Behaviorism - as a pedagogical concept article on the topic

Greetings, friends!

Behaviorism appeared almost simultaneously with modern psychology at the beginning of the 20th century and today is one of its main directions. Initially, it was a purely theoretical science that studied the behavioral characteristics of humans and animals, but later it became obvious that it was also useful as an applied science. His achievements are used in almost all spheres of human activity - from raising children to politics and economics. Today we will talk about the main ideas of behaviorism, the history of its development and its place in modern psychology.

What is behaviorism?

Behaviorism is a scientific direction in psychology that studies the behavior of people and animals. It is based on the assumption that our behavior is determined primarily by a reaction to external events, both current and deposited in our memories. At the first stages of its formation, behaviorism was guided by the postulates of Ivan Pavlov, known for his work on the study of reflexes in animals and humans.

This term is directly borrowed from the English language, in which the word behaviorism comes from the word behavior.

Early ideas of behaviorism were voiced back at the end of the 19th century, but its concept was first formulated in 1913 by the American psychologist John Brodes Watson (1878 - 1958), who is considered the founder of this movement.

It is important to understand that at that time psychology was a young science, which not everyone accepted, considering its postulates too dubious for a scientific discipline. Watson sought to find principles that would transform psychology into a more precise science based on objective research.

Key principles of behaviorism

To better understand what behaviorism is, let us formulate the main theses that clearly define it and indicate its place in modern psychology:

1. The main object of study of behaviorism is behavior and reactions to external stimuli (both in humans and animals).
2. The main tool for collecting information is observation.
3. Behavior determines the entire life activity of a living being.
4. Behavior in behaviorism is always viewed as a reaction to some external motivating factors.
5. Knowing what stimuli are present, one can fairly accurately predict the response.
6. The fundamental goal of behaviorism is to predict the reaction of an individual to circumstances and events.
7. All types of reactions are either inherited (unconditioned reflexes) or acquired (conditioned reflexes).

History of development

As we have already said, the American psychologist John Watson is considered the founder of behaviorism. He sought to make psychology a more accurate and objective science, studying the properties of the psyche using strict scientific methods. In doing so, he was guided by the work of Ivan Pavlov , who can be considered the predecessor of the theory of behaviorism. It was his studies of conditioned and unconditioned reflexes that formed the basis of this direction.

Watson voiced the fundamental idea of ​​behaviorism: a stimulus provokes a response. Thus, the behavior of each person always depends on external stimuli and how he perceives them. He was confident that his teaching in the future would make every person useful to society and in demand, regardless of innate talents and basic prerequisites.

Subsequently, the baton was picked up by the American psychologist Burres Skinner, who became the main popularizer of the behavioral theory of the 20th century. He developed a large number of research techniques that allow him to analyze behavior, identify patterns in it and compare it with certain external factors. Skinner made a huge contribution not only to the development of behaviorism, but also to its popularization. He positioned this area of ​​psychology as a tool that would transform society, improve the quality of life and cultural level.

The American psychologist Edward Thorndike also made a significant contribution to the development of the scientific field. Subsequently, his developments made it possible to significantly supplement and improve the general theory of behaviorism, but they did not fall into the classical concept, since they took into account the subjective and physiological characteristics of a person. In particular, Thorndike believed that the starting point for the formation of a reaction is not just a stimulus, but a certain situation that evokes a response in a person - positive or negative. In this case, the person reacts, and if the stimulus is indifferent to him, then no reaction will follow.

13.3.2 Criticism of behaviorism

13. Analytical philosophy of consciousness

13.3. Criticism of "first person" psychology

The problems of any approach can in principle be divided into three main groups. The most common, perhaps, are the problems of argumentation: within the framework of the approach, a convincing method of argumentation must be developed. The greatest theoretical difficulty itself, meanwhile, is associated with the problem of method, in this case represented by at least three components: problems of verification, logical analysis of natural language and the actual behaviorist concept of psychological explanation, respectively. Showing the adequacy of the method to the task means to a large extent solving the problem of argumentation. Finally, the metaphysical problems of the theory deserve mention, namely, how acceptable are the premises that the theory obliges us to accept. Demonstration of their acceptability or fundamental removability within the framework of the approach without its radical revision of unacceptable premises also constitutes an essential part of solving the problem of argumentation. The extent to which this problem is solved by solving the other two types of problems depends on the extent to which the latter are captured by the standard objections to a theory of this type. If the standard objections are limited to reference to those difficulties of a methodological and metaphysical kind to which the theory is capable of answering, then it can be said that it has the potential or method of effectively arguing in its favor.

Perhaps the most well-known standard objection to the behaviorist, primarily reducing or eliminating, understanding of the mental is to point out that it is not capable of providing us with effective psychological criteria. If psychology studies only behavior and does not deal with consciousness, but interest in consciousness and the mental nevertheless remains, then no matter how independent such psychology may have, it cannot replace psychology in the classical sense. If behavioral psychology claims to externalize consciousness and the mental, i.e. to provide verifiable criteria for them, then it is quite appropriate to object that behavioral psychology is simply not up to the task. A classic example of such a failure is widely accepted to be demonstrated by behaviorist criteria for distinguishing rational action or behavior from irrational action or behavior of a certain type from its simulation. Thus, Hilary Putnam[665] proposes to conduct the following thought experiment: let us be given another world in which pain, for example, is connected differently than in our world with behavior, as well as with external causes of pain. Let there be a community of super-Spartans or super-stoics in this world, in which its adult members are able to successfully suppress any

involuntary pain behavior.
They may, on occasion, admit that they are experiencing pain, but always in a calm tone, not emotionally, etc. (i.e. the way they usually talk about other things, stating them). They
don't show their pain in
any However, Putnam insists, they experience
pain (which is phenomenal in this community) and they don't like it any more than we do in our world.
They even admit that it takes a lot of effort for them to behave as they do when in pain. At the same time, it can be assumed that children and immature citizens in this society do not yet know how or cannot cope with the successful suppression of pain behavior (to one degree or another): therefore, in general, there are sufficient grounds to attribute the presence of the phenomenon of pain to this community as a whole, even on the basis of behaviorist criteria . But what criteria do we have for judging that such and such behavior is an involuntary reaction to pain in these unknown representatives of the imaginary world? This behavior can be considered the usual behavior of avoiding sources of pain, but avoidance behavior can just as well be understood as an involuntary reaction to some other, non-painful sensation. To avoid these difficulties, Putnam proposes to consider the super-Spartans through millions of years of their evolution, as a result of which they began to have fully cultivated children: speaking the language of adults, knowing the multiplication tables, having opinions on political issues, and, incidentally, sharing the prevailing Spartan ideas about the importance of not showing pain except as a statement. In this case, the thought experiment would not imply any involuntary reactions to pain in such a community at all. However, Putnam considers it absurd to believe that it is impossible to attribute pain sensations to such people. To highlight this absurdity, we suggest imagining that we managed to convert an adult super-Spartan to our ideology: in this case, we can assume that he will begin to react in a normal (from our point of view) way to pain. The behaviorist will then be forced to admit that through this single member of the super-Spartan community we have demonstrated the existence of involuntary pain reactions in the entire community and that, therefore, the attribution of pain to the entire community is logically valid. But this means that if this single person had never lived and we were only able to demonstrate theoretically that these people experience pain, then attributing pain to them would be invalid
.

Some behaviorists might argue that, in the worlds described, the appropriate verbal behavior would be the required form of pain behavior. In response to this, Putnam suggests imagining a world in which there are not even messages

about pain: X-world, as he calls it.
In this world live super-super-Spartans who suppress even the conversation about pain: such citizens, even if each of them can think about pain and even have the word “pain” in their idiolect, will never admit that they experience pain; they will even pretend that the words do not know this or that they know nothing about the phenomenon to which it refers. In short, the inhabitants of the X-world do not demonstrate the presence of pain at all (children are completely cultivated from birth). There is no way at all to attribute pain to such people on the basis of a behaviorist criterion. But the inhabitants of X-world are nonetheless in pain, Putnam insists. But let us note that if the possibility of a member of such a community converting to our ideology is excluded, for example, due to too great differences between us and them, then in this case the only thing that will support the appropriateness of attributing painful sensations to them is our
metaphysics of the mental. Putnam's thought experiment proposes a world of absolute simulation of the absence of pain, where it is generally impossible to expose this simulation based on behavioral signs. The behaviorist, however, may object that in relation to such a world it is impossible to talk about the presence of the phenomenon of pain: it is we, imagining such an X-world, who “know” about it that its inhabitants experience pain, but from within this world or when faced with a real such community, such we will not be able to obtain knowledge, and then our statement that, despite the fact that it does not manifest itself in any way outwardly, they experience (or may experience) pain, will be completely unfounded. Putnam has an answer to this: he does not agree that his example constructs a situation in which there is no way at all to distinguish a case in which pain is present, but does not manifest itself in any way in behavior, from a case in which it simply is not; he insists that his example only shows that it is impossible to distinguish one case from another by external behavior, but in principle there are other criteria for distinction. For example, he says, you can study the brain of an inhabitant of the X-world. Appealing to such criteria, of course, involves a different kind of difficulty associated with the physicalist program. Such research can produce results of the desired kind only if the psychophysical identity supporting such results, or rather, such an interpretation of the results obtained, is generally correct.[666]

Another type of criticism is based on the analysis of linguistic means and the language of behaviorism. Thus, N. Chomsky) argues that Skinner creates the illusion of a rigorous scientific theory that is applicable over a very wide range, when in fact it may well be that the terms used to describe behavior in the laboratory and the terms used to descriptions of actual behavior are just homonyms, between the meanings of which there is, at best, a rather vague resemblance. The basic terms of behaviorism are “stimulus” and “response”. Skinner is committed to using narrow definitions of these terms: a fragment of the environment and a fragment of behavior are called stimulus (evoking, discriminative or reinforcing) and response, respectively, if and only if they are legally related; this means if the dynamic laws correlating them demonstrate smooth and reproducible dependencies. So, if we look at a red chair and say “red,” then the response is under the control of the stimulus redness

;
if we say "chair", then the reaction is under the control of a collection of properties (which Skinner calls an object) - chairness
;
and the same applies to any reaction[667]. This method, according to Chomsky, is as simple as it is empty, since we can identify as many properties as we have non-synonymous expressions to describe them in our language; we can explain a wide class of reactions in terms of Skinner's functional analysis, identifying for each reaction the stimuli that control it. But the word “stimulus” loses all objectivity when used in this way, since in this case the stimuli cease to be part of the external physical world (as Skinner assumes), but turn out to be part of the organism. We define a stimulus when we observe a (for example, speech) response. We cannot predict language behavior in terms of stimuli affecting the speaker from outside, since we do not know what the current stimuli affecting him are until
we receive a response. Moreover, since we cannot control the property of a physical object to which an individual responds except in extremely artificial (laboratory) cases, Skinner's claim that his system, as opposed to the traditional one, allows for practical control of linguistic behavior is simply false.[668] . Similar objections have been raised against the proposed interpretation of other key behaviorist terms.

In some respects, the fundamental argument against (at least externalizing mental) behaviorism points to the following fact: what an organism does or has the disposition to do at a given point in time is a very complex function of its attitudes and desires, together with its current sense data and memories. It is therefore extremely unlikely that it will be possible to map behavioral predicates pairwise to psychological predicates in the way that behaviorism requires, namely, so that for each type of psychological state, an organism is in that state if and only if a certain behavioral predicate is true of that organism. This suggests that behaviorism is extremely likely to be false simply by virtue of its empirical consequences and regardless of its implausibility as a semantic thesis. Behaviorism cannot be true until the truth of the correlation between consciousness and behavior is established, and the latter is not true[669].

Another objection appeals to the problem of alien consciousness

: at the heart of our sociological and social philosophical concepts is the idea of ​​someone else’s consciousness;
we could not build social sciences without endowing other individuals with certain characteristics that make them similar (by description) to the endower himself (i.e., ourselves, or rather, each of us in this role). The subject ascribes consciousness to another on the basis of the presumption of recognizing him as similar to himself; he proceeds from the fact that he knows about himself, that he has consciousness. But if we recognize our own consciousness in the same way as someone else's, following the recommendations of the behaviorists, then what kind of presumption here can correspond to the presumption of consciousness on the basis of recognition of similarity; After all, someone else must then initially act as a conscious being and a source of analogy? Behaviorism, further, is (probably) well compatible with the third-person perspective of psychological description, but its compatibility with the first-person perspective is highly questionable. This kind of criticism is developed, in particular, by one of the most consistent adherents of the materialist concept of consciousness, D. Armstrong[670]. Armstrong is one of those who holds that although a person's behavior constitutes our basis for attributing to him (a third party) certain mental processes, it cannot be identified with his mental processes; Skinner, however, could agree with this. But what is interesting is the basis on which Armstrong refuses to identify the mental with the behavior. He takes it to be a fact, contrary to what Ryle and the "ordinary language" philosophers claim, that about ourselves we do not
from observations of our own behavior. Armstrong holds that without the concept of causation the idea of ​​disposition does not work: just as a certain molecular constitution of a glass is actually responsible for the fact that if the glass is knocked it will break, and is accordingly constitutive of the dispositional characteristic "breakable", a certain physical a person's constitution is responsible for his being in a position to be able to perform certain kinds of actions under certain circumstances. But, Armstrong argues, an explanation of consciousness in terms of physical cause and effect can be a good theory of consciousness not only from a first-person perspective, but also from a third-person perspective. The order of his reasoning here is as follows: we need only three premises to deduce the existence of consciousness from the observation of the appropriate behavior of another individual, which is supposed to be an expression of that consciousness. 1) Behavior has a reason. 2) This reason is located within the individual whose behavior is observed. 3) The complexity of this cause corresponds to the complexity of behavior[671]. Thus, this type of argument contrasts one approach to understanding the mental with another, namely physicalism, and is aimed at demonstrating its advantages rather than simply discrediting behaviorism. However, according to many, it is with the acceptance of such premises that problems with the attribution of someone else’s consciousness only begin[672].

Return to contents

© 2000-NIV

Behaviorism in psychology

The key idea of ​​this direction of psychology is that all human behavior is a consequence not of thoughts and feelings, but of a reaction to external stimuli. Thus, there must always be a combination of two elements:

• Stimulus. A certain influence of the external world that occurred at the moment or had an impact on a person earlier.
• Reaction. Actions taken to adapt to the impact.

Often there is also a third element – ​​reinforcement. This is an additional factor that can influence a person's decision. There are two possible forms of reinforcement:

• positive (encourages you to react and remember this reaction as correct);
• negative (forces you to refrain from reacting and refrain from it in the future).

Positive reinforcement can be praise or encouragement. Negative: criticism or punishment.

Behaviorists do not consider internal motives as factors determining behavior. At the same time, they do not deny them, but believe that they are extremely difficult to study objectively, and therefore will negatively affect the accuracy of the scientific model. In the very definition of what behaviorism is, there is a statement that it considers only external stimuli and the reactions that follow them.

Behavioral science research has two main goals:

1. Predict a reaction given a stimulus (or set of stimuli).
2. Identify a stimulus by a reaction (or to cause a reaction).

Initially, psychologists believed that human behavior is unpredictable and depends on many internal factors that cannot be taken into account. But after behaviorism became one of the key trends in psychology, the concept changed somewhat. Understanding what stimuli can provoke certain actions allows us not only to predict human behavior, but also to influence it, achieving the desired result.

Main theses and features of behaviorism

To better understand the ideas and methods of behaviorism, let's look at the main provisions of this direction:

• Behaviorism studies the behavioral responses of all living things;
• human actions are studied only by observing them;
• all mental, intellectual and physiological actions are dictated by behavior;
• all actions of living beings are a response to external triggers;
• if you determine the external stimulus in advance, you can guess the person’s further behavior;
• accurate prediction of behavior is the main goal of behaviorism;
• you can influence or control the behavior of any person;
• all behavioral reactions are acquired from experience or inherited from ancestors;
• skills are developed through reflexes, the ability to think or speak are acquired skills;
• the psyche of a living being is influenced by the environment and living conditions;
• emotions arise in response to positive or negative triggers in the environment.

The ideas of behaviorism, based on empirical experience, had a great influence on the scientific community. But any theory will always have both pros and cons. Let's look at them in more detail:

• Followers of behaviorism studied only external human reactions that were possible to observe. At the same time, they completely ignored the internal manifestations of a person: psychological and physiological processes.
• Scientists argued that it was possible to influence and control the behavior of any living creature. But they studied only the external simple reactions of a person; for them the complex actions of the individual as a whole did not matter.
• Behaviorists did not take into account the difference between animals and people; they studied their actions and behavior using the same methodology.
• When developing mechanisms of behavior, scientists did not additionally study important factors - society, motivation and mental image, which also influence human actions.

Behaviorists tried to characterize all human actions through one theory, but this approach was not successful. Man is a complex creature that needs to be studied from different angles. As a result, behaviorism was able to develop external conditions that can influence a person and encourage him to take certain actions.

If this information was useful to you, then go to the “Russia - Land of Opportunities” website. On the platform you will find more than 100 courses and webinars on marketing, psychology, management, finance and others. Make the most of your opportunities!

Directions of behaviorism

Within the framework of modern behaviorism, there are quite a few independent directions, but there is no sufficiently accurate classification that would unite them all. Let's consider the most important areas:

1. Methodological. This is classical behaviorism, which is based on the assertion that only external stimuli influence human behavior. He does not take thoughts and feelings into account either as cause or effect.
2. Radical. This direction is based on the approach of Skinner, who considered internal events to be no less important. He believed that they also depend on external stimuli and can influence how a person perceives various circumstances.
3. Theoretical. This movement also takes into account thoughts and feelings that can be observed, analyzed and even quantified thanks to modern technology.
4. Psychological. This direction was founded by the American psychologist Arthur Staats as an applied science designed for practical use. In particular, psychological behaviorism is actively used in children's education, as well as in the development of modern approaches to education.

The essence of Theory X

Most employees avoid work in every possible way due to an innate dislike of it. They are not ambitious, do not want to take responsibility for getting the job done, and prefer to be managed. For such employees, safety is the highest value - it is this that motivates them to work in order to maintain their stable job.

Looking for ideas for study work on this subject? Ask a question to the teacher and get an answer in 15 minutes! Ask a Question

According to Theory X, management must be tight to ensure that work gets done. The main goal of management is coercion of labor. As part of this work organization, management must threaten employees with various sanctions to ensure the decent quality of their work necessary to achieve organizational goals. Managers who act in accordance with Theory X are called autocratic managers.

Pros and cons of behaviorism

Behaviorism is a well-developed direction in modern psychology with a solid scientific foundation. However, there are certain limitations in its use, since it has both advantages and disadvantages. Practicing psychologists usually take them into account when choosing which tool to use to achieve the best effect.

The main advantages of behaviorism are that it:

• became one of the most important areas in psychology, expanded it, made it possible to make it not only an applied, but also a more objective science;
• has proven to be an effective tool for studying, explaining, predicting, and influencing behavior;
• established behavioral patterns quite reliably.

Opponents of behaviorism criticize it for the following disadvantages :

• consciousness, will, motivation, reflection and other human thought processes are ignored;
• a person is considered as an animal, and all forms of his behavior are considered as a system of instincts and reflexes;
• all behavioral skills come down to basic reactions to stimuli;
• Behaviorism does not explain why a person strives to satisfy the needs at the top of Maslow's pyramid.

Methodology and theory of general psychology

Source: //www.vashpsixolog.ru/lectures-on-the-psychology/154-obshhaya-psixologiya/2872-metodologiya-i-teoriya-obshhej-psixologii

5 Which of the following statements are correct and which are false? 1) introspection is the main method of psychology; 2) mental processes, states and properties represent qualitative features of consciousness and behavior and cannot be processed quantitatively; 3) the formation of psychology as a science was associated with the use of general scientific research methods in it; 4) methodological principles are the specific implementation of methods in accordance with the objectives of the study; 5) the term “observation” is used in psychology in three different meanings: observation as an activity, as a method and technique; 6) the main thing in the observation method is to write down your impressions of what was happening; 7) the specificity of the observation method in psychology is associated with the characteristics of the observer (selectivity of perception, attitude, projection of the “I” onto the observed behavior); an important feature of an experiment is the setting of a goal that specifies the research hypothesis; 9) the main disadvantage of the experiment is that the researcher cannot at will cause any mental process or property; 10) psychodiagnostics - a bank of specific techniques designed to build a psychological theory; 11) the validity of a test is a characteristic of its accuracy as a measuring instrument. 6 Analyze the following text and answer the question posed in it. How can we explain that there is not always a one-to-one correspondence between thought and action? What is the value of the observation method and what are its disadvantages? The human psyche is not a closed world. Our thoughts, feelings, dreams and aspirations are manifested in deeds and actions. And they are accessible to external objective observation. They can be recorded, filmed, etc. This means that observation, a powerful method of natural science, can be applied to the study of the human psyche. And it is widely used, but... Tell me, do you behave the same way when you are alone with yourself and when you know that you are being studied and watched? 7 What methods of psychological research are discussed in the following passages? The psychologist strives to collect as much information as possible on a specific “case” to answer the main question about the genesis and prognosis of psychological properties, to determine the status of the individual. This method is based on previously put forward hypotheses. This method is widely used in personality psychology. Persons who know the subjects well can act as experts. The peculiarity of the method is that it is used not in the form of a description of the quantitative manifestations of properties, but in the form of quantitative assessments of their manifestation, as well as the severity of certain elements of behavior. The results of this method record the expression of more or less fractional private elements of behavior, understandable and unambiguous. A professional psychologist summarizes the recorded results. Specialized methods of psychological research, with the help of which you can obtain a quantitative or qualitative characteristic of the phenomenon being studied. These methods differ from other research methods in that they require a standardized, verified procedure for collecting and processing data, as well as their interpretation. One of the varieties of the previous method is based on a system of pre-selected and tested, from the point of view of their validity and reliability, questions, based on the responses of the subjects to which their psychological qualities are judged. Another type of method involves assessing the psyche and behavior of people not on the basis of verbal responses, but on the basis of completed tasks. For this purpose, the subject is presented with a series of special tasks, based on the results of which a conclusion is drawn about the quality being studied. 8 Comment on what the following quotes are saying. What are the pros and cons of the experimental method? Mental phenomena are real, and their real quantities can be determined with the same accuracy as physical ones. Insufficiently substantiated and verified psychological tests can cause serious errors that can cause significant damage in teaching practice, in the field of professional selection, in the diagnosis of defects and temporary delays in mental development.

The researcher creates conditions in which a psychological fact can be clearly revealed, can be changed in the direction desired by him, and can be repeated many times for comprehensive consideration.