Behaviorism and Neo behaviorism Approaches

Behaviorism is regarded as an approach in the field of psychology that emphasizes the significant role of environmental factors in shaping people’s behavior. This approach of psychology emphasizes that environmental factors influence behavior more than intrinsic or genetic factors. Based on this school of thought, all behaviors are influenced by interactions with the environment and therefore focuses on stimulus-response behaviors. The behaviorist movement has attracted several varying perspectives among different psychologists including John Watson’s classical S-R behaviorism. Classical S-R behaviorism is an approach that postulates that all psychological functions can be explained through observable, overt, and measurable muscular movements, nerve impulses, and glandular secretions (Moore, 2011).

However, classical S-R behaviorism has attracted considerable criticism from various psychologists on the premise that it’s insufficient to account for the wide range of human behavior. One of the major criticisms of classical S-R behaviorism is from Edward C. Tolman and Clark Hull. Tolman contended that classical S-R behaviorism does not account for purposive behavior given that most animal and human behavior is deliberately targeted towards a specific goal or end state. While he did not refute the independence of conscious behavior and mentality, Tolman argued that it was essential to incorporate mental determinants of purposive human behavior in the concept of behaviorism. On the other hand, Hull introduced the concept of operationalism, which suggests that habits exist independently of the specific behavioral expression in stimulus conditions.

Based on Hull and Tolman’s work, neo-behaviorism was the best response to classical S-R behaviorism since they focus on consideration of the whole picture when addressing the issue of human behavior. Neo-behaviorism is the best response to classical S-R behaviorism since is emphasizes that the study of learning and focus on objective methods of observation are crucial to scientific psychology. In this regard, purpose and cognition are critical to behavior and should be interpreted as observable characteristics of behavior rather than mentalistic components. Moreover, human behavior also incorporates habit-formation since people have a tendency to respond to a particular positive stimulus in a certain way.

One of the psychologists who played a crucial role in the development of the psychological approach to behaviorism is B.F. Skinner. Skinner was one of the most important neo-behaviorists who not only refuted Hull’s efforts to develop formal theory and returned to John Watson’s of developing science based on observation of behavior (Weidman, n.d.). Watson introduced the concept of classical behaviorism that focuses on stimulus-response behaviors on the premise that all behaviors are influenced by interactions with the environment. Watson’s classical conditioning focuses on creating a link between a naturally existing stimulus and a past neutral stimulus. On the contrary, Skinner introduced the concept of radical behaviorism, which postulates that the main aim of psychology should be to forecast and control behavior. He also introduced the concept of operant conditioning, which
tries to modify human behavior through using positive and negative reinforcement.

Skinner’s radical behaviorism is similar to Watson’s classical behaviorism on the premise that both psychologists acknowledged the role of intrinsic mental events. These two concepts also concur that psychology should primarily focus on predicting and controlling human behavior. However, there are some differences between Skinner’s radical behaviorism and Watson’s classical behaviorism despite these similarities. First, even though Skinner’s radical behaviorism recognizes that internal mental events could not be utilized to explain behavior like Watson’s classical behaviorism, it differs in the sense that it proposes the use of internal mental events in analysis of behavior. Secondly, Watson’s classical behaviorism postulates that the mind is blank at birth whereas Skinner’s radical behaviorism embraces the view that humans and organisms are born with intrinsic behaviors. Therefore, unlike Watson’s classical behaviorism, Skinner’s radical behaviorism recognizes the role of biological components and genes in influencing human behavior. On the other hand, Watson’s classical conditioning differs from Skinner’s operant conditioning with regarding to stimulus and response. Watson’s classical conditioning suggests that a stimulus automatically activates a spontaneous response whereas Skinner’s classical conditioning postulates that a voluntary response is followed by a reinforcing stimulus in attempts to modify behavior.