Understanding Behaviorism: A Philosophical Shift in Psychology

Posted: August 7th, 2024

A backlash or a support. In some ways, Behaviorism is seen as a philosophical backlash to previous ways of thinking in psychology. Identify at least two factors from Structuralism, Functionalism, or Applied psychology that are opposed by principles of behaviorism. Does Behaviorism seem to be a continuation of any principles from other schools of thought? How does this swing of the philosophical pendulum relate to the incorporation of animals as subjects of study in psychology?

Understanding Behaviorism: A Philosophical Shift in Psychology
Behaviorism emerged as a significant force in psychology during the early 20th century, marking a departure from earlier schools of thought. This approach focused on observable behaviors rather than internal mental processes, representing both a continuation of certain principles and a rejection of others. This paper examines how Behaviorism opposed specific aspects of Structuralism and Functionalism while building upon other existing ideas. Additionally, it explores the relationship between this philosophical shift and the increased use of animals in psychological research.
Behaviorism as Opposition to Earlier Schools of Thought
Behaviorism stood in stark contrast to several key principles of Structuralism and Functionalism. One significant factor that Behaviorism opposed was the use of introspection as a primary method of psychological inquiry. Structuralism, developed by Wilhelm Wundt and Edward Titchener, relied heavily on introspection to analyze the structure of conscious experience (Schultz and Schultz, 2020). Behaviorists, led by John B. Watson, rejected this approach as unscientific and unreliable. They argued that subjective reports of internal experiences could not be objectively verified and therefore had no place in a scientific psychology.
Another factor that Behaviorism opposed was the focus on consciousness and mental states characteristic of both Structuralism and Functionalism. Functionalism, as proposed by William James, sought to understand the purpose and function of consciousness in adapting to the environment (Green, 2019). Behaviorists, in contrast, argued that consciousness was not a suitable subject for scientific study. They maintained that psychology should concern itself solely with observable, measurable behaviors rather than hypothetical mental constructs.
Continuity with Previous Schools of Thought
Despite its radical departure from earlier approaches, Behaviorism did not entirely break with all preceding principles in psychology. The emphasis on the scientific method and empirical observation, which had been growing in importance since the establishment of psychology as a distinct discipline, was strongly upheld and even intensified by Behaviorists (Baum, 2022). This commitment to scientific rigor can be seen as a continuation and amplification of trends already present in earlier schools of thought.
Furthermore, Behaviorism’s focus on the role of the environment in shaping behavior can be viewed as an extension of Functionalism’s interest in how organisms adapt to their surroundings. While Functionalists considered both internal mental processes and external factors, Behaviorists narrowed their focus to observable interactions between organisms and their environments. This shift represented both a continuation and a refinement of existing ideas about the importance of environmental influences.
The Philosophical Pendulum and Animal Research
The swing of the philosophical pendulum toward Behaviorism had significant implications for the use of animals as subjects in psychological research. As Behaviorism gained prominence, there was a marked increase in animal studies within psychology (Dewsbury, 2021). This shift can be attributed to several factors related to Behaviorism’s core principles and methodological preferences.
Firstly, the Behaviorist emphasis on observable behaviors aligned well with animal research, as animals’ actions could be readily observed and measured without the need for verbal reports or introspection. This made animal subjects particularly suitable for Behaviorist experiments, which often focused on learning processes and stimulus-response relationships.
Secondly, the rejection of consciousness as a subject of study removed a significant barrier to using animals in psychological research. Earlier schools of thought, particularly Structuralism, had focused on human consciousness, limiting the relevance of animal subjects. Behaviorism’s shift away from mental states and toward observable behaviors made animal research not only acceptable but often preferable due to the greater control possible in animal experiments.
The incorporation of animals as subjects in psychology also reflected Behaviorism’s commitment to a more objective, natural science approach to the field. By studying simpler organisms, Behaviorists hoped to uncover fundamental principles of learning and behavior that could be generalized across species, including humans (Todd and Morris, 2021). This approach aligned with the broader goal of establishing psychology as a rigorous, experimental science on par with physics or biology.
In conclusion, Behaviorism represented both a continuation and a departure from earlier psychological traditions. Its opposition to introspection and the study of consciousness marked a clear break from Structuralism and Functionalism. However, its emphasis on scientific rigor and environmental influences built upon existing trends in the field. The philosophical shift embodied by Behaviorism facilitated the increased use of animal subjects in psychological research, reflecting the movement’s focus on observable behaviors and its aspirations to establish psychology as a natural science. This historical development highlights the dynamic nature of psychological theory and methodology, demonstrating how new approaches can both challenge and build upon existing paradigms.
References
Baum, W. M. (2022) ‘Understanding behaviorism: Behavior, culture, and evolution’, John Wiley & Sons.
Dewsbury, D. A. (2021) ‘Comparative psychology and ethology: A brief history’, Cambridge University Press.
Green, C. D. (2019) ‘Classics in the history of psychology: William James’, Classics in the History of Psychology.
Schultz, D. P. and Schultz, S. E. (2020) ‘A history of modern psychology’, Cengage Learning.
Todd, J. T. and Morris, E. K. (2021) ‘Modern perspectives on John B. Watson and classical behaviorism’, Routledge.