During the middle of the 20th century, Behaviorism was the predominant school of thought in scientific psychology.

It subsequently experienced a precipitous decline. Despite this, there is much to be learned from a review of behaviorism. Developing a comprehensive scientific theory of personality is no feat. It is intrusive to see whatever conceptual limitations it may have, the behaviorist school of thought gave rise to therapeutic methods of unquestioned value. An additional point is that, in recent years, a number of researches who would not label themselves behaviorists have nonetheless explored some of the themes that are defining of the behavioral approach. These include ideas that much of our action is controlled directly by stimuli in the environment (Bargh & Ferguson, 2000; Bargh &Gollwitzer, 1994) and that our intuition that we are in conscious control of our behavior (rather than the environment being in control of us) is simply a trick (Wegner, 2003, p.65) that our mind plays on us. Ideas that were originally highlighted by the behaviorists endure in the contemporary field.

THE BEHAVIORISTIC VIEW OF THE SCIENCE OF PERSONALITY

Behaviorism differs enormously from the earlier theories. The approach introduces radically new perspectives on both human nature and scientific strategies for learning about people. The behaviorist learning theory approach to personality has two basic assumptions: 1. The first is that behavior must be explained in terms of causal influence of the environment on the person. 2. The second is that the understanding of people should be built upon objective scientific research in which the variables are carefully controlled in the laboratory experiments. An aspect of this research that might strike you particularly unusual is that, although the behaviorist is ultimately interested in understanding people, their laboratory experiments commonly involve animals.

EXPERIMENTAL DETERMINISM AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR THE CONCEPT OF PERSONALITY

The trait theories Eysenck and Catell were interested in learning. They viewed learning as part of the broader field of personality. Behaviorism, in contrast, views the study of personality as merely a branch of the broader field of learning. Indeed, to the behaviorist, the study of general laws of learning would, if successful, completely eliminate the need for distinct field of study called personality theory. The behaviorists reasoning behind this position goes as follows. We human beings are physical objects in a physical universe. As such, we are subject to physical laws that can be understood the through the scientific analysis. Ever since the beginnings of the modern physics hundreds of years ago, the behaviorists reason, and the scientists have recognized that the way to explain the behavior of any physical object is to identify the forces in the environment that act upon it causing its behavior. For example, if we throw a rock into the air and observe its behavior: it travels in a curving, parabolic path back to the earth. But while explaining this, we dont say that the rock enjoys traveling in parabolic paths or that it has the trait of fallingness. Instead, we recognize that the behavior of a rock is fully determined by lawful environmental forces (the force and direction of our throw, plus gravity and perhaps air pressure). To the behaviorist, the behavior of the people should be explained in exactly the same way. Just as environmental forces determine the trajectory of the rock, the environmental forces determine the trajectories of our lives as we come into contact with and are influenced by one environmental factor after another. To the behaviorist, then, there is no more need to explain a persons behavior in terms of his or her attitudes, feelings or personality trait than there is to explain the rocks behavior in terms of its attitudes, feelings or rock traits. The rock doesnt fall to earth because it decided to fall, but because gravity caused it to fall. Similarly, people do not act as they do because they decided to act that way, but because environment forces cause them to do so. Behaviorists recognize that people have thoughts and feelings. But they view thoughts and feelings as behaviors that also are caused by the environment, i.e. the features of the environment cause one feelings and attitudes towards a particular subject.

The most radical feature of the behaviorist worldview, then, is that it does not explain a persons actions in terms of their thoughts and feelings. Instead it explains peoples actions, thoughts, and feelings in terms of environmental forces that shape the individual. This, to the behaviorist, is the only way to build a scientifically credible study of behavior. Lets say we are studying evolution and wanted to explain why primates who once walked on four legs later evolved into upright primates who walked on two legs. We would never explain this by saying that the four legged walkers got tired of walking on all fours or decided to stand up straight. Such explanations would be absurd and would have no scientific utility. The evolved change from four to two-legged walking was, we recognize, caused entirely by adaptive pressures in the evolutionary environment. To the behaviorist, saying that people act a certain way because they decided to has no more scientific value than saying that the primates evolved because they decided to do so. Instead of such non scientific explanations, behaviorists urge us to identify the environmental factors that are the true cause of peoples feelings, thoughts, and actions. The behaviorist B. F. Skinner states this thesis with greatest clarity: We can follow the path taken by physics and biology by turning directly to the relation between behavior and the environment and neglecting supposed mediating states of mind. Physics did not advance by looking more closely at the jubilance of a falling body, or biology by looking at the nature of vital spirits, and we do not need to try to discover what personalities, states of mind, feelings, traits of character, plans, purposes, [or] intentions.. really are in order to get on with a scientific analysis of behavior. SOURCE: Skinner (1971) Beyond Freedom and Dignity, p. 15.

To the behaviorist, terms for talking about personality whether the terms come from psychoanalysis, trait theory, or some other theory do not refer to real psychological entities that are in the persons head and cause their behavior. Instead, the personality terms are simply descriptive labels. They are descriptive patterns of psychological experience that are, in reality, caused by the environment. If the environment causes a person to feel hostility towards a same-

sex parent and attraction toward an opposite sex parent, the psychoanalyst labels this an Oedipal Complex. If the environment causes a person to engage in energetic, outgoing, sociable behaviors, the trait theorist labels the person as extravert. In these, and infinity of other cases, the personality term does not identify the cause of the persons behavior. The behaviorist instead views the term as merely a label for a pattern of action that is caused by the environment. To the behaviorists, then, an understanding of the laws of learning promises to replace any and all personality theories. If behavior can be explained by the laws of learning and if personality is just a label that describes the type of behavior a person has learnt to do, then there is no need for a scientific theory of personality that is distinct from learning theory. Behaviorists were quite explicit about this. They looked forward to a day when theories of personality would be regarded as historical curiosities (Faber, 1964, p.37). The behavioral emphasis on external environmental determinants has a number of significant implications. One is that it highlights the potential situational specificity of behavior. Since environmental factors are the causes of behavior, peoples behavioral style is expected to vary significantly from one environment to another. This expectation, therefore, differs greatly from the approach of trait theories. Trait variables corresponded to consistent style of behavior; these variables were meant to explain why a person acts in a consistent manner across diverse situations. In contrast, behaviorists expect that there will be substantial variability in action as people adapt to situations that present different rewards and punishments for different types of behavior.

EXPERIMENTAL RIGOR, OBSERVABLE VARIABLES, AND THE STUDY OF SIMPLE SYSTEMS

The second defining feature of the behavioral-learning perspective is its approach to scientific research. The behaviorists research strategy follows naturally from their emphasis on environmental influences. If a behavior is determined by the environment, then the way to do research is to manipulate environmental variables and determine their exact influence on behavior. The behaviorist seeks to base the entire study of human nature on the results of such carefully controlled experiments.

An advantage of this method is that environmental variables and behavior are both observable. The researcher can see the variables, and thus can measure them with accuracy and systematically relate environmental factors to behavior. This advantage is commonly not found in other theories. One cannot directly observe the id, an Oedipal conflict, an extraverted tendency, a motivation to self actualize, and so forth. The behaviorist argues that these other theories simply do not lend themselves to convincing scientific tests because they contain variables that one cannot even observe. The desire to study personality through experimental methods poses a severe challenge. It often may be impractical, as well as, unethical, to manipulate environmental variables that may substantially affect peoples everyday behaviors. Also, day to day human actions may be determined by such a large number of variables, and these variables may also be complexly related to one another that it is difficult to sort out the potentially lawful relations between any one environmental factor and behavior. These difficulties lead the behaviorist to adopt the following research strategy. Rather than researching complex social actions, the behaviorist commonly studies simple responses. And rather than study complex human beings, the behaviorist studies simpler organisms, such as rats and pigeons. The original body of data upon which behavioral principles are based consists almost entirely of laboratory research on laboratory animals. This research strategy may strike as strange but it is important, that as one begins to learn about the behavioral approach, to recognize that the behaviorists research strategy is not one that is unique to them. Instead, it is common in the sciences. It is the strategy of studying simple systems. Behaviorists are fundamentally interested in complex social behavior of people. But in order to run large numbers of ethical and logistically feasible laboratory experiments, they study relatively simple organisms and relatively simple responses that can easily be observed in the lab. In many ways, this strategy proved to be a great success. Research on learning processes generated some of the most robust and reliable findings in the history of experimental psychology.

WATSON, PAVLOV AND CLASSICAL CONDITIONING

WATSONS BEHAVIORISM
John B. Watson (1878 1958) was the founder of the approach to psychology known as behaviorism. He began his graduate study at the University Of Chicago in Philosophy and then switched to Psychology. During these years he took courses in neurology and physiology and began to do a considerable amount of animal research. Some of this research concerned the increased complexity of behavior in the rat and the associated development of the central nervous system. Watson left Chicago in 1908 to become a professor at John Hopkins University, where he served on the faculty until 1919. During his stay there, which was interrupted by a period of service during World War I, Watson developed his views on behaviorism as an approach to psychology. He first stated these views forcefully in a landmark paper published in psychologys leading journal, Psychological Review, in 1913. Public lectures and a book published in 1914 (Watsons Behavior) called further attention to a view of psychology that emphasized the study of observable behavior and rejected the use of introspection (observing ones own mental states) as a method of research. Watsons arguments were received enthusiastically by American psychologists. He was elected president of American Psychological Association for 1915. He quickly expanded the theoretical base of his work by drawing on findings of Russian psychologist Pavlov, incorporating them into his most significant book, psychology from the Standpoint of a Behaviorist (1919). In 1920, he published a revolutionary study of learning of emotional reactions with his student Rosalie Rayner (Watson & Rayner, 1920).

PAVLOVS THEORY OF CLASSICAL CONDITIONING

Ivan Petrovich Pavlov 91849 1936)) was a Russian Psychologist who in the course of his work on the digestive process, developed a procedure for studying behavior and a principle of learning that profoundly affected the field of psychology. Around the beginning of the 20th century, Pavlov was involved in the study of gastric secretions in dogs. As part of his research, he placed some food powder inside the mouth of a dog and measured the resulting amount of salivation. He noticed that after a number of such trials the dog began to salivate, even before the food was

put in its mouth, to certain stimuli: the sight of the food dish, the approach of the person who bought the food, etc. stimuli that previously did not elicit salivation (called neutral stimuli) could now elicit the salivation response because of their association with the food powder that automatically caused the dog salivate. This led Pavlov to conduct significant research on the process known as Classical Conditioning. Pavlov explored a broad range of scientific issues. In addition to his work on basic conditioning processes, he studied individual differences among dogs, thereby stimulating a new field of temperament research (Strelau, 1997). He made important contributions to the understanding of abnormal behavior, using animal experiments to study disorganized behavior in dogs and human patients to study neurosis and psychosis, providing the foundation to for forms of therapy based on principles of classical conditioning. In 1904 he was awarded the Nobel Prize for his work on digestive processes. His methods and concepts remain important even today, they are among the most important in the history of psychology (Dewsbury, 1997). PRINCIPLES OF CLASSICAL CONDITIONING The essential characteristic of classical conditioning is that a previously neutral stimulus becomes capable of eliciting a response because of its association with a stimulus that automatically produces the same or a similar response. In other words, the dog salivates to the first presentation of the food powder. The food can be considered to be an unconditioned stimulus (US) and the salivation an unconditioned response (UR). This is because the salivation is an automatic reflex response to the food. A neutral stimulus, such as a bell, will not lead to salivation. However, if on a number of trials the bell is sounded just before the presentation of the food powder, the sounding of the bell itself without the subsequent appearance of food may have the potential to elicit the salivation response. In this case, conditioning has occurred since the presentation of the bell may be referred to a conditioned stimulus (CS) and the salivation as a conditioned response (CR). In a similar way, it is possible to condition withdrawal responses to previously neutral stimuli. In the early research on conditioned withdrawal, a dog was strapped in a harness and electrodes wee attached to his paw. The delivery of an electric shock (US) to the paw led to withdrawal of the

paw (UR), which was a reflex response on the part of the animal. If a bell was repeatedly presented just before the bell alone (CS) was able to elicit the withdrawal response (CR). The experimental arrangement designed by Pavlov to study classical conditioning allowed him to investigate a number of important phenomena. Pavlov found that the response that had become conditioned to previously neutral stimulus would also become associated with similar stimuli, a process called generalization. In other words, the salivation response to the bell would generalize to other sounds. If repeated trials indicate that only some stimuli are followed by the unconditioned stimulus, the animal recognizes differences among stimuli, a process called discrimination. For example, if only certain sounds but not others are followed by shock and reflexive paw withdrawal, the dog will learn to discriminate among sounds. Thus, where as the process of generalization leads to consistency of response across similar stimuli, the process of discrimination leads to increased specificity of response. Finally, if the originally neutral stimulus is presented repeatedly without being followed at least occasionally by the unconditioned stimulus, there is undoing or progressive weakening of the conditioning or association, a process known as extinction. Whereas the association of the neutral stimulus with the unconditioned stimulus leads to the conditioned response, the repeated presentation of the conditioned stimulus leads to extinction. Although the illustrations used are related to animals, the principles can apply to humans as well. For example, consider a child who is bitten or merely treated roughly by a dog. The childs fear of tis dog may now be extended to all dogs the process of generalization. Suppose, however, by getting help, the child begins to discriminate among dogs of various kinds and begins to be afraid only of certain dogs, i.e. the process of discrimination. Over time, the child may have repeated positive experiences with all dogs, leading to the extinction of the fear of response altogether. Thus, the classical conditioning model may be potentially very helpful in understanding the development, maintenance, and the disappearance o emotional reactions. SKINNERS THEORYOF OPERANT CONDITIONING Although John Watson dropped out of the field of psychology, numerous other investigators picked up the banner of behaviorism during the middle of the 20th century. These included historically significant figures such as Clark Hull, who developed a highly systematic drive

theory of learning, and John Dollard and Neal Miller, who attempted to show how Hulls theory could address phenomenon involving drives and intra-psychic conflicts that were of interest psychoanalysts. Even these important contributions, however, were eventually overshadowed by those of another researcher who became one of the most influential figures in all of 20th century psychology. The most influential behavioral researcher, theorist, and spokesperson, was the Harvard psychologist B. F. Skinner (1904-1990). Indeed, Skinner is probably the most well known American psychologist of the last century; a recent quantitative analysis of the impact of the impact of individual psychologists on the field of the 20th century (Haggbloom et al. 2002). Skinners eminence reflects his exceptional skill at articulating the broad implications of behavioral principles. In Skinners hands, behaviorism was not just an approach to the psychology of learning. It was an all encompassing philosophy that promised a comprehensive account of human behavior; as well as technologies for improving the human experience. SKINNERS THEORY OF PERSONALITY Each of the previous theories emphasizes structural concepts. Freud used structural concepts such as id, ego and superego; Rogers used concepts such as self and ideal self; Allport, Eyesenck and Cattell used the concepts of traits. Each theorist, then, inferred existence of a psychological structure in the head of the individual that accounted for the persons consistent styles of emotion and behavior. In contrast, Skinners behavioral approach greatly de-emphasizes structure. This is for two reasons. First, behaviorists view behavior as an adaptation to situational forces. They thus expect situational specificity in behavior: if the situational forces change, so does the behavior. If behavior varies from one situation to another; then there is little need to propose structural concepts to explain supposed consistency of personality. The second reason involves a general approach to constructing a theory. The behaviorists wanted to build a theory on observable variables. They felt that only observable variables could be verified by basic research. Inferring the existence of invisible personality structures was seen by Skinner, then, as a way of thinking that was not properly scientific. The fact that Skinner does not propose a series of personality structures makes his work entirely different than the other personality theories. In fact, Skinner rejected the view that his ideas

constituted a personality theory. He saw himself as replacing the personality theories with a new way of thinking about behavior.

STRUCTURE The key structural unit for the behavioral approach in general, and Skinners approach in particular, is the response. A response may range from a simple reflex response( e.g salivation to food, startle to a loud noise) to a complex piece of behavior( e.g solution to a math problem, subtle form of aggression). What is critical to the definition of a response is that it represents an external, observable piece of behavior that can be related to environmental events. The learning process essentially involves the association or connection of responses to events in the environment. In his approach to learning, Skinner distinguishes between responses elicited by known stimuli, such as eyeblink reflex to a puff of air, and responses that cannot be associated with stimuli. These responses are emitted by the organism and are called operants. Skinners view is that stimuli in the environment do not force the organism to behave or incite it to act. The initial cause of behavior is in the organism itself. there is no environmental,eliciting stimulus for operant behavior, it simply occurs. In the terminology of operating conditioning, operants are emitted by the organism. The dog walks,runs and romps; the bird flies; the monkey swings from tree to tree; the human infant babbles vocally. In each case, the behavior occurs without any specific eliciting stimulus.. it is in the biological nature of organisms to emit operant behavior. (Reynold,1968) PROCESS: OPERANT CONDITIONING Before discussing some of the processes that this theory views as underlying behavior , it is important to consider the concept of the reinforce. The Skinnerians define a reinforce as an event(stimulus) that follows a response and increases the probability of its occurrence. If a pigeons pecking at a disk, which is a piece of operant behavior, is followed by a reinforce such as food, the probability of its pecking at the disk is increases. According to this view, a reinforce strengthens the behavior it follows,and there is no need to turn to biological explainations to determine why a stimulus reinforcers can come to do so through their associations with reinforcers. Some stimuli, such as a money, become generalized reinforcers because they provide access to many other kinds of reinforcers.

It is important to observe here that a reinforce is defined by its effect on behavior, an increase in the probability of a response. Often it is difficult to know precisely what will serve as a reinforce for behavior , as it may vary from individual to individual or from organism to organism. Finding a reinforce may turn out to be a trial and error operation. One keeps trying stimuli until one finds a stimulus that can reliably increase the probability of a certain response.

The Skinnerian approach focuses on the qualities of responses and their relationships to the rates and intervals at which they are reinforced,or schedules of reinforcements. A simple experimental device, the Skinner box, is used to study these relationships. In this kind of box, there are few stimuli, and behavior such as a rats pressing of a bar or a pigeons pecking of a key are observed. It is here, according to Skinner, that one can best observe the elementary laws of behavior. These laws are discovered through the control of behavior, in this case the bar-pressing activity of the rat or the key-pressing activity of the pigeon. Behavior is understood when it can be controlled by specific changes in the environment. To understand behavior is to control it. Behavior is controlled through the choice of responses that are reinforced and the rates at which they are reinforced. Schedules of reinforcement can be bases on a particular time interval or a particular response interval. In a time interval schedule, the reinforcement appears after a certain period , say every minute, regardless of the number of responses made by the organism. In a response interval, or a response ratio schedule, reinforcements appear after a certain number of responses (e.g- presses of a bar, pecks of a key) have been made.

Thus, reinforcements need not be given after every response, but can instead be given only sometimes. Furthermore, reinforcements can be given on a regular or fixed basis-always after a certain period of time or after a certain number of responses- or they can be given on a variable basis-sometimes after a minute and sometimes after two minutes, or sometimes after a few responses and sometimes after a few responses and sometimes after many responses. Each schedule of reinforcement tends to stabilize behavior in a different way. In a sense, operant learning represents a sophisticated formulation of the principles of animal training. Complex behavior is shaped through a process of successive approximation; that is, complex behaviors are developed by reinforcing pieces of behavior that resemble the final form of behavior one wants to produce.

Operant conditioning shapes behavior as a sculptor shapes a lump of clay. Although at some point the sculptor seems to have produced an entirely novel object, we can always follow the process back to the original undifferentiated lump, and we can make the successive stages by which we return to this condition as small as we wish. At no point does anything emerge which is a very different from what preceded it. An operant is not something which appears full grown in the behavior of the organism. It is the result of a continuous shaping process.

The process of shaping or successive approximation is seen most clearly in the work of animal trainers. The difficult tricks performed by circus animals are not learned as complete wholes. Rather, the trainer gradually builds up sequences of learned responses through the reinforcement of particular behaviors that are then linked or chained to one another. What started off as the learning of individual behaviors ends up as the display of a complex series of acts before a circus audience. The animal ultimately is rewarded for its behavior, but the final reward is made dependent, or contingent, on the performance of the series of previously learned behaviors. In a similar way, complex behaviors in human may be developed through the process of successive approximation.

Although operant conditioning primarily emphasizes the use of positive reinforces such as food, money or praise, Skinnerians also emphasize the importance of reinforcers based on the organisms escape from, or avoidance of, aversive(unpleasant) stimuli. In such cases responses are reinforced by the removal or avoidance of an unpleasant stimulus rather than by the appearance of a pleasant stimulus. In all these cases the effect is to reinforce or increase the strength of the response. Such response-outcome contingencies can be contrasted with the case of punishment. In punishment, an aversive stimulus follows a response, decreasing the probability of that response occurring again. However, the effect of punishment is temporary and it appears to be of little value in eliminating behavior. For this reason, Skinner has emphasized the use of positive reinforcement in shaping behavior.

VIEW OF CLASSICAL CONDITIONING ON PSYCHOPATHOLOGY Pavlov not only did basic research on generalization, discrimination, and extinction. He also did research that suggested explanations for other phenomenon of great interest, such as conflict and

the development of neurosis. A classic example explored what came to be known as experimental neuroses in animals. In this, research, a dog was conditioned to salivate to the image of a circle. Differentiation between a circle and a similar figure, an ellipse, was then conditioned; this was done by not reinforcing the response to the ellipse, while the response to the circle continued to be reinforced. Then, gradually, the ellipse was changed in shape. Its shape was made to be closer and closer to a circle. At first, the dog could still discriminate between the circle and ellipse. But then, as figures became figures became extremely similar, it no longer could tell them apart. Its behavior, thus, became disorganized.

CONDITIONED EMOTIONAL REACTIONS Pavlovs work on the conditioning process clearly defined stimuli and responses and provided an objective method for the study of learning phenomena. It therefore played an influential role in the thinking of later behaviorists such as Watson. The research on Albert, an 11 month old child, has become a classic psychology. In this research, the experimenters, Watson and Rayner (1920), trained the infant to fear animals and objects that previously were not feared. They found that striking a hammer on a suspended steel bar produced a startle and fear response in the infant. They then found that if the bar was struck immediately behind Alberts head just as he began to reach for the rat, he began to fear the rat, whereas previously he had not shown in this response. After doing this a number of times, the experimenters found that the instant the rat alone (without the sound) was shown toAlbert, he began to cry. He had developed what is called a conditioned emotional response.