The History Of Behaviourism Psychology Essay

During the decades 1930-1960, behaviourism represented the mainstream of experimental psychology (Jean-Claude Lecas, 2006). Central idea of behaviourism simply means “A science of behaviour is possible” (William M. Baum, 1994). While, behaviourists are group of individual which have diverse views about what this proposition means, and particularly about what science is and what behaviour is. Most of the behaviourist agrees that there can be a science of behaviour (William M. Baum, 1994). Behaviourists call the science of behaviour as behaviour analysis and are part of the psychology and this result the contention happen among behaviourist and psychologist due to many psychologists disagree psychology is a part of science while those regard it as a science consider its subject matter something other than behaviour. After the debate, behaviourism has been consider as a philosophy of science which related to a manner why we do, what we do, and what we should and should not do. In a more direct way, behaviourism is an approach which offers an alternative view that often runs counter to traditional thinking about action (William M. Baum, 1994).

Early Behaviourist

There are some of the famous early behaviourist which contributes for the early behaviourism such as John Watson, Edwin Guthrie, Clark Hull, Edward Lee Thorndike, Ivan Petrovitch Pavlov, and B.F. Skinner.

1. Edward L. Thorndike (1874-1949)

Edward Thorndike started young and continued his scientific output until his death at nearly 75 years old. He was a type of people dislike any abstract discussion not tied closely to concrete facts because what he wrote was based directly on data, usually on new data. Thorndike had made a superior undergraduate record at Wesleyan University, 1891-95 (Robert s. Woodworth. 1952). After that he went to Harvard for his graduate study. In the second year of his graduate study, Thorndike undertook a research project of the experimental study of the instinctive and intelligent behaviour of young chicks. Through his laboratory study of animal learning, demonstrate that animal behaviour observed under experimental conditions could help solve the general problems of psychology. The first published paper by Thorndike was Animal Intelligence which announced a new law of learning, additional to the old standard laws of association, and emerges of theory of learning. On his study, Edward placed chicks, cats or dogs in a problem situation where alternative responses were possible and the first response was unlikely to be successful. The question of this study was whether the animal, perhaps after much trial and error, would learn to do the right thing in the situation-and how rapid his learning might be. Through this study, understand that in a series of trials the unsuccessful responses would fade out and the correct response would occur more and more quickly. The “effect” or outcome of any response was thus a powerful factor in its elimination or establishment (Robert s. Woodworth. 1952).

Apart from the first study, Thorndike carry out a series of other study, one of it was “transfer” experiment. On this study, he give a person intensive training in some narrow field and then test that person’s abilities in a more inclusive field and determine how much improvement could be demonstrated beyond the limits of the special training. Through this experiment, it showed a meager transfer effect, the ability developed by training in one line of work was specific and did not spread to other lines of work except when what had been learned could be utilized in a concrete way. Both of his study mention above led up to Thorndike’s celebrated theory of the specificity of abilities (Robert s. Woodworth. 1952).

2. Ivan Petrovich Pavlov (1849-1936)

Pavlov was a physician which worked as an experimental laboratory scientist. On 1883, Pavlov had developed his theory of “nervism” which he defined as a physiological theory which tries to prove that the nervous system controls the greatest possible number of bodily functions. Apart from that, he had won the Nobel Prize in 1904 due to their publication on the developed of a small part of the stomach called the “Pavlov pouch” as well as chronic external-salivary, biliary, and pancreatic fistulae for his fundamental study of gastric physiology. Pavlov also involves himself on the research of human psychophysiology and psychopathology. This led to a new psychology oriented school of physiology and stimulated ideas of many aspects of human behaviour.

3. B.F. Skinner (1904-1990)

Skinner was an American psychologist, behaviourist and social philosopher (Smith, L. D., Woodward, W. R., 1996). Skinner called his philosophy of science as radical behaviourism. He argued that psychology should be the study of behaviour. From the point of view of Skinner, he defined behaviour as anything the organism does. This view diverges from the point of view of psychologist who thinks the proper subject matter of psychology is the stream of consciousness. He called his philosophy of science as radical behaviourism was because radical can mean “root”, and he that his behaviourism was through going, “deep” behaviourism (William T. O’Donohue & Kyle E. Ferguson, 2001).

Behaviourism is not the science of human behaviour; it is the philosophy of that science. Some of the questions it asks are these: Is such a science really possible? Can it account for every aspect of human behaviour? What methods can it use? Are its law as valid as those of physics and biology? Will it lead to a technology, and if so, what role will it play in human affairs? (Skinner, 1974)

Skinner (1970) also stated that “Behaviourism is a formulation which makes possible an effective experimental approach to human behaviour. It is a working hypothesis about the nature of a subject matter”. In conclusion, radical behaviourism is not a scientific law; it is a metascientific which attempts to define what the science of behaviour should look like and it is important to be clear what is radical behaviourism and what is not (William T. O’Donohue & Kyle E. Ferguson, 2001).

4. John B. Watson (1878- 1958)

He had introduced the term behaviourism in the early part of the twentieth century. Watson emphasized the need for focusing scientific inquiry on observable behaviours rather than” thinking” which defined as non-observable phenomena by him. Apart from that, he also opposes the study of internal mental events as well as denied any existence of the mind. His thinking was greatly influenced by Pavlov. He had adopted the classically conditioned S-R (Stimulus-Response) habit as the basic unit of learning and extended it to human learning (J. E. Ormrod, 2008).

Watson had proposed two laws which describing how S-R habit develop. The first law was law of frequency and second law was law of recency. The first law concern on the importance of repetition which bring the meaning of the more frequently a stimulus and response occur in association with each other, the stronger that S-R habit will become. While the second law concern on the importance of timing which mean the response that has most recently occurred after a particular stimulus is the response most likely to be associated with that stimulus (J. E. Ormrod, 2008).

In conclusion, from the point of view of Watson, he believed that the past experience of an individual accounts for virtually all behaviour. He was a extreme environmentalist, which denied that hereditary factors had any effect on behaviour (J. E. Ormrod, 2008).

5. Edwin R. Guthrie (1886-1959)

Guthrie’s famous with his contiguity theory which had similar perspectives as Watson approach which placed S-R connections at the center of the learning process. An organism responds to a particular stimulus in a particular way on one occasion, the organism will make the same response the next time it encounters the same stimulus and this called habits. Guthrie also shared Watson’s belief that recency is critical in learning: An organism will respond to a stimulus in the way that it has most recently responded to that stimulus (J. E. Ormrod, 2008).

6. Clark L. Hull (1884-1952)

Hull had introduced an organismic characteristic which bring the meaning of characteristics unique to different individuals. He brings this approach into behaviourist learning theory. He had maintained the S-R habits approach by Skinner and agreed with Thorndike and Skinner behaviourists approach. However, Hull partially agree with the statement by Thorndike and Skinner which stated that presence of a particular stimulus and one’s past experiences will affect the behaviour of an individual. In his approach, he believed those stimuli are not the only determinants of whether a particular response will occur or how strongly it will be made. There are some other factors called intervening variables which affect the individual response or behaviour toward certain stimulus. Example of intervening variables are habit strength, organism drive (an internal state of arousal that motivates one behaviour), and inhibitory factors (e.g. fatigue). Hull’s theory was predominant throughout the 1940s and 1950s (J. E. Ormrod, 2008).

Hawthorne Studies

The “Hawthorne effect” is often mentioned as a possible explanation for positive results in intervention studies. It is used to cover many phenomena, not only unwitting confounding of variables under study by the study itself, but also behavioural change due to an awareness of being observed, active compliance with the supposed wishes of researchers because of special attention received, or positive response to the stimulus being introduced (Wickström G, Bendix T, 2000).

Hawthorne studies was introduced by Frederick Taylor in the year of 1911 which influenced by the “principles of scientific management”. It is first be practice on the year of 1924 by the management of the Hawthorne plant of the Western Electric Company in Chicago, Illinois, in the United States. The studies look into the relationship between illumination and productivity of the workers. The similar studies was repeated between year 1927 and 1933 in cooperation with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and Harvard University which concerned with the effects of changes in rest pauses and work hours on productivity (Wickström G, Bendix T, 2000). For the first studies done on 1924, the methodology involve was decreased the illumination step by step for the experimental subjects, while the controls received the same illumination. Both group of subjects slowly but steadily increased their performance of inspecting parts, assembling relays or winding coils. This experiment showed that there were not significant relationships between the lighting with the productivity of the workers in the criteria as long as the lighting was kept at a reasonable level. However, there was some other factor more important to affect the productivity of the worker (Wickström G, Bendix T, 2000).

Other variables were later being study such as physical factors causing fatigue and monotony, assembly, mica splitting and bank wiring. After complete the series of experiment it found that assembly test as well as the others 3 variables did not explain the continuous increase in productivity observed during the test. The individuals named Roethlisberger & Dickson which compile this study report suggested that the most important factor behind the continuous increase in output was the improved personal relations between workers and management. This statement was supported based on the explanations of the informally expressed opinions of the workers participating in the experiment and also based on the general thought of the investigators (Wickström G, Bendix T, 2000). By this study, the investigators conclude that the unintentional manipulations caused the subjects to improve their overall productivity and thus results the appeared of the term called the Hawthorne effect. This term will introduced apparently in French on 1953 which highlighted that the marked increase in production related only to special social position and social treatment. Many of the other articles had deduced that the increased on productivity may result from one the causes stated below, e.g. morale, attitude, supervision, teamwork, cohesiveness, informal organization, interpersonal relationships, social unity, and awareness of being in an experiment, acquiring skill, or continuous feedback while working in a group (Wickström G, Bendix T, 2000).

In conclusion, the Hawthorne effect is simply referred to as an increase in productivity. The increase in productivity may due to one or more of the factor below, e.g. relief from harsh supervision, receiving positive attention, learning new ways of interaction, possibilities to influence work procedures, rest pauses, higher income, or threat of losing one’s job. All of these factors, or any combination of them, may result an observable increased in the productivity.