Namecourse Start Datequestion Posedtype In Your Response Here Not ✓ Solved

Name: Course Start Date: Question posed: Type in your response here. (Note that your responses, in total should be at least 700 words.) Introduce what you will be discussing in this template. Include a thesis statement that focuses your knowledge about behaviorism into one or two sentences. In addition, make an encompassing statement about your position in relation to the topic of behaviorism and its sub-branches. Discuss your results of the pre-test in Chapter 1: The Foundations of Behaviorism. Discuss the ambiguity (more than one interpretation) suggested by the multiple sub-theories and frameworks of behaviorism.

Hint: Do the numerous sub-theories indicate differing suggestions although one overarching definition of behaviorism is often presented? Explain how association doctrine and later, connectionism, evolved the foundations of behaviorism. Hint: Remember - connectionism is an extension of the association doctrine. Be sure to review this in your text. Compare and contrast the stimulus-response (S-R) model and the law of effect and how the inclusion of a confirming reaction changed the model.

Outline the historical evolution of behaviorism suggested by its sub-theories (e.g. molar, radical, and psychological behaviorism). Hint: How did each branch change/evolve? Summarize any takeaways that you have developed about behaviorism, including its sub-theories, based on the content this week. Create a conclusion paragraph discussing the topics you addressed above.

Paper for above instructions

Exploring Behaviorism: A Comprehensive Analysis of Its Foundations and Sub-Theories
Behaviorism, a pivotal theory in psychology, primarily focuses on observable behaviors rather than internal mental states. A significant thesis statement encapsulates the essence of this exploration: "While behaviorism provides a unified framework for understanding behavioral patterns, the various sub-theories reveal a complexity that enriches our understanding of human behavior." My exploration positions me in the realm of psychological behaviorism, where the interaction between behavior and environment is underscored, acknowledging that the diversity of sub-theories can sometimes obscure a cohesive understanding of behaviorism as a whole.
The pre-test results from Chapter 1: The Foundations of Behaviorism underscored the foundational role that early theorists such as John B. Watson and B.F. Skinner have played. Watson’s insistence on observable behavior marked a departure from introspective methodologies, thus establishing a solid foundation for behaviorism (Watson, 1913). However, these results also illustrated the ambiguity inherent within behaviorism itself, especially regarding its various interpretations owing to multiple sub-theories. For example, radical behaviorism and psychological behaviorism propose different scopes and mechanisms of behavior, leading to potential misinterpretations and a fragmented understanding of the overarching behaviorist paradigm.
The evolution of behaviorism is deeply rooted in the association doctrine, initially formulated by philosophers such as Aristotle. This doctrine posits that ideas and experiences are linked in various ways, leading to learned behavior through associations (B.F. Skinner Foundation, 2020). This foundational idea was later expanded upon by Edward Thorndike, whose law of effect introduced the principle that responses followed by satisfying outcomes are more likely to occur again, striking a balance between inclusivity and simplicity in behavioral learning (Thorndike, 1911). This concept elegantly paved the way for the development of connectionism, which advanced the association doctrine by underscoring that behavior could be understood through task-related learning and outcomes.
In comparing the stimulus-response (S-R) model and the law of effect, we recognize that the S-R model focuses merely on the relationship between stimuli and reactions, serving as a straightforward depiction of behavior (Pavlov, 1927). On the contrary, Thorndike’s law of effect emphasizes the consequences of behavior. As behaviorism evolved, this inclusion of confirming reactions became a pivotal element in adjusting the behavioral framework, transforming it into a more dynamic model that interconnected stimuli, responses, and their outcomes (Skinner, 1953). Thus, the puzzle began to emerge: how behavior, through feedback loops of reinforcement and punishment, evolves in richness and complexity.
As behaviorism progressed historically, three significant branches emerged: molar behaviorism, radical behaviorism, and psychological behaviorism. Molar behaviorism, pioneered by the likes of Clark Hull and Edward Tolman, focuses on the larger patterns of behavior and the role of cognitive processes in learning, observing that behavior is often goal-directed (Hull, 1943; Tolman, 1932). In contrast, radical behaviorism, associated with B.F. Skinner, maintains a strict focus on observable behavior while dismissing cognitive psychology’s explanation of behavior as superfluous and unnecessary (Skinner, 1971). Lastly, psychological behaviorism, distinguished by its integration of internal states while still emphasizing overt behavior, provides a more holistic view, aligning more closely with contemporary understandings of psychology (Ryle, 1949).
Through examining these three branches, it becomes evident that each sub-theory of behaviorism has uniquely contributed to its evolution, shifting from a purely stimulus-response framework to a multidisciplinary approach that incorporates behavioral consequences and cognitive influences. While early theories adhered to the strict observability of behavior, the emergence of cognitive factors illustrated a deeper interaction between internal and external influences on behavior (Bandura, 1977).
Reflecting upon the material discussed over this period, it is evident that behaviorism is far from monolithic. Rather, its significance lies in its adaptability and capacity to encompass various facets of behavior and learning, from the elementary stimulus-response elements to more intricate cognitive processes. The blend of association doctrines, connectionism, and emergent branches of behaviorism illustrates a healthy tension between simplification and complex analysis of behavior.
Conclusion
In summarizing the key explorations of behaviorism, it is important to recognize that while the foundational pillars of the theory have shaped our understanding of behavior significantly, the sub-theories serve as vital critiques and extensions of this foundation. The multiplicity of interpretations within behaviorism nurtures an enriching dialogue about human behavior, necessitating a consideration of environmental, cognitive, and behavioral factors in psychology. By recognizing the evolution from the association doctrine through connectionism to diverse branches such as radical and psychological behaviorism, we acknowledge the complexity and dynamism of learning and behavior—a complexity that continues to challenge and inspire contemporary psychology.
References
1. B.F. Skinner Foundation. (2020). History of behaviorism. Retrieved from [URL].
2. Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
3. Hull, C. L. (1943). Principles of behavior. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
4. Pavlov, I. P. (1927). Conditioned reflexes: An investigation of the physiological activity of the cerebral cortex. London: Oxford University Press.
5. Ryle, G. (1949). The concept of mind. London: Hutchinson.
6. Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior. New York: The Macmillan Company.
7. Skinner, B. F. (1971). Beyond freedom and dignity. New York: Knopf.
8. Thorndike, E. L. (1911). Animal intelligence: An experimental study of the associational processes in animals. New York: Macmillan.
9. Tolman, E. C. (1932). Purposive behavior in animals and men. New York: Century.
10. Watson, J. B. (1913). Psychology as the behaviorist views it. Psychological Review, 20, 158-177.