Behaviourism Flashcards
Understanding how behaviourism is an externalist paradigm 2) Understanding what operant conditioning is, and how it differs from classical conditioning 3) Understanding the connection to empiricism and logical positivism 4) Being able to critically reflect on the assumptions of behaviourism 5) Being able to see how behaviourism is still relevant today
Which two isms does Behaviourism draw from?
Empiricism and Logical Positivism
How does Behaviorism draw from Empiricism?
From empiricism we need to focus on observation which can be directly observed and measured
How does Behaviorism draw from Logical Positivism?
From positivism as there is a need for these observations to be intersubjective and external, as they otherwise cannot be measured, as well as it needs to be independent and dependent variables instead of cause and effect.
Is behaviourism an internal or an external paradigm, and why?
External.
Because; By drawing from empiricism and logical positivism, it becomes clear that behaviourism is an external paradigm as it needs observable data, and self-provided reports from a participant/individual in psychology is NOT reliable, and cannot be reported/worked with by a behaviorist. Also the belief that we as humans or animals (depending on the study) is influenced by our environment (external) as to how and why we behave the way we do.
What is Skinner’s three key concepts for behaviourism?
- Unconditioned responses (classical conditioning)
- Conditioned responses (Classical conditioning)
- Operant conditioning
What is unconditioned responses (Classical conditioning)?
Innate reflex responses to stimuli that do not require learning, such as tearing up when onions are placed near the eyes.
Examples of unconditioned stimuli and responses include salivating when food is placed in the mouth.
What is conditioned responses (Classical conditioning)?
Learned reflexive responses developed through classical conditioning where a previously neutral stimulus becomes associated with an unconditioned stimulus.
Pavlov’s classic experiment where dogs learned to salivate when a bell was rung because it was paired with the presentation of food.
This becomes a conditioned response as it initally started salivating when hearing a bell, but after time a bell was also rung when food, and at some point the dogs brain connect the sound of the bell with food, which has nothing to do with food so it is a conditioned response from the dog.
What is operant conditioning?
Voluntary behaviors that are shaped and reinforced through their consequences.
When a behavior is followed by a rewarding consequence it increases the likelihood of that behavior being repeated, while an aversive consequence decreases the likelihood.
Reinforcers can be positive, such as food, or negative, such as removal of an unpleasant stimulus.
Through operant conditioning complex human behaviors can be learned and explained without reference to internal mental states.
How is Operant conditioning and classical conditioning different?
Operant conditioning is about learning from the consequences of behavior, whereas classical conditioning is about learning through associations between stimuli.
What is the difference between response and operant?
A response is something which happens as a single instance, while an operant is a behavior which is repeated generally.
What is the skinner box?
An operant conditioning box, where animals were placed and then their behavior could be rewarded or ignored with them doing something specific in the box.
e.g. a mouse in a box would get an electrical shock each time it did not respond to the signal of a light turning on, meaning it should pull a lever in the box.
What is an intermediary variable and how does it connect to behaviourism?
Intermediary variables lie in the causal pathway between the independent and dependent variables. They help to elucidate how or why a particular effect or outcome occurs. The independent variable influences the intermediary variable, which in turn influences the dependent variable. This sequential process helps in understanding the underlying mechanism of the observed relationship.
Example:
A horse is deprived of water (independent variable) then the intermediary variable in this example would be for the horse to be thirsty, and because it is thirsty it then changes its behavior to drinking (the dependent variable).
Intermediary variables provide an explanation for the relationship between the independent and dependent variables, offering insights into the process or intermediate steps that lead to the final outcome.
Explain (as best as possible) the final argument for scientific psychology.
Definition: Question-begging: Supporting a claim (a conclusion) with a premise that restates or presupposes the claim
Premiss 0: Intermediary variables are necessarily question-begging in psychological theories
Premiss 1: Question begging variables are not necessary to scientific psychology
Premiss 2: Question begging variables are not sufficient for scientific psychology
Premiss 3: Variables must be either necessary or sufficient to have a place in psychology
Conclusion: Intermediary variables have no place in scientific psychology
Question-begging: Supporting a claim (a conclusion) with a premise that restates or presupposes the claim
The final argument against the use of intermediary variables in psychological theories posits that these variables are inherently question-begging and therefore should be excluded from scientific psychology.
Firstly, it is argued that intermediary variables are necessarily question-begging because all theories that employ mental terminology implicitly require a homunculus, an internal agent that performs cognitive functions. This homunculus can always be adjusted to fit the theory’s needs, rendering the theory unfalsifiable. Additionally, mental explanations are highly flexible and can be adapted to explain any behavior, which leads to circular reasoning.
Secondly, the argument states that question-begging variables are not necessary for scientific psychology. Variables that assume what they are supposed to explain do not contribute meaningful insights or essential components to scientific inquiry. They merely restate the problem without providing a genuine solution.
Thirdly, it asserts that question-begging variables are not sufficient for scientific psychology. These variables fail to offer complete, testable explanations, making them insufficient for robust scientific theories. Without the ability to be empirically tested and potentially falsified, these variables do not meet the standards of scientific rigor.
Finally, the argument concludes that for a variable to have a legitimate place in psychology, it must be either necessary or sufficient. Since intermediary variables are deemed to be question-begging and thus fail to satisfy these criteria, they should not be included in scientific psychological theories.
In summary, the argument maintains that intermediary variables, by being inherently question-begging, do not provide the necessary or sufficient conditions required for scientific psychology and should therefore be excluded to preserve scientific integrity and rigor.
What is Dennett’s comparison between psychology and behaviourism?
Psychology:
Dennett argues that all theories using mental terminology require a homunculus, an internal agent that can always be adjusted to fit the theory’s needs. This flexibility allows for mental explanations of any behavior, leading to the conclusion that intermediary variables are necessarily question-begging in psychological theories.
Behaviorism:
Similarly, Dennett critiques behaviorism by noting that behaviorist theories require a reinforcement schedule, which can always be tailored to match the behavior being explained. This adaptability enables external explanations for any behavior, leading to the conclusion that external variables are necessarily question-begging in behaviorist theories.
In both cases, Dennett highlights that the reliance on either internal or external variables, which can be endlessly adjusted to fit any situation, makes these theories inherently question-begging and unfalsifiable.
Which critiques did Dennett have of Skinner?
While Skinner strongly believed that explanations invoking unobservable mental constructs like thoughts, beliefs, and desires should be excluded from science, he provided inconsistent rationales for this viewpoint over time.
Skinner rejected theories positing a separation between mind and body (Dualism), the private nature of mental experiences, inferences about unmeasurable internal processes, and appeals to a hypothetical inner experience. However, he later contradicted some of these methodological stances.
Skinner’s explanations of human behavior are often just-so stories claiming past conditioning without proof or specifics (p. 69)
His ideas may work for simple animal behaviors but not complex human behaviors and novelty (p. 67-69)
Intentional explanations of humans can often be more plausible than Skinner’s behaviorist explanations (p. 68-69)
