manner of things that do. |
|
Reinforcement and Punishment
Reinforcement: anything that increases the chances of the behaviour that preceded it being performed in future.
Primary reinforcers are ones that satisfy a biological need, for example food, drink, sex.
Secondary reinforcers are reinforcers that we have come to associate with primary reinforcers.
Other secondary reinforcers would include smiles, compliments, gifts etc.
Secondary reinforcers are every bit as powerful as primary reinforcers.
Reinforcement can be negative!
However, this does not mean it is bad! A negative reinforcer is something that takes away an unpleasant consequence so still results in the behaviour being more likely in future. For example, taking an aspirin that takes away a headache. The removal of the unpleasant headache makes the behaviour that preceded it, taking an aspirin, more likely in future. Other negative reinforcers would include parole, escape from danger etc.
Punishment can also be positive or negative in the same senses of the words as used for reinforcement. A positive punishment is one that causes pain or unpleasantness, a negative punisher is one that takes away something pleasant such as loss of pocket money, being grounded, being dumped, a drop in pay etc.
Operant conditioning is good for explaining how behaviours can be maintained or increased, for example climbing higher and higher mountains, losing more and more weight, getting more tattoos, driving faster and more recklessly, wanting bigger houses, more possessions etc. As we’ll see with schedules of reinforcement, gambling behaviour lends itself perfectly to operant explanations.
Schedules of reinforcement (extension)
Continuous schedule
So far we have assumed continuous reinforcement in which every behaviour is followed by a reward, for example giving the rat food each time it presses a lever. However, this has problems. Firstly, the rat will soon become sated (full), so less motivate to press the lever. Secondly, as soon as the reinforcement stops the rat will stop pressing the lever. In human terms drinks machines operate on a continuous schedule. Every behaviour, inserting money should be reinforced with a drink. If on one trial the reinforcement fails (no drink) the behaviour (putting in money) becomes extinguished.
Other schedules can be based on time (interval) or number of behaviours performed (ratio).
Interval schedules
A behaviour may be rewarded every 5 minutes providing the behaviour has occurred in that time. This is called fixed interval. Payment at the end of the month would be a human example. Alternatively, reward may be on a variable interval schedule. Reward may be after 5 minutes, or sometimes 15, perhaps sometimes 2 minutes etc. This is less predictable and leads to slower extinction. If after 5 minutes there is no reward the animal keeps pressing. Perhaps reward may be after 25 minutes this time.
Ratio schedules
Time is no longer an issue. In rat terms reward occurs after so many presses. This may be every 10 presses (fixed interval) or it may be variable ratio.
Variable ratio
This is the most unpredictable of all patterns of reinforcement. Some times the rat will be reinforced after 20 presses, sometimes 200 etc. This shows the slowest of all extinction rates, the rat may go on pressing the lever hundreds of times without receiving any food. No surprises therefore that fruit machines and other forms of gambling are based on this schedule. The victim has no idea when the next payout will be, but continues putting in money long after the rewards have stopped.
All forms of praise for weight loss, body art, fast driving etc. are based on this schedule, ensuring that behaviour is maintained long after the reinforcement ceases.
Evaluation of the behaviourist approach
The behaviourist approach is officially over one hundred years old. It clearly provides an influential perspective on human and on animal behaviour.
It offers a scientific method of explaining human behaviour, arising as it did, from dissatisfaction with the psychodynamic approach. Its ideas are testable since it only considers the observable aspects of human behaviour (stimuli and responses).
In practical terms it has provided many useful applications. It is difficult to imagine a modern day school without rewards such as credits or stars for good behaviour, and punishments such as detentions and exclusions for poor behaviour. Similar methods, such as token economy, are used in prisons and psychiatric institutions. Guide and sniffer dogs are trained using operant conditioning, as are sea lions and dolphins in safari parks and zoos. Classical conditioning has been used to develop a variety of methods for treating phobias.
As well as explaining behaviour, the approach can at times be used to predict behaviour… the true test of a scientific theory.
However, the approach has its limitations:
It fails to consider any biological factors in determining our behaviour, for example genes or brain chemistry, when it is clear from studies and drug treatments that these do play a part.
Behaviourism is probably the most reductionist of all approaches. It takes very complex behaviours and attempts the simplest of all explanations; that they are due to associations or patterns of reinforcement. Hard behaviourists still refuse to accept the importance of cognitive factors such as memory, emotion and feelings in determining behaviour. Today most behaviourists do now recognise the relevance of such factors and cognitive behaviourists are increasingly common.
Behaviourists are deterministic in that they believe we have little or no real control over our actions. To be fair of course, most of the other approaches we look at are also deterministic! Behaviourists believe we are simply the product of our environment. From an ethical point of view this may have its benefits since it suggests that a person should not be blamed for their abnormal behaviour.
Whilst on ethical grounds, behaviourists, particularly the late BF Skinner, have been criticised for theories that can be used to control or shape people’s behaviour.
Finally, the approach does struggle to explain novel behaviours. Operant conditioning for example, requires that a behaviour be performed before reinforcement or punishment can occur. Behaviourists get round this one by suggesting that what appear to be novel behaviours are simply combinations of previous behaviours.
Reinforcement: anything that increases the chances of the behaviour that preceded it being performed in future.
Primary reinforcers are ones that satisfy a biological need, for example food, drink, sex.
Secondary reinforcers are reinforcers that we have come to associate with primary reinforcers.
- Money: will buy us primary reinforcers
- Promotion: will get us more money so we can buy primary reinforcers
- Exam success: will help us get promotion so we have more money…
Other secondary reinforcers would include smiles, compliments, gifts etc.
Secondary reinforcers are every bit as powerful as primary reinforcers.
Reinforcement can be negative!
However, this does not mean it is bad! A negative reinforcer is something that takes away an unpleasant consequence so still results in the behaviour being more likely in future. For example, taking an aspirin that takes away a headache. The removal of the unpleasant headache makes the behaviour that preceded it, taking an aspirin, more likely in future. Other negative reinforcers would include parole, escape from danger etc.
- Punishment: an outcome that decreases the probability that the behaviour that preceded it would be repeated in future.
- Primary punishers are ones that cause biological unpleasantness such as pain, extreme heat or cold.
- Secondary punishers are ones associated with these, such as being criticised, a frown or dirty look etc.
Punishment can also be positive or negative in the same senses of the words as used for reinforcement. A positive punishment is one that causes pain or unpleasantness, a negative punisher is one that takes away something pleasant such as loss of pocket money, being grounded, being dumped, a drop in pay etc.
Operant conditioning is good for explaining how behaviours can be maintained or increased, for example climbing higher and higher mountains, losing more and more weight, getting more tattoos, driving faster and more recklessly, wanting bigger houses, more possessions etc. As we’ll see with schedules of reinforcement, gambling behaviour lends itself perfectly to operant explanations.
Schedules of reinforcement (extension)
Continuous schedule
So far we have assumed continuous reinforcement in which every behaviour is followed by a reward, for example giving the rat food each time it presses a lever. However, this has problems. Firstly, the rat will soon become sated (full), so less motivate to press the lever. Secondly, as soon as the reinforcement stops the rat will stop pressing the lever. In human terms drinks machines operate on a continuous schedule. Every behaviour, inserting money should be reinforced with a drink. If on one trial the reinforcement fails (no drink) the behaviour (putting in money) becomes extinguished.
Other schedules can be based on time (interval) or number of behaviours performed (ratio).
Interval schedules
A behaviour may be rewarded every 5 minutes providing the behaviour has occurred in that time. This is called fixed interval. Payment at the end of the month would be a human example. Alternatively, reward may be on a variable interval schedule. Reward may be after 5 minutes, or sometimes 15, perhaps sometimes 2 minutes etc. This is less predictable and leads to slower extinction. If after 5 minutes there is no reward the animal keeps pressing. Perhaps reward may be after 25 minutes this time.
Ratio schedules
Time is no longer an issue. In rat terms reward occurs after so many presses. This may be every 10 presses (fixed interval) or it may be variable ratio.
Variable ratio
This is the most unpredictable of all patterns of reinforcement. Some times the rat will be reinforced after 20 presses, sometimes 200 etc. This shows the slowest of all extinction rates, the rat may go on pressing the lever hundreds of times without receiving any food. No surprises therefore that fruit machines and other forms of gambling are based on this schedule. The victim has no idea when the next payout will be, but continues putting in money long after the rewards have stopped.
All forms of praise for weight loss, body art, fast driving etc. are based on this schedule, ensuring that behaviour is maintained long after the reinforcement ceases.
Evaluation of the behaviourist approach
The behaviourist approach is officially over one hundred years old. It clearly provides an influential perspective on human and on animal behaviour.
It offers a scientific method of explaining human behaviour, arising as it did, from dissatisfaction with the psychodynamic approach. Its ideas are testable since it only considers the observable aspects of human behaviour (stimuli and responses).
In practical terms it has provided many useful applications. It is difficult to imagine a modern day school without rewards such as credits or stars for good behaviour, and punishments such as detentions and exclusions for poor behaviour. Similar methods, such as token economy, are used in prisons and psychiatric institutions. Guide and sniffer dogs are trained using operant conditioning, as are sea lions and dolphins in safari parks and zoos. Classical conditioning has been used to develop a variety of methods for treating phobias.
As well as explaining behaviour, the approach can at times be used to predict behaviour… the true test of a scientific theory.
However, the approach has its limitations:
It fails to consider any biological factors in determining our behaviour, for example genes or brain chemistry, when it is clear from studies and drug treatments that these do play a part.
Behaviourism is probably the most reductionist of all approaches. It takes very complex behaviours and attempts the simplest of all explanations; that they are due to associations or patterns of reinforcement. Hard behaviourists still refuse to accept the importance of cognitive factors such as memory, emotion and feelings in determining behaviour. Today most behaviourists do now recognise the relevance of such factors and cognitive behaviourists are increasingly common.
Behaviourists are deterministic in that they believe we have little or no real control over our actions. To be fair of course, most of the other approaches we look at are also deterministic! Behaviourists believe we are simply the product of our environment. From an ethical point of view this may have its benefits since it suggests that a person should not be blamed for their abnormal behaviour.
Whilst on ethical grounds, behaviourists, particularly the late BF Skinner, have been criticised for theories that can be used to control or shape people’s behaviour.
Finally, the approach does struggle to explain novel behaviours. Operant conditioning for example, requires that a behaviour be performed before reinforcement or punishment can occur. Behaviourists get round this one by suggesting that what appear to be novel behaviours are simply combinations of previous behaviours.
Social Learning Theory (SLT)
SLT burst onto the scene in the early 1960s, half a century after Watson and co had established behaviourism as a major force in psychology. Being the new kid on the block it is sometimes referred to as neo-behaviourist.
The founding father was Albert Bandura who believed that we learn by imitating others and that learning takes place in a social context.
Vicarious Reinforcement
A concept crucial to SLT. Briefly stated, imitation is most effective when the person we are observing is seen to benefit from their actions. We therefore not only observe the behaviour per se, but importantly note the consequences of that behaviour.
SLT burst onto the scene in the early 1960s, half a century after Watson and co had established behaviourism as a major force in psychology. Being the new kid on the block it is sometimes referred to as neo-behaviourist.
The founding father was Albert Bandura who believed that we learn by imitating others and that learning takes place in a social context.
Vicarious Reinforcement
A concept crucial to SLT. Briefly stated, imitation is most effective when the person we are observing is seen to benefit from their actions. We therefore not only observe the behaviour per se, but importantly note the consequences of that behaviour.
|
Albert Bandura and the Bobo doll (1961)
Bandura carried out a range of procedures to test his hypothesis that a child would copy an aggressive act carried out by an adult. The basic procedure involved an adult and a child in a room with a range of toys. One of these was a five foot inflatable bobo doll that would self-right if it was knocked over. On some of the trials the adult would attack the doll with a blue plastic mallet for ten minutes. Bandura found that children who had witnessed the attack were far more likely to repeat the aggressive act later, if given the opportunity. He also found, as predicted, that boys were four times more likely to show this aggression than girls. |
