Study On John Watsons Behaviorist Program

John B. Watson set out to change the landscape of psychology and to make it a viable scientific endeavor. The goal of Watson was to change psychology’s focus or definition from the study of the consciousness to the study of behavior (Hothersall, 2004). Watson argued that to study the consciousness was like studying a ghost. His point was that it’s difficult to study something that those who were purporting to be the researchers couldn’t even agree on its definition. How can psychology reasonably study something that they can’t even definitively define? Therefore, Watson believed that the goal of psychology must be to study something that is definable and observable. Watson thought behaviorism’s whose goals were concrete and definable; to observe, predict and control behavior in humans and animals was the appropriate system for such an endeavor (Graighead & Nemeroff, 2001).

Early Research

Watsons began his research career investigating the relationship between the increasing complexities of behavior and development of the nervous system (Hothersall, 2004). He trained rats around a box or run through a labyrinth. He discovered that he could train rats as young as 12 days old to run around a box but when asked to run through a labyrinth the 12 day old rats would simply curl up and go to sleep. The results suggested that there was a definite correlation between age and the ability to do complex tasks. In the second phase of his study Watson physically studied the brains of rats’ ages one to thirty days. He discovered that at age 24 days the number of medullated fibers in the cortex had significantly increased (Hothersall, 2004). His finding corroborated his initial hypothesis that there was a direct correlation between the development of the nervous system and the ability to perform complex behavior (Hothersall, 2004 & McCarty, 2009). His finding and conclusions that he drew from this experiment was significant. But, an even more significant outcome was that his research led to the standardization of rats as the organism of choice in psychological research for over fifty years, (McCarty, 2009). The results of this study and the response he received when he published them, emboldened him to consider the possibility of displacing both structuralism and functionalism as the prevailing or guiding “voice” in psychology (McCarty, 2009).

Watson’s Behaviorist Manifesto

Watson’s experiences with rats led to his acceptance of John Locke’s belief that the mind enters this world as a blank slate and it is experience that “writes its message upon it” (LeFrancois, 2000). So certain was Watson of behaviorism that he once boldly proclaimed, “Give me a dozen healthy infants well-formed, and my own specified world to bring them up in and I’ll guarantee to take any one at random and train him to become any type of specialist I might select-doctor, lawyer, artist, merchant-chief and yes, even beggar-man and thief, regardless of his talents, penchants, tendencies, abilities, vocations, and race of his ancestors (Watson, 1930, p. 104, as cited in LeFrancois, 2000). Thus, in 1913 Watson published an article in the Psychological Review, that gave a detailed outline of behaviorism.

Accordingly, Watson noted that Psychology cannot be the study of the consciousness because it (consciousness) is too nebulas to truly be observed. He noted that if psychology was to be an objective experimental branch of science, it can only do so by focusing on behavior since it is both observable and measurable (LeFrancois, 2000 & Hothersall, 2004). Behavior in its measurable sense is the relationship between stimuli and responses. The goal then of behaviorism is to predict and control behavior. Furthermore, with respect to this response to stimuli, Watson saw no difference between man and animal.

Watson, unlike most of the leading psychologist before him never tried to wrestle with the “What is truth” question. Instead he preferred to apply psychology to the problems of adjustment and even social improvements. In fact, Watson never really constructed an integrated theory of psychology and yet he was successful in affecting change in psychology primarily because of the logic and clarity of his arguments. The only significant requirement Watson made regarding research was that it must use objective methods of measurements and that the events themselves must be capable of being publicly observable (Hothersall, 2004). Watson was critical of James’s definition of emotions (experiences of bodily changes). He believed that conscious experience was not an essential component of emotion, further he believed that you can associate emotions with a neutral stimulus in the same manner that Pavlov had done with his example of classical conditioning Hothersall, 2004).

Figure 1 The development and growth of behaviorism is the U.S. (Source Unknown)

It is easy to theorize or write about a concept in a paper, the next step is to show that behaviorism was workable without recourse to consciousness and the mind (Hothersall, 2004). Watson began conducting research with children, first at the Henry Phipps Psychiatric Clinic in Baltimore and then later at John Hopkins University Hospital. It is at John Hopkins, that Watson got the opportunity to study infant reflex and emotional responses. He was able to identify a host of reflexes such as coughing, yawning grasping, etc. In addition he was able to isolate three main classes of emotional responses in infants; fear, rage and love (Hothersall, 2004). He found that each of these classes of emotions had a specific set of stimuli and responses that were reliable and predictable. He was even able to conclude that fear responses to a stimuli beyond those noted earlier were learned. This was based on his observation that infants did not respond in fear to dogs, the dark or even snakes as most of us would or have.

He also used his theories in advertisement after a scandal forced him out of psychology. He discovered that consumers’ behaviors could be predicted and controlled in the same manner as infants and rats. He used demographic surveys of target populations and offered a reward (gift) for a response (complete questionnaire). He was the first to prove that style was more important than substance. This principle alone has been one of the bedrock principles of American advertisement and salesmanship for decades. He tapped into human’s propensity to heed the advice of people we admire by eliciting testimonials or endorsements for his products. In a couple of cases he even deliberately sought to manipulate consumers’ motives and emotions (Johnson and Johnson baby powder campaign stressed purity and cleanliness of product over the dangers of dirt and disease, targeting the gullible first time moms). The bottom line is that his work in the lab, with children and even in advertising demonstrated the efficacy of behaviorist theories.

Little Albert and Peter Case Studies

Little Albert

In an effort to prove that behaviorism could be translated out of the lab, as noted in the previous paragraphs, Watson conducted research on infants at the John Hopkins University Hospital. While conducting research at the hospital, Watson decided to see if fear could be conditioned in an infant they named Albert (Hothersall, 2004). Albert an eleven month baby was selected because of his temperament and lack of fear for most things. In fact initially the only thing he seemed to have a strong fear response to was having a metal bar struck behind his head. In fact it was this fear that Watson used to condition of fear of white rats in Albert. The principle behind the experiment was simple; Watson would use the principle of association to illicit a fear response. In the case of Albert, Watson would show little Albert a white rat and as soon as he reached out for it, he would strike the metal bar. Thus, he would take a known fear and associate it with another stimulus or object. The results were predictable, after doing this for only seven times, Albert would cry or crawl away from the white rat, with or without the metal bar being struck (Hothersall, 2004). Five days later, it was discovered that the conditioning had been generalized to anything that resembled the white furry rabbit (Hothersall, 2004). Interestingly enough five days after this the strength of the association was weakening, however after a “freshening” of the reaction the fear had generalized to even more objects (Santa Clause mask, sealskin coat, the dog, the rat and the rabbit ).

A couple of conclusions that I drew from the experiment, first to initiate a fear response to the white rat, Watson needed to identify an object or stimulus in which the fear response was already associated with. Secondly, it seems reasonable that had Watson not “refreshed it” or reinforced it when the conditioning response appeared to be weakening, then it would’ve either gone away in its entirety or been localized to the rat. Thirdly, it appears that the age of the child was a significant factor in its outcome.

The Case of Peter

Apparently Watson and Jones also wanted to identify a methodology that could be used to help someone overcome fear. The texts suggests that time passage alone proved to be insufficient, describing a case in which one little girl went to months without seeing her feared rabbit and still responded with fear when she finally saw it again. Even the use of social imitation in which a child sees another child handling the object of his fear without negative repercussions did not work. Watson and Mary Cover Jones discovered that direct conditioning which in principle is in many ways the opposite of what Watson had done with little Albert could be used to help overcome fear. The technique they used is commonly referred to as deconditioning or desensitization. Basically, Peter had a phobia of rabbits and would react uncontrollably in their presence. So they (Watson and Jones) paired his phobia with eating food that he liked. In the first step, a caged rabbit was brought into the room and placed 12 or so feet away from Peter while he ate. Each day the rabbit was brought closer without disturbing Peter, until finally the rabbit was un-caged and placed on the table where Peter would eat while petting the rabbit. It was discovered that not only had Peter overcome his fear of the rabbit but also of cotton wool, fur coat and feathers. This technique is one of the classical methods for treating phobias today.

The Major Tenants of Gestalt Psychology

Introduction

The word “gestalt” is a German word that means shape or form. It’s founders Max Wertheimer, Kurt Koffka and Wolfgang Kohler initial interest was perception, however over time they began to apply the Gestalt principles to learning, problem solving and cognition (Hothersall, 2004). Like so many of our great discoveries, Gestalt psychology was inspired by an observation and its initial focus, as noted earlier was on how we perceive our environment and the stimulus it provides. In this case Max Wertheimer noticed that telephone poles and buildings appeared to be moving when he looked out the window of a moving train. Intrigued, he got off the train at Frankfurt and went to the Psychological Institute at the University of Frankfurt, to discuss the observed phenomenon with Friedrich Schumann, who held a PHD in physics. Unable to explain it, Schumann offered the use of his laboratory and equipment and introduced Wertheimer to Kopfka and Kohler (the triumvirate founders of Gestalt psychology).

Based on Schumann report in 1907 that he had observed successively projected white stripes that appeared to move from the vertical to the horizontal at specific time intervals, Wertheimer designed and executed an experiment in which he projected lights successively through two narrow slits in a screen (Hothersall, 2004). He used Kohler, Koffka and Koffka’s wife as his subjects. He observed that when the interval between lights was 50 to 60 milliseconds, lights appeared to move from one position to another but at longer intervals the lights appeared as independent, successive light (Hothersall, 2004). He also noticed that at shorter intervals the lights appeared to be on all the time.

The Discovery and Subsequent Principles

Wertheimer named this observed phenomena the Phi Phenomenon. Accordingly, Wertheimer noted that this phenomenon was not actually occurring in the world (not an actual physical stimulus). It was a mental stimulus or an interpretation of a stimulus that had occurred in his subjects mind. Which logically, leads to a reasonable supposition that if it is possible for a human to interpret the lights in this manner, what else is just interpretation and just how does this interpretation system work? Wertheimer noted that even though this was an apparent psychological experience, the phi phenomenon could not be reduced to its elements. Thus to adequately study this phenomenon and the questions it created he recognized that the phenomenon must be studied as a whole, the old and tried analytical techniques of psychology in which experiences are decomposed into its elements will not work. This and several other experiments that looked at auditory and even tactile interpretations were instrumental in the development of some basic perception principles that actually go beyond just visual perception. The underlying principles of Gestalt Psychology is three fold; 1) The brain is a dynamic system in which all active systems or elements within it when engaged interacts. 2) We perceive stimuli as wholes rather than as clusters of features. 3) If the first two principles are true then we must think holistically since the whole is greater than the sum of its parts (Gestalt, 2009).

There were three important works that outlined the principles ‘rules’ by which we organize our perceptual world, Koffka’s Perception, An introduction to Gestalt Theory, Werthheimer’s An Inquiry into the Laws of Gestalt Psychology and Kohler’s An Aspect of Gestalt Psychology (Hothersall, 2004). However, these principles are mostly descriptive and lack theory or an explanation of why we perceive this way except that our perceptions of our everyday world is organized into coherent wholes. The four basic principles are: figure-ground, closure, similarity and proximity. The principle of figure ground notes that we will separate important aspects of a figure from its background or surroundings. We will use real or imagined lines to separate the figure from its background. In figure 6 most of us will see a dog despite the “background noise”. Closure notes that we will take an incomplete object and make it whole by mentally filling in the missing contour lines or letters so that it makes sense. Proximity or nearness describes our tendency to group elements that are close to each other to form an overall figure or pattern. The last principle is similarity, which identifies our tendency to group together elements of a stimulus or pattern that have similar features (size, shape, colour). The similarity principle takes priority over the proximity principle if the two are together in a stimulus (Gestalt, 2009). Below are visual depiction of the principles described. They are classic depictions and can be found in an array of sources.

Figure 2 Law of Closure

Ge

Figure 3 Law of Proximity

Figures 4 and 5 Law of Similarity

vase Figure 6 Figure-Ground

Gestalt Principles in Life

As noted earlier, while the initial focus of Gestalt psychology was sensory perception, especially visual, it does seem to have applicability in other areas of our life. For example, Kurt Lewin and Bluma Vul Zeigarnick discovered that our need to complete a task creates a state of tension that facilitates an ability to recall elements of that task until it is complete (“Zeigarnik Effect,” 2010). This was called the Zeigarnik effect. It was prompted by Zeigarniks observation that German waitress could remember details of a customer’s bill for a considerable amount of time until the bill was paid (after that they could not recall the basic information). The applicability of this is seen every day as television shows use this principle to keep their audiences loyal to a show with cliffhangers or advertisers leaving a message incomplete so as to illicit recall of its product by consumers.

Gestalt versus Behaviorism

Later, Wertheimer and Kohler would suggest that Gestalt could be applied to learning. The insight learning experiments conducted by Kohler found that both animals and humans can learn by “sudden comprehension” as opposed to gradual understanding or trial and error. Furthermore this insight is not necessarily observable by another person (Hothersall, 2004). In an experiment with apes, Kohler was able to demonstrate this type of learning. Kohler put a stick in cage, the ape played with it for a few minutes but eventually lost interest. Kohler then put a fruit just out of arms reach outside of the ape’s cage. When he tried to reach the fruit with his arm, he couldn’t and got upset. He then simply picked up stick and used it to draw the fruit to the cage. When this was repeated the ape got better at using the stick for a tool. The significance of this experiment is that there was no trial-and-error learning. In another experiment, Kohler tested a dog and a 1 year old child, using what was called a detour experiment. In this experiment the dog food was placed behind a barrier in which the dog needed to go around a barrier to get the food, likewise the one year old had her doll placed behind a barrier. In both cases the subjects simply went around the barrier to get the object of their desire (Hothersall, 2004).

These experiments contradicted Thorndike’s view of learning that stated that trial and error was the method of learning for animal. Kohler argued that the animals in Thorndike’s experiment was also capable of insight learning, however the context of the experiment prohibited it. Kohler experiments had several characteristics that were different from Thorndike’s. First, the experiments were done in the animal’s home or enclosure so as to make it as natural and as comfortable as possible which he believed made them more likely to display intelligent behavior. Secondly, his test was for the most part done in the presence of other animals. Finally, the results were almost always reported descriptively, which he believed ensured that the most valuable aspect of the experiments were not lost (Hothersall, 2004).

Further comparisons of Gestalt psychology and Behaviorism shows some similarities and some striking differences. For example both occurred independently of one another in opposition to Wundt’s focus on sensory elements. However, they ended up opposing each other in many significant ways. Gestalt psychologists accepted the value of consciousness but criticized attempts to reduce it to its elements. Whereas behavioral psychologist ultimately refused to even accept it. Gestalt also criticized behaviorist belief that mental activity could not be studied scientifically (Moskowitz, 2005). Furthermore, Gestalt psychologist argues that behaviorist reduces psychology to nothing more than a collection of animal research.

Behaviorist on the other hand noted the inferior quality of Gestalt experimental work (Kohler, for example, didn’t use experimental method, he just observed). Behaviorist as one might expect, also argued that Gestalt psychologist research lacked adequate controls and its un-quantified data does not lend itself to statistical analysis (Moskowitz, 2005). I found it interesting that two schools of thought that in many ways actually complemented each other decided to strongly opposed each other. The only significant oppositional characteristics’ I believed that existed was their respective views on consciousness.

Neo-Behaviorist

Introduction

Neo-behaviorism in many respects represents the second phase of behaviorism. Edward C. Tolman, Clark Hull, Edwin Guthrie and of course B.F. Skinner are the most prominent neo-behaviorist. Like their behavior predecessors, neo-behaviorist believed the keys to developing a scientific psychology was to study learning as observed through behavior and maintaining a focus on rigorously objective observational methods (Hothersall, 2004). The most significant difference between the leaders of neo-behaviorist and their behaviorist counterparts was their deliberate attempts to formalize the laws of behavior.

Edward C. Tolman

Tolman initially taught at Northwestern (1915 to 1918) but was fired because he was a pacifist. However, at Berkley in California he found the ideal academic environment where he taught for forty years. Tolman studied the behavior of rats in mazes and concluded that there was more to the rats’ behaviors in the mazes than plodding back and forth by stimuli, rewards and punishment (Hothersall, 2004). In his observations, he noted that the rats appeared to behave with intelligence and purpose. It appeared to Tolman that his rats had learned the general layout of the maze (he termed this a cognitive map). Tolman believed that Watson exclusion of purpose and cognition from psychological study was a grave error, thus he purposefully attempted to develop his form of behaviorism based on objective behavior that considered or analyzed both purpose and cognition (Hothersall, 2004).

In a series of papers and his book, Purposive Behavior in Animals and Men, he completely rejected mentalist psychology and embraced behaviorism (Hothersall, 2004). Interestingly, despite the title of his book, its primary focus was on the behavior of rats in mazes. Specifically, he emphasized and elaborated on his ideas and belief that rats not only ran the maze with an expectation of a reward but had an expectation for a specific reward. To prove the point, he developed an ingenious experiment in which rats were placed in a maze without a reward then later given a reward. His goal was of course to ascertain if the presence or lack of reward impacted the rats’ behavior. In his control group, the rats had food in the goal box on all seven days. Group one, only had food in the goal box on day 7 (the first six days there were no food). The second experimental group did not get food in the goal box in the first two days but from days three to seven they did. He discovered that in such a scenario the experimental groups did not perform to the level of the control group until the day after the food was introduced to the goal box. His conclusion was that learning had taken place despite the absence of a reward; he called it latent learning because it wasn’t activated until the rat was sufficiently rewarded or motivated.

In a slight modification of his experiment he changed the reward, so that one group got bread and milk, one group got sunflower seeds and one group got no food at all. The outcome, he believed confirmed purposeful behavior. The rats apparently had placed some level of value against the rewards because the rats receiving bread and milk ran the fastest, followed by the rats receiving sunflower seeds and those receiving no reward running the slowest (Hothersall, 2004).

If the rat expected reward was changed, it displayed disappointment as evidenced by the increase in errors and slower pace (Hothersall, 2004). An experiment done later with an ape whose expected reward of a banana was changed to lettuce confirmed that such behavior was present in animals. In the case of the ape, upon discovering that her reward had been changed to lettuce she responded by basically having a temper tantrum. Behaviorist who discounted purpose and cognition found these finding troublesome because it suggests that S->R connections was insufficient in explaining the animals’ behavior (Neo-Behaviorist PPT. 2007). By the way, we all display latent learning when we display knowledge of the location of a particular store that’s along some familiar route upon demand. Needless to say the concept of latent learning generated much discussion and research.

In still another set of experiments, Tolman was able to show insight learning. In this experiment Tolman placed rats in an elevated maze with no walls and allowed the rats to explore the maze. The maze itself consisted of three different routes of varying lengths to the goal box. The rats were then allowed to become hungry and placed in the maze. The rats always chose the shortest route. If the shortest route was no longer available then the rat simply took the next shortest route. The results clearly indicate that the rat did in fact develop a cognitive map that included the whole maze. Furthermore, purposeful behavior is demonstrated by the very fact that the rats deliberately chose the route that required the least effort (shortest) (Hothersall, 2004).

Based on these types of experiments as well as others not discussed, Tolman developed a basic theoretical model that he described in The Determiners of Behavior at a Choice Point. In it he identified three variables that influences behavior; the independent variable, dependent variable and the intervening variables (Graighead & Nemeroff, 2001). The independent variable is what the experimenter is controlling. It is in essence the actual condition of the experiment. The dependent variable is what is actually being measured and the intervening variables are the things that may affect the experiments outcome but is not being controlled such as age, past experience and skill level. Accordingly, Tolman stated that “Behavior as measured by the dependent variable is a function of the independent and intervening variables” (Graighead & Nemeroff, 2001). One of the biggest arguments or criticisms of Tolman is that he never developed a true theory of learning that outlined a clear theoretical position. Others have criticized him because his writings tended to be subjective and mentalistic (Hothersall, 2004). Never the less few can argue with the fact that his research proved Watson’s theory of behaviorism lacking because it did not consider the cognitive and motivational aspect of behavior. It (his research) also validated the use of rats as subjects for psychological study.

Edwin R. Guthrie

Guthrie earned his bachelor’s degree in mathematics but got his Master’s degree and PHD in philosophy. He even taught as a philosophy professor at the University of Washington for a while. But eventually the pull to psychology was too strong and he became a professor in the university’s psychology department. His most significant contribution to the field of psychology was his learning theory, which he presented in several papers and books over a ten year period (1930s to 1940s). His theory of learning simply stated that all learning is based on contiguity between stimuli and responses (Hothersall, 2004). For Guthrie behavior was a function of the environment. So, if food is available then an animal will do what it takes to obtain that food. If his action successfully gets him food then he (the animal) will learn that action or response. Guthrie did not dispute Thorndike’s belief that reward and punishment affected learning. His dispute was that he did not believe that the reward or punishment “stamped” in or out habits. In the case of food, Guthrie saw its role as preventing unlearning. In other words, the rat developed a cognitive map simply by exploring, but the food’s presence encourages or motivates the rat to keep the map in his mind or prevents him from unlearning the maze (Neo-Behaviorist PPT, 2007). Punishment works in that it reinforces the opposite behavior. For example, as a child I refused to go near a stove because of the spanking. So I was encouraged to do something else (as opposed to touching the stove) because of the spanking (punishment). The purpose of reinforcement is that it ends the act. Thus, I learn because it was the last successful act. I forget the unsuccessful acts because they a displaced by later successful acts (Hothersall, 2004).

The study of movements that make up whole acts according to Guthrie was quite appropriate since they were easy to measure. He also believed that these individual acts are learned in one trial but practice is required in order for these individual movements to create a whole act (Graighead & Nemeroff, 2001). Initially his theory was appealing because of its simplicity only to have it later criticized for the same reason. It should also be noted that his theories seemingly were more philosophical than experimentally based, which garnered criticism as well.

Clark Hull

Hull’s goal was to develop universal laws of behavior (Hothersall, 2004). His most enduring contribution was the application of logic to psychological problems. He formed theoretical constructs that consisted of seventeen postulates and corollaries. He then showed that the theorems that grew from these constructs could be predicted and tested. Hull’s concept of reinforcement was different from both Watson and Guthrie. Watson saw reinforcement as the thing that kept the animal on task. Guthrie saw reinforcement’s role as ending the behavior thus making it the last behavior learned (Hothersall, 2004). Hull on the other hand saw reinforcement as strengthening the connection between stimulus and a response.

B.F. Skinner

Whereas Guthrie and Hull dominated behaviorism in the 1930 and 1940s, B.F skinner assumed that role in the 50s and 60s. His most significant concept is of course operant conditioning. Operant conditioning is different from classical conditioning, in that the role of the animal is different. In classical conditioning the animal responds to the environment thus he learns as a result of that response. But in operant conditioning the animal operates on the environment. The animal performs a behavior that is repeated if rewarded. Thus the response rate is controlled by the animal, not the experimenter (Hothersall, 2004).

Skinner study on schedules of reinforcement was accidental in that his study’s original focus was on the nature reinforcement. However, he found himself short on pellets (food) so he decided to ration his pellets by reinforcing only an occasional response. In doing so he discovered the intermittent reinforcement maintained the frequency of responding (Hothersall, 2004, p. 519). He developed three different types of schedules; continuous, ratio (fixed and variable) and interval (fixed and variable). He and Ferster described the massive program of research they did on scheduled reinforcement in a work entitled Schedules of Reinforcement. They showed through their research that response rates could be reliably predicted based on the schedule of reinforcement. This work and its findings is now a basic tool in the experimental analysis of behavior (Hothersall, 2004). Skinner also introduced shaping, a behavioral training system that uses successive approximations.