Behaviorists and Behavior Therapy Historical Background and Key Figures After a slow start, behaviorism rapidly gained favor among psychologists in the 1920 s, particularly in America. The main reason for its popularity was its claim to be the first truly scientific psychology. Until the 19 th century, psychology had consisted largely of philosophic speculation, not science. Behaviorists, in contrast, claimed that they could construct a psychology entirely from visible, measurable events, the causally connected stimulus-response units of which, they maintained, the whole range of animal and human behavior was assembled. Such a psychology would be based on reactions as specific and unvarying as those of chemistry or physics, and would enable the psychologist to predict the response. Another reason so many psychologists found behaviorism appealing was that by limiting themselves to visible behavior they could dispose of all those questions concerning the mind that philosophers and psychologists had pondered for hundreds of years. Behaviorists hold that we cannot know what goes on in the mind, and we do not need to know in order to explain behavior. Accordingly what goes on in the mind should not even be discussed, since all talk about mental processes is tantamount to believing in some bodiless entity that runs the brain. There were deep-seated social and cultural reasons for the success of behaviorism. It appealed to the twentieth-century personality, especially in America, because it was practical. It did not seek ultimate explanations, but commonsense knowledge that could be put to use. 1
Since the 1950s, behavior therapy, (especially cognitive-behavior therapy) has aggressively stepped to the center stage in the mental-health field, emerging as one of the four major paradigms in the field (along with psychodynamic, humanistic, and familysystem psychologies). Academic clinical psychology seems to be particularly dominated by this approach. The best explanation of this popularity is probably that behaviortherapy researchers have been very successful at generating empirical studies. Psychology, before behaviorism, was mostly about the introspection of a person s mental state. However, despite psychologists efforts, the human mind had remained a black box. Behaviorists have their eyes only on the S (stimulus) - R (response), and ignore the box in the middle. Extremists like Watson and Skinner went so far as dismissing the notion that the mind even existed. They believed that external forces are the direct cause of our action. Modern behaviorism, however, is open to the suggestion that genetic and other physiological variables co-determine human behavior. Regardless of support or rejection for this mindless viewpoint, one cannot deny its achievement in achieving psychology the scientific status and respect from the world outside of the profession. Additionally, its robust practical applications cannot be overlooked or underestimated. Key Concepts Behavior therapy was and is an outgrowth of behaviorism, which in turn was a product of two factors: 1) a view of metaphysics, especially that of naturalism; and 2) a view of science, first that of inductive empiricism and later that of logical positivism (Reiber & Salzinger, 1998). Naturalism assumes that the universe is composed 2
exclusively of matter and energy. According to logical positivism, all meaningful assertions must be either analytic or be empirically verifiable or falsifiable. In this view, empirical sense data become the highest court of meaning and hence determine truth. Because mental phenomena were not accessible to empirical study, behaviorism eschewed all mentalism. Behavior was understood through its material and causal relationship to other behaviors and environmental events. Behaviorism s embrace of naturalism gave rise to what has been called reductionism, the principle of breaking down more complex phenomena into simpler, more elemental ones. For example, human language became understood as verbal behavior, operating by the same principles as all overt behavior and reflexes. These complex phenomena were in turn believed to be understandable in terms of the most elemental processes of learning. In this view, what we call mental events (such as thoughts and beliefs) become dispositions to engage in behavior and do not hold much interest apart from their direct ties to overt behavior. Everything was reduced to elemental processes. Behavioral understandings of the person are generally that the person is a bundle of behavior patterns, reflexes, perceptions and impressions. The self is nothing more, in this view, than the aggregation of the person s empirical characteristics. The committed behaviorist asserts that classical and operant learning processes explain all behavior. So then, it is not persons or their personalities that are assessed, but rather it is behaviors and their controlling variables. 3
Research on behavior therapy has demonstrated that particular treatment methods are effective, that behavior therapy is broadly applicable to a range of psychological disorders and is a preferred treatment for certain problems (Corsini & Wedding, 2000). Because behavior therapy has evolved and continues to do so, it is embracing an even broader focus on developments in other areas of psychology. Currently the four major phases are: 1) the classical conditioning trend, 2) the operant conditioning model, 3) the social learning approach, and 4) cognitive behavior therapy. Out of this broad field that includes various concentrations, B.F. Skinner is presents the most questionable presuppositions. Skinner s theory is all-encompassing and provides a means to examine systematically the relations between a subject and its environment. His ideas concerning behavior as a function of its consequences (or reinforcement and punishment) are compelling. B. F. Skinner s theory of radical behaviorism has made valuable contributions to the field of psychology, if for no other reason than to spark debate. His operant conditioning ideas are not wholly invalid. However, his denial of the importance of mental processes, as well as the use of animal data and the black box are questionable. Skinner was not concerned with the mental processes of the individual. He was concerned with how the individual acts and what conditions make him or her act that way. Skinner rejected the validity of mental processes solely because these processes are unobservable. The processes can only be determined by asking the individual, and doing so is too subjective for scientific study. Behavior, on the other hand, is observable for study. Hence, Skinner believed that behavior should be the focus of study. One cannot 4
measure what goes on inside an individual s mind, or at least not with certain validity. One can, however, measure and find patterns in that individual's actions in his or her environment. However, behaviorism is problematic on several levels. Its assumptions about human beings from observations of animals are questionable. In addition, the idea of the black box of the mind is not cohesive explanation of mental processes because it is limited in its value for understanding human behavior. Behavioral scientists tend to accept the idea that information provided by research with animals such as rats, monkeys, and pigeons can be used to make inferences about human behavior. However, the transferability of the knowledge gleaned from animal research is questionable. Humans do not always behave in the same manner as animals because input from other humans or themselves can affect their behavior. Key Concepts Behaviorism is a major trend in psychology, one that directly follows from functionalism, the branch of psychology that focuses on the biological significance of natural processes, including behavior. Behaviorist theory goes further in its rejection of the unique nature of mental events. It does so by declaring that psychology is the study of only observable behaviors. Therefore, purely mental events, events that occur outside the realm of behavior are not the subject matter of psychology. In terms of a definition, behaviorism is the study of the relationship between individuals environments and their behavior, without consulting hypothetical events that occur within their minds (Carlson & Buskist, 1997). 5
This movement gained much attention and praise from many scientists who claimed other theories in psychology were invalid because they were not empirical, and as a result not quantifiable. Behaviorism, in contrast, maintains an objective stance to ensure that research findings will be valid and capable of being relied upon. Evaluation After many years of supremacy in the field of American psychology, the theory of behaviorism finds itself now on the defensive. Behaviorism s dominance in psychology restricted science s subject matter to that of observable behavior and concepts like consciousness were considered to be outside the realm of psychology. Behaviorists see psychology as a natural science, with two important corollaries. The first corollary alleges that science, and specifically psychology, must be objective. The second is that psychology, as a science, must be empirically based as well. The theories and methods of B. F. Skinner are an example of how behaviorism is perhaps the most objective sub-field within the domain of psychology. The late B.F. Skinner was a important figure in the world of psychology, and more specifically within the realm of behaviorism. He claimed that behavior is greatly explained in terms of its consequences. Behavior, then, is consistent from one situation to the next because it is maintained by similar kinds of consequences across those situations. It changes only when the consequences for behavior change. As a result of the degree to which theorists confine themselves to behavior, their definition of personality itself becomes equivalent to and dependent upon that individual s behavior. Essentially, that what a person is is what a person does. This briefly depicts Skinner s theory of 6
operant conditioning, which arose out of his empirical data supporting his theses that there are relations between environmental stimuli and an individual s behavior. The term operant refers to the fact that an organism learns through responding to the environment. Skinner also asserted that positive or negative reinforcement (consequences) affect a subject s behavior, in that the act will either be repeated or avoided (Carlson & Buskist, 1997, p.133). Skinner argues that research should be conducted not to test theories, but to find orderliness in behavior. The search for orderliness is intuitive, rather than structured by scientific method. A theory is a formulation that uses a small number of terms to explain a large number of facts. As a result of the fact that perception and report are conceptual, observation cannot be entirely independent of knowledge and belief. However, it should be possible to establish a continuum based on the degree to which knowledge and belief contribute to a data report. Descriptions that command universal consent from observers are at one end of the continuum whereas those generating much opposition are at the other. Therefore, although behaviorists differ in their theories of behavior and hence in their explanations of scientific research, theorizing, and theory confirmation, they all view science in terms of the behavior of the scientist. Behaviorists generally maintain a consequential doctrine. However, in the case against consciousness, they set forth methodological arguments rather than ontological ones. One of the greatest strengths of behaviorism is its foundational methodological advantage over all the competing perspectives. 7
Although all psychological approaches are based on the study of behavior, they differ in how behavior is used. The psychodynamic approach, such as in Freud s psychoanalysis, uses behavior as signs, inferring attributes and motives from the observable things the individual does. This differs from Skinner and other behaviorists in that they see the observed behavior as the basic unit, and the interest lies in determining what controls it. Growing evidence from several lines of research has altered theoretical perspectives concerning how behavior is acquired and regulated. It has been documented that cognitive processes play a prominent role in the acquisition and retention of new behavior patterns. It has been argued by most of the psychological community that behavioral theories are not truly explanatory. It is stated that, at best, the black box theories provide input-output laws, but do not explain said laws. Only by reference to events inside the black box can behavior be explained. Also, the general behavioral laws used in black box deductive explanations are simply descriptive of observed regularities. Behaviorists state them as givens rather than as the results of the internal or mental events preceding them. Behaviorally oriented psychologists, in their attempt to ignore the black box of a mind, seem to dehumanize the person by ignoring his or her potential for freedom. In this sense behaviorists negate the concept of free will. In response to the arguments of behaviorism, psychodynamic, social, and cognitive psychologists have all voiced their opposition to the behaviorist theory. These psychologists state that it is too confined to the idea that psychology is the study of only 8
observable behaviors. Therefore, behaviorism is clearly a theory that has strict limitations in the sense that it completely ignores mental events, or hypothetical feelings and consciousness, which occur outside the confined world of behavior. Wechtel and Messer (1998), state that as behavior therapists gained more and more clinical experience, they realized the value of bringing back into their thinking those elements that behaviorism had originally rejected, consciousness, cognition, inner emotional states, the self, choice and freedom, and individual behavior as interdependently embedded in small groups and organizational and community systems, but always within some kind of explicit, data oriented, broadly behaviorally based learning theory framework (p.170). It can be argued that, although behaviorism is limiting, it is also very effective as a basis for investigating other theories. For example, the image processing of cognitive psychology has its base in behavior analysis. The future of psychology as a science depends on how effectively it can use behavioral methodology, instead of focusing on either the philosophical or ideological underpinnings of the behavioristic shape of its theories. Therefore, behaviorism is a theory that still has basic applicability in both its theories and methods. However, it is somewhat in need of reconstruction in order to continue to be beneficial to the world of psychology as a great theory of personality. Such a retooling of the theories would make the considerable capacity of behaviorism s theories more applicable to the world of today, a world more willing to search the inner recesses of the human mind. Corey (1996), in his book lists number of limitations and criticisms of behavior therapy. Some common criticisms and misconceptions that people often have about 9
behavior therapy are: 1) behavior therapy may change behaviors, but it does not change feelings; 2) behavior therapy ignores the important relational factors in therapy; 3) behavior therapy does not provide insight; 4) behavior therapy treats symptoms rather than causes; and 5) behavior therapy involves control and manipulation by the therapist (pp. 308-310). In addition to the limitations listed by Corey (1996), other concerns are that the success of the approach is in proportion to the ability to control environmental variables. In institutional settings (schools, psychiatric hospitals, mental health outpatient clinics, etc.) the danger exists of imposing conforming behavior. A basic criticism leveled at this approach is that it does not address broader human problems, such as meaning, the search for values, and identity issues, but focuses instead on very specific and narrow behavioral problems. What is true of behavior therapy its usefulness but limited applicability is similar to what proved true of its parent, behaviorism. It is not an erroneous theory but one that explains the elementary forms of behavior that make up only a part of the psychology of rats, and a small part of the psychology of human beings. 10
References Carlson, N., & Buskist, W. (1997). Psychology: The science of behavior (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Corey, G. (1996). Theory and practice of counseling and psychotherapy. (5 th ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company. Corsini, R., & Wedding, D. (2000). Current psychotherapies. (6 th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson Brooks/Cole. Reiber, R., & Salzinger, K. (1998). (Eds.). (2 nd ed.). Psychology: Theoretical-historical perspectives. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Wachtel, P., & Messer, S. (1998). Theories of psychotherapy: Origins and evolution. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. 11