Preface and Chapter One

Introduction

Things people don’t like about conditioning principles!

Manipulative! Evil! Irrelevant for understanding human

behavior!

So what is the truth?

Are Behavioral approaches to learning useful and good things to study?

A natural process that does apply to humans

We ALL do it every day Best used wisely and thoughtfully Knowledge of these principles can help

you enhance the quality of your life and the lives of those around you

What is behavior?

Behavior is any activity of an organism that can be directly or indirectly observed

What is learning?

A relatively permanent change in behavior (or potential behavior) that results from some kind of experience or practice.

Why did I add “behavior potential”?

Because of the fact that behavior changes are not always immediate.

Every time you learn something new, you have the potential to behave differently!

What are the two fundamental types of learning we will study?

Classical Conditioning Operant Conditioning

What are the key differences between these types of learning? Classical conditioning is reflexive and

involuntary while Operant conditioning involves the learner’s voluntary systems

The learner has little or no control in Classical conditioning and some degree of control in Operant conditioning

Let’s think of some real-life examples of each!

(The text has given salivation to a bell and a rat learning to press a bar for food as examples).

There are other types of learning we won’t study very much. Examples include:

Observational learning Inherited patterns of behavior like

fixed action patterns

Historical Background

Philosophers and Empiricists

Philosophy: Parent Discipline to Psychology

Plato - Nativism, inborn, revealed Aristotle – Empiricism, nurture,

learned Descartes – Mind-Body Dualism

Contributions to Psychology Aristotle – Nature vs. Nurture and Laws of

Association Descartes – rebelled from straight “Age of

Reason” ideas Body – machine – involuntary/ reflex Mind – free will - voluntary

The British Empiricists: All knowledge comes from experience

John Locke “tabula rasa” conscious mind has “elements” philosopher, not scientist

Structuralism

experiments to test element concept

“Introspection” was the research method

Functionalism

Seeks to study how the “mind” helps us adapt

Interested in adaptive animal behavior and what it might tell us about humans

FOCUS: Adaptive function of the “mind”

Behaviorism John Watson disliked previous approaches

Introspection an unreliable research method Can’t study the “mind” scientifically

Wanted Psychology to be a true science Direct observation NOT inference Observable behavior + environmental events

Law of Parsimony – the simpler the explanation, the better!

Learning is more important than genetics

The Five Schools of Behaviorism

Watson’s Methodological Behaviorism Most extreme form Scientific method allows only for

directly observable behaviors to be studied

Psychology’s “mentalism” must be stopped for the discipline to survive

Methodological Behaviorism: Role of Internal Processes Internal processes consist of:

Conscious processes (examples) Thoughts Feelings

Unconscious processes Drives Motives

Internal processes exist, BUT: don’t cause behavior are not suitable subjects for study

Other features of Methodological Behaviorism Called “S-R Theory” Learning the result of associations between

Ss and Rs Mechanistic view Extreme position on the nature vs. nurture

issue Watson thought “nature” view was used to

justify racism

Hull’s Neobehaviorism Disagreed with Watson:

Rejected Watson’s view that unobservable events (internal processes) couldn’t be studied

Thought internal processes could be studied once they were “operationalized”

Believed some of these processes could mediate between the environment and behavior Called these mediating processes “intervening variables” Thought they were physiological (e.g. hunger and the sex

drive)

Hull also agreed with Watson in important ways Shared the view that Psychology’s

mentalistic emphasis must go! Took a pure S-R approach to

learning Theory was mechanistic

Tolman’s Cognitive Behaviorism Disagreed with Watson and Hull:

Analyzed behavior more holistically – NOT just as a series of S-R connections

Viewed behavior to be “goal directed” Influenced by Gestalt psychologists

“Whole greater than the sum of its parts” Believed that internal processes like

“expectations” and “hypotheses” guided behavior instead of just physiological processes (like Hull’s view)

Concepts Central to Tolman’s View Cognitive Map (see Maze on

handout 2) Latent Learning (see Graph on

handout 2) Distinction between “learning” and

“performance”

Tolman’s Areas of Agreement with Watson and Hull Thought it was necessary but

“shameful” to have to incorporate internal processes to explain behavior

Believed it was only okay to include internal processes because they were inferred from observable behavior

Bandura’s Social Learning Theory Most different from Watson’s view Takes Tolman’s inclusion of cognitive processes

to a whole new level Interested in the influences of imitation and

observation on learning Believed in “reciprocal determinism”

Environmental Events (Ss), Observable Behavior (Rs) and Internal Person Variables (thoughts and feelings) ALL influence each other

Influences of Bandura’s Theory Helped stimulate the development of

Cognitive Theory by building on Tolman’s approach

Laid the groundwork for the popularity of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy

Led to research on the influence of television and other aspects of pop culture on behavior

Skinner’s Radical Behaviorism Areas of disagreement with Watson:

Internal processes should be viewed as “covert behavior” with observable behavior viewed as “overt behavior”

These internal processes (or private behaviors) can be included in an analysis of behavior

Skinner’s Radical Behaviorism Generally Agreed with Watson Disliked the increasing interest in internal

processes Emphasized the influence of the environment

on overt behavior Rejected the use of internal processes (or

covert behaviors) to explain overt behavior Believed “thoughts” and “feelings” were

themselves behaviors that needed to be explained by environmental events

Interesting Aspect of Skinner’s View Chicken/Egg problem: Which comes first??

Do thoughts precede, follow, or happen at the same time as behavior? (ex. Seeing a mugger, running, and feeling fear)

Not as mechanistic as Watson and Hull Countercontrol – once we know how the

environment influences our behavior, humans have the capacity to change the environment to have a more beneficial effect

Skinner’s Bottom Line Environmental Events (Ss), Observable

Behaviors (Rs), and Internal (Private) Behaviors (Rs) all can influence each other

BUT . . . Environmental Events (Ss) are the ultimate

cause of BOTH Observable (overt) and Private (covert) Behavior (Rs)

Spend some time getting familiar with these concepts and . . .

You will find other concepts in the days to come easier to tackle!