DISCUSS THE CONTRIBUTION OF BEHAVIOURIST PSYCHOLOGISTS SUCH AS PAVLOV AND
SKINNER TO OUR UNDERSTANDING OF HUMAN BEHAVIOUR
The behaviourist approach focuses on behaviour that can be observed and measured. It’s central
idea is that behaviour is learned. The theory is based on two main psychologists’ work: Pavlov and
Skinner. Pavlov developed the theory of classical conditioning using his dogs, who were conditioned
to associate the sound of a bell (neutral stimulus) with food (unconditioned stimulus). This resulted
in the dogs salivating (conditioned response) at the sound of the bell even when no food was
present. Pavlov demonstrated that repeated exposure to something leads to a learned and
uncontrollable behaviour as a reaction to it. Skinner suggested that behaviour was the result of
learning through the consequences of our actions and so developed his idea of operant conditioning.
He did this by using rats and found that three types of consequences will affect behaviour. These
were positive reinforcement which involves rewarding a behaviour so that it increases the likelihood
of repetition negative reinforcement which involves removing an unpleasant outcome to increase
repetition and punishment which involves adding an unpleasant consequence, which reduces the
likelihood of it being repeated.
One piece of evidence to support the contribution of the behaviourist approach to understanding
human behaviour is that it was vital in the use of animals as research subjects. Behaviourists
believed that the learning processes in humans and animals are very similar which is why Pavlov
conducted research using dogs, and Skinner used rats. Using animals in research gives experimenters
more control over the process and stops demand characteristics or individual differences influencing
findings. However, using animals can be seen to be unethical and some argue that findings from
animal experiments are not generalizable to human behaviour. From this perspective, behaviourists
have arguably made a limited contribution to explaining human behaviour, as we are very different
species.
Another piece of evidence to support the contribution of the behaviourist approach to
understanding human behaviour is that it has real world application as these findings have made
important contributions to our understanding of mental illness. For example, many phobias are
thought to be the result of earlier traumatic learning experiences and so psychologists have been
able to develop therapies, such as systematic desensitisation to recondition a patient’s fear.
However, it has not worked for everything as some fears are evolutionary and so cannot be
reconditioned as easy as that. This suggests that the behaviourist approach cannot be used alone in
understanding human behaviour and perhaps including a biological aspect alongside it would
produce a more well-rounded theory.
A final piece of evidence to support the contribution of the behaviourist approach to understanding
human behaviour is that it has made a huge contribution to recognising psychology as a science. The
nature of Pavlov and Skinners work rejected introspection and encouraged research that focused on
more objective aspects of behaviour. This has led to an increasingly valid and more reliable
understanding of human behaviour that has helped with credibility in scientific discipline, which
attracts more funding creating more research opportunities. However, the principle of operant and
classical conditioning do not yet account for spontaneous behaviour in humans so it is not a
complete explanation and further research is needed.
SKINNER TO OUR UNDERSTANDING OF HUMAN BEHAVIOUR
The behaviourist approach focuses on behaviour that can be observed and measured. It’s central
idea is that behaviour is learned. The theory is based on two main psychologists’ work: Pavlov and
Skinner. Pavlov developed the theory of classical conditioning using his dogs, who were conditioned
to associate the sound of a bell (neutral stimulus) with food (unconditioned stimulus). This resulted
in the dogs salivating (conditioned response) at the sound of the bell even when no food was
present. Pavlov demonstrated that repeated exposure to something leads to a learned and
uncontrollable behaviour as a reaction to it. Skinner suggested that behaviour was the result of
learning through the consequences of our actions and so developed his idea of operant conditioning.
He did this by using rats and found that three types of consequences will affect behaviour. These
were positive reinforcement which involves rewarding a behaviour so that it increases the likelihood
of repetition negative reinforcement which involves removing an unpleasant outcome to increase
repetition and punishment which involves adding an unpleasant consequence, which reduces the
likelihood of it being repeated.
One piece of evidence to support the contribution of the behaviourist approach to understanding
human behaviour is that it was vital in the use of animals as research subjects. Behaviourists
believed that the learning processes in humans and animals are very similar which is why Pavlov
conducted research using dogs, and Skinner used rats. Using animals in research gives experimenters
more control over the process and stops demand characteristics or individual differences influencing
findings. However, using animals can be seen to be unethical and some argue that findings from
animal experiments are not generalizable to human behaviour. From this perspective, behaviourists
have arguably made a limited contribution to explaining human behaviour, as we are very different
species.
Another piece of evidence to support the contribution of the behaviourist approach to
understanding human behaviour is that it has real world application as these findings have made
important contributions to our understanding of mental illness. For example, many phobias are
thought to be the result of earlier traumatic learning experiences and so psychologists have been
able to develop therapies, such as systematic desensitisation to recondition a patient’s fear.
However, it has not worked for everything as some fears are evolutionary and so cannot be
reconditioned as easy as that. This suggests that the behaviourist approach cannot be used alone in
understanding human behaviour and perhaps including a biological aspect alongside it would
produce a more well-rounded theory.
A final piece of evidence to support the contribution of the behaviourist approach to understanding
human behaviour is that it has made a huge contribution to recognising psychology as a science. The
nature of Pavlov and Skinners work rejected introspection and encouraged research that focused on
more objective aspects of behaviour. This has led to an increasingly valid and more reliable
understanding of human behaviour that has helped with credibility in scientific discipline, which
attracts more funding creating more research opportunities. However, the principle of operant and
classical conditioning do not yet account for spontaneous behaviour in humans so it is not a
complete explanation and further research is needed.
