Individual Perspective on Psychology - Research Paper Example

? Individual Perspective Paper I.D. Number: Term and Year Individual Perspective Paper Introduction In this paper, we will compare and contrast the perspectives of J.B. Watson and B.F. Skinner with that of E.C. Tolman in the realm of behaviorism and behavioral psychology. In order to understand the similarities and differences between the thoughts of these famous psychologists, we must first briefly reflect on each of them separately. J.B. Watson actively took part in “the early 20th century disciplinary strivings toward a moderate account of psychological subject matter” (Ballantyne, 2008, p. 56). He put forward the idea of conscious mental existence and explained the psychological processes in considerable analogy with the physiological ones. B.F. Skinner followed his particular variety of behaviorism which is known as radical behaviorism. It is the philosophy of science of psychosomatic behavior. Skinner sought to appreciate behavior as a sort of function of the environmental histories of the diverse reinforcing life events and consequences. E.C. Tolman was a relatively moderate behaviorist and he aimed to establish that “a true non-physiological behaviorism is really possible” (Tolman, p. 46). He put stress on the role of mental attitudes in the context of human psychology and wished to bridge the gap between behavioral and introspective varieties of psychological studies. Comparative Analysis The Similar Aspects Watson, Skinner, and Tolman, all of these distinguished psychologists almost invariably held that the final "combined" variable model of modern empirical research techniques logically pursues the earlier accounts of psychological subject matter that involved operationalized independent-dependent research variable approach. Watson, Skinner and Tolman widely recognized that the problems of modern empirical research in psychology have been inherited from the pre-existing psychological thought. Further, Skinner (1938) sought to comprehend the applications of his perspective in the broadest possible behavioral context. Watson (1919) and Tolman (1922) too used to give a similar treatment to their respective points of views. In fact, all the three celebrated psychologists paid considerable importance to the psychosomatic behaviors of all living organisms in the context of natural selection. Tolman has clearly written in this context: “In the first place, it is to be observed that ever since the days of Ebbinghaus's experiments on memory the inadequacy of the merely introspective method as such has been becoming more and more obvious. And the recent work in mental tests and animal psychology has strengthened this conviction.” (Tolman, 1922, p. 44) The Contrasting Points In writing a comprehensive history of psychological research and evolution, Ballantyne states that the contemporaneous debates between E.C. Tolman’s moderate methodological behaviorism versus the respective radical behaviorisms of C.L. Hull and J.B. Watson (up to the year 1948) should also be drawn upon in order to indicate the built-in restrictions in the terms of conventional empirical practices and probable theoretical advancements regarding psychological studies. Hence, it becomes extremely important to differentiate between the perspectives of Tolman and Watson. It cannot be denied that Watson was considerably influenced by the idea of eugenics and he often mingled physiological and psychological research methods and related inferences. According to Watson, psychological stimuli are like “rays of light of different wave lengths, sound waves differing in amplitude, length, phase and combination, gaseous particles given off in such small diameters that they affect the membrane of the nose” (Watson, 1919, p. 45) etc. Tolman opposes such a materialistic psychosomatic analysis which may give rise to certain dangerous racist implications due to the extremist interpretations of the behavioral sciences and human nature. Tolman wanted a sort of academic reconciliation to take place between introspective psychology and behavioral psychology that would gradually culminate at relatively more moderate views regarding human psychological development and contextual theoretical assumptions such as to obtain greater human welfare and oppose the disparate social order. (Tolman, 1922) In the same context, Skinner’s position appears to be nearer to that of Watson. He held that behaviors are maintained from one situation to another by the means of similar or identical consequences athwart these situations. Behaviors are actually causal factors which are influenced by the various life events and related consequences. He attempted to explain human social psychological behavior and contingencies too in the terms of excessive or radical behaviorist perspective. (Skinner, 1938) Unlike the less severe behaviorists like Tolman, Skinner did not accept personal events like as observation, thinking, and emotions as causatives of an organism’s behavior. Therefore, Watson and Skinner lead us to far more materialistic interpretation of social psychology. They undermine the importance of individual values and variations due the factors like emotions, whimsies, and inherited characteristics which cannot be explained in the terms of strict behaviorism. However, Tolman has a more lenient attitude and he aims to lead us to a more comprehensive view of behavioral psychology. He does not regard psychological effects on human beings due to the various life events merely as stimulating factors. He wishes to draw a more comprehensive introspective view and accommodated the committal aspects of human social behavior. Such a deviation from the line of ultra behaviorism not only damages the radical thought but also considerably change the theoretical interpretations regarding the various subjects like business leadership, developmental psychology, psychological research methods, psychiatric counseling, etc. Conclusion In his works like Behaviorism (Watson, 1924), J.B. Watson clearly indicated that he favored a social system where there would be considerable contemplation on training the future generations through rigorous behaviorist practices regardless of their backgrounds, inheritances, convictions, personal emotions, etc. Such a consequence based developmental psychology can be supported with the help of Skinner’s (1938) perspective too. Yet, within the background of the times (i.e., the first half of twentieth century), the ethics of J.B. Watson’s experimental human research along with the overenthusiastic additive environmentalism are not as awful or shocking as they may appear to a present day researcher at the very first glance. Those labels fit in to the psychometric practitioners and theorists in the inheritance school whom Watson was actually trying to oppose (Ballantyne, 2008). Still, Tolman has put forward a more moderate perspective that accommodates individual variations of characteristics, emotional factors, etc. In a nutshell, the works of Watson, Skinner, and Tolman appear to be equally important to obtain a clearer understanding of the behaviorist studies and related research. References Ballantyne, P. (2008). History and Theory of Psychology: An Early 21st Century Student's Perspective. Toronto: York University. Skinner, B. (1938). The Behavior of Organisms. Ann Arbor: Copley Publishing Group. Tolman, E. (1922). A new formula for behaviorism. Psychological Review, 29 , 44-53. Watson, J.B. (1924). Behaviorism (Rev. ed.). New York: Norton Watson, J. B. (1919). Psychology from the Standpoint of a Behaviorist. New York: Lippincott. Read More