Human behavior has been a focal area in psychology that has attracted many psychologists. In trying to explain human behavior, several behavioral theorists have developed theories that explain why people behave in certain ways.
This paper first identifies some theorists who have contributed to behavioral approach and then compares and contrasts the perspectives of B.F. Skinner and Ivan Pavlov towards this approach. Next, the paper describes some measurement and assessment instruments that could be used to prove the effectiveness of behavioral approach. Lastly, the paper discusses potential clinical applications of the approach and gives a summary of main points.
Behavioral Approach Perspective
Behavioral theory explains observable behavior in people. Some behaviorists call this approach learning theory because it deals with influences in learning behavior. The theory holds that behaviour occurs in reaction to stimuli (Domjan, 2010). It assumes that actions which people carry out have roots in their direct environment. This environment gives stimuli to which they respond, and the impact from the environment teaches them how to respond in certain ways (Domjan, 2010).
The theory considers internal mental activities in giving reasons why people act in certain ways (Horgan, 1991). It relates stimulus with human behaviour to know responses elicited by different stimuli. The theory also holds that human beings come into this world with some innate reflexes that do not need learning. It attributes other complex behaviors’ in people to environmental influences. The theory assumes that human beings learn in similar ways to other animals since all species follow similar learning processes.
Behaviorists explain how human beings learn through the processes of operant conditioning and classical conditioning (Nicholas, 2008). This way, they can explain stimuli that trigger behaviour as well as what causes people react to stimuli in certain ways. Human beings adopt new behaviour depending on the consequences that follow behavior, in operant conditioning (Baumeister, 2011).
When reinforcement follows behaviour, there is more likelihood of such behaviour appearing again in the future. Reinforcement occurs due to consequences elicited. These consequences cause either positive or negative reinforcement. Positive reinforcement occurs when a result is favorable and negative reinforcement occurs when undesirable consequences follow a certain behavior (Baumeister, 2011). Weakening of behavior also occurs in situations where punishment follows a certain behavior.
Conversely, classical conditioning explains how people learn to relate two stimuli that take place simultaneously (Sammons, n.d., para. 2). In this case, a single stimulus educes a response that gets transfer to another stimulus. The response originally elicited by one stimulus moves to another.
An existing response surfaces after introducing a new stimulus. Eventually, conditioned responses vanish through the extinction process. While operant conditioning entails creating new responses, classical conditioning entails production of present responses to novel stimuli.
The behavioral theory relies on laboratory experiments involving studying animals. Behaviorists use animals because they are easily accessible for study and they learn in ways that are similar to human beings.
Behavioral theorists use laboratory settings because they can control the circumstances under which learning takes place, accurately. Controlling conditions such as reinforcement and punishment must have laboratory setting to realize accurate results. At the same time, these theorists apply experimental techniques since they help making deductions about cause and effect associations involving the variables under study (Sammons, n.d., para. 3).
While behaviorists mainly rely on animals for experiments, they also conduct experiments using human beings. However, studies involving human beings aim at changing people’s behavior in certain settings such as in schools or hospitals. Conditions that direct learning behavior of children, in schools, or psychiatric patients, in hospitals, get manipulation and control to test their impact on selected target behaviors.
Four Theorists who have contributed to Behavioral Approach
Some theorists who have contributed to this approach are Ivan Pavlov, John Watson, BF Skinner and Edward Thorndike (Nicholas, 2008).
John Watson
He is the founder of the term behaviorism. Watson introduced experiments and scientific objectivity in psychological studies. He called for scientific investigation on observable behavior, and not internal mental actions since he denied that the mind existed.
Much of Watson’s work on classical conditioning became influenced by Pavlov and Vladimir (Byrne, 2003). He extended earlier work, by the two theorists, on classical conditioning to human beings. For instance, he used the stimulus-response (S-R) as the central unit of learning in a study with a child called Albert. According to Watson, development of habits could be explained by two laws including law of frequency and law of recency (Byrne, 2003).
The first law explained that the S-R habit developed from simultaneous frequent recurrence of the stimulus and response while the second law emphasized on timing (Byrne, 2003). According to the second law, the response that immediately follows a certain stimulus is the response that is most likely to get association with that stimulus. Watson emphasized that previous encounters influenced almost all behavior.
B.F. Skinner
Skinner’s work on operant conditioning developed from Thorndike’s law of effect (Skinner, 1953). Skinner introduced the term reinforcement into the law of effect. According to Skinner, reinforced behavior gets strengthening while behavior that does not get reinforcement becomes extinct.
Skinner conducted experiments on operant conditioning using rats and pigeons, which he put in a Skinner box. He described operant conditioning as a means of transforming behavior through the use of reinforcement, which followed the ideal response (Skinner, 1953).
Skinner argued that there exist three categories of responses that can occur after behavior including neutral operants, reinforcers and punishers (Skinner, 1953). He described neutral operants as those responses from the environment that could not raise or cut the chances of behavior getting repetition.
He also described reinforcers as environmental responses that raised the chances of behavior getting repetition, and they could either be negative or positive. Lastly, he described punishers as environmental responses that reduced the chances of behavior getting repetition.
Although Skinner agreed that thoughts existed, he did not support the idea that the mind became detached from the body. Skinner held that thoughts were personal behaviors that could be analyzed similar to observed behaviors.
Edward Thorndike
Edward Thorndike’s study on learning theory prompted the growth of operant conditioning in behaviorism (Baumeister, 2011). As mentioned earlier, the ideas of Thorndike influenced much of Skinner’s work on operant conditioning. Thorndike developed theories of learning through experiments of cats in puzzle boxes (McLeod, 2007). He placed fish outside these boxes and estimated the time that cats would take to escape in reach for the fish. As the cats escaped, they would stumble on the lever, which made the door of the box to open.
After a while, these cats learnt that pressing the lever opened the box, and they learnt to press the lever harder, when they wanted to escape (McLeod, 2007). In other words, these cats learnt that pressing the lever produced favorable consequences. As a result, Thorndike came up with the law of effect which stated “any behavior followed by desirable consequences is likely to face repetition, and any behavior followed by undesirable consequences is likely to stop” (McLeod, 2007, para. 6).
Ivan Pavlov
Pavlov conducted experiments on learning theories through classical conditioning. His studies centered on the behavior of a dog with food. At first, he noticed salivation of the dog when it was eating, but he later noticed the dog salivating when he entered the room with food. Pavlov became curious over the dog’s behaviour and decided to advance the study by experimenting with diverse stimuli. He wanted to confirm learned and unlearned behaviors that existed in a dog (Nicholas, 2008).
Pavlov rang the bell some minutes before presenting food to the dog, and he noticed that the dog produced saliva after hearing the bell. In other words, the dog associated the sound of the bell with food.
As a result, Pavlov developed several terminologies like unconditioned stimulus (UCS), conditioned learned stimulus (CLS), conditioned response (CR) and unconditioned response (UCR), to explain the behavior of the dog. From the experiment, food acted as the UCS because it produced the reflex behavior of salivation during eating (Nicholas, 2008). Salivation was the UCR since it occurred without learning. Later, salivation became a CR and the sound of the bell CLS (Nicholas, 2008).
Another thing that Pavlov discovered was that ringing the bell immediately, after giving food to the dog, produced more effective consequences than ringing the bell sometimes later. Therefore, Pavlov concluded that reduced phases between the stimulus and the response led to the swift development of conditioned responses. He also developed other concepts on discrimination, extinction and generalization after repeating several experiments.
Compare and Contrast two Theorists Perspectives within the Behavioral Approach
In this part, we shall compare perspectives of B.F. Skinner and Ivan Pavlov on behavioral theory.
Similarities between Perspectives of B.F. Skinner and Ivan Pavlov
The two theorists suggest that discrimination occurs to subjects after sometime. According to Skinner, discrimination occurs when subjects learn to react differently to stimulus similar to the CS. For instance, salivation in a dog takes place when the bell rings, but not when a phone rings. On the other hand, subjects learn to react with reinforcement in mind. For instance, the baby cries when the mother is around.
The two theorists also suggested that behavior may become extinct. Skinner conducted experiments using rats and a pigeon, to show that behavior that does not get reinforcement becomes extinct. Similarly, Pavlov discovered that extinction may occur when CLS takes place without the UCS (Nicholas, 2008).
Lastly, both theorists support generalization. According to Skinner, generalization takes place when subjects show same behaviors in similar situations while Pavlov shows that generalization occurs in response to a conditioned stimulus that resembles the original CS (Nicholas, 2008).
Differences between Perspectives of B.F. Skinner and Ivan Pavlov
Skinner uses the theory of operant conditioning in explaining behavior while Pavlov uses classical conditioning. While Pavlov’s classical conditioning builds relations that link events, Skinner’s operant conditioning emphasizes on learning from behavioral outcomes.
Behavior in classical conditioning is usually involuntary while behavior in operant conditioning occurs voluntarily. Pavlov uses his study on salivation of dogs to show how stimulus events can control involuntary responses. He uses a bell, which is a neutral stimulus, to show that such stimulus can influence behavior when introduced repeatedly before an event.
Hence, the response gets trigger from unconditioned stimulus (Nicholas, 2008). Conversely, Skinner shows that behavior in operant conditioning is voluntary/instrumental because it seeks to either get a desirable reward or avoid an undesirable outcome like punishment. Skinner conducts experiments using rats and pigeons, to show that reinforced behavior is likely to strengthen while behavior that lacks reinforcement becomes extinguished.
Lastly, Pavlov and Skinner developed different terminologies in describing their theories. Pavlov developed terminologies like unconditioned stimulus (UCS), conditioned learned stimulus (CLS), conditioned response (CR) and unconditioned response (UCR), to explain the behavior of the dog. From the experiment, food acted as the UCS because it produced the reflex behavior of salivation during eating (Nicholas, 2008).
Salivation was the UCR since it occurred without learning. Later, salivation became a CR and the sound of the bell CLS (Nicholas, 2008). On the other hand, Skinner uses the term reinforcement to describe environmental responses that raise the chances of behavior getting repetition. According to Skinner, positive reinforcement builds up behavior through giving someone an outcome that seems rewarding.
Skinner demonstrated positive reinforcement through placing a famished rat in the Skinner box, with a lever at the side (Skinner, 1953). A food particle would fall into a pot beside the lever after knocking the lever. Thus, when the rat became put into the box, it headed to the lever, immediately (Skinner, 1953). The fact that the rats obtained food each time they pressed the lever forced them to repeat the action, often.
At the same time, Skinner demonstrated the way negative reinforcement functions by putting a rat in his Skinner box and then passing an unpleasant electric current through the rat, and this caused it some distress. When the rat moved around the box it could hit the lever involuntarily, and every time it moved this way, the electric current went off. Hence, the rats learned to move directly to the lever every time they became subjected to the unpleasant current.
The outcome of evading the electric current made certain that they repeated the action many times. Indeed, Skinner went ahead and trained the rats to evade the electric current by switching on a light a few seconds before the electric current. After a while, the rats learned to touch the lever when the light appeared since they learnt that this would prevent the electric current from obtaining power.
Measurement and Instruments of Assessment that can prove the Effectiveness of this Approach
Some measurement and assessment instruments that could be used to show the effectiveness of behavioral approach includes acquisition rate, rate of response and extinction rate (Pear, 2001). Acquisition rate refers to how fast it takes to teach an animal a new behavior from the act of reinforcement. For instance, Skinner, usually, kept his animals, for use in experiment, for almost a whole day before beginning a program of reinforcement. This was likely to boost the rate of acquisition.
Rate of response, conversely, is a learning measure that is quite responsive to diverse plans of reinforcement. In several cases, animals portrayed the preferred response through sporadic schedules of reinforcement. Hence, the rate of response is a gauge of acceptable responses during a program of testing, as well as, occasions when reinforcement lacks after a desirable response. It seems like animals under experimentation form expectations once they get rewards at conventional times.
This explanation causes animals that get feeding, at regular times, to turn active when that time approaches. Besides, behavioural approaches show that when predetermined intermission of reinforcement gets use, the preferred behavior diminishes or vanishes shortly after reinforcement, although, when time for the next reinforcement gets near, the animal will continue with the preferred responses.
Lastly, extinction rate is the pace that an operant response takes to fade after a removal of reinforcement. Behaviorists show that constant reinforcement programs create quicker learning rate, in the early phases of a training course, and, moreover, a swifter rate of extinction once the reinforcement stops. Hence, behavior that stops persuasion by a reinforcing stimulus causes a reduced possibility of that behavior happening, in the future.
Discuss Potential Clinical Applications of Behavioral Approach
One clinical area where behavioural approach seems relevant is in smoking cessation. Positive reinforcement such as rewards could be offered to persons who stay for about 15 hours without smoking. Also, persons who are struggling with their smoking behaviour could be asked to spend the money that they save for not purchasing cigarettes on a pleasurable activity like a trip to another country.
Negative reinforcement or aversion methods are also effective for smoking cessation. This entails inducing undesirable consequences to smokers (Kirchner, 2008). For instance, smokers could be given too many cigarettes to smoke in a chain. This will automatically cause undesirable consequences like nausea to smokers. Later, smokers are likely to relate smoking behavior to nausea, and the need to smoke will vanish slowly.
Lastly, the behavioral approach shows the need for preventing relapse. Although most smokers may stop smoking, for some time, either due to positive or negative reinforcement, the trickiest thing is maintaining this new status.
Research shows that people who smoke a few times following abstinence are likely to face addiction once more (Kirchner, 2008). Hence, clinicians must guide those who go through smoking cessation on some approaches that can help them stay smoke-free. Some of these approaches may include constructive thinking, managing stress, exercise and adequate sleep.
In conclusion, behavioral approach holds that behaviour occurs in response to stimuli and those actions which people carry out have roots in their direct environment. Behaviorists explain that human beings learn through the processes of operant conditioning and classical conditioning.
Using these two processes, they can explain stimuli that trigger behaviour as well as what causes people react to stimuli in certain ways. Behaviorists use animals because they are easily accessible for study and they learn in ways that are similar to human beings. Some theorists who have contributed to behavioral approach are Ivan Pavlov, John Watson, BF Skinner and Edward Thorndike.
One clinical area where behavioral approach gets application is in smoking cessation. Aversive techniques, rewards, and prevention of relapse are some aspects that are applicable in smoking cessation. Lastly, acquisition rate, rate of response and extinction rate are some measurement instruments that could be used to show the effectiveness of behavioral approach.
References
Baumeister, R. (2011). Social psychology and human nature. Belmont, CA: Cengage Learning.
Byrne, J. (2003). Learning & the memory. New York, NY: Macmillan.
Domjan, M. (2010). Principles of learning and behavior. Belmont, Calif: Wadsworth.
Horgan, T. (1991). Connectionism and the philosophy of mind. Dordrecht, Boston: Kluwer Academic.
Kirchner, T. (2008). Relapse dynamics during smoking cessation: Recurrent abstinence violation effects and lapse-relapse progression. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh.
McLeod, S. A. (2007). Edward Thorndike. Retrieved from https://www.simplypsychology.org/edward-thorndike.html
Nicholas, L. (2008). Introduction to psychology. Cape Town, SA: UCT Press.
Pear, J. (2001). The science of learning. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
Sammons, A. (n.d.). The behaviorist approach: The basics. Retrieved from http://www.psychlotron.org.uk/newResources/approaches/AS_AQB_approaches_BehaviourismBasics.pdf
Skinner, B. (1953). Some contributions of an experimental analysis of behavior to psychology as a whole. American Psychologist, 3 (2), 69-78.