Comprehensive Revision Guide: The Behaviourist Approach and Systematic Descents in Psychology
Fundamental Assumptions of the Behaviourist Approach
The behaviourist approach is grounded in several core assumptions that define its perspective on human and animal psychology. The first assumption is that humans are born tabula rasa, a Latin phrase translating to 'blank slate.' This philosophy suggests that individuals are not born with innate internal drives; instead, all behaviour is determined by external factors in the environment. This positions behaviourism firmly on the 'nurture' side of the ongoing 'nature vs. nurture' debate, largely ignoring biological influences such as genetics, physiology, and evolution. Consequently, this view is characterized by environmental determinism, asserting that the environment in which an individual is raised dictates their behaviour. A seminal example of this is Albert Bandura's Bobo doll experiment, which demonstrated that aggressive behaviour could be learned through exposure. Children who witnessed footage of an adult striking a Bobo doll were significantly more likely to imitate that aggressive behaviour when placed in a room with the doll compared to children who did not see the footage.
The second assumption is that behaviour is learned through conditioning, specifically operant and classical conditioning. Operant conditioning, as proposed by B.F. Skinner, involves learning through the consequences of behaviour, driven by reinforcements and punishments. In his experiments with rats, Skinner found that subjects quickly learned to press a lever for a reward (positive reinforcement in the form of food) and avoided levers that resulted in punishment (electric shocks). Positive reinforcement involves rewards that encourage behavior, while negative reinforcement involves acting in a way to avoid negative consequences. Punishment is something received for wrongdoing, which serves to deter the behavior in the future. Classical conditioning, conversely, is learning through association. Ivan Pavlov illustrated this through his observations of salivation in dogs. Pavlov's dogs learned to associate a neutral stimulus (the sound of a bell) with an unconditioned response (salivation), eventually becoming conditioned to salivate at the sound of the bell alone.
The third assumption is that humans and animals learn in similar ways. Behaviourists apply the laws of learning derived from non-human animals to humans, which justifies the prevalence of laboratory testing on animals. The results of these animal studies are generalized to human behaviour. For instance, Pavlov's principles of classical conditioning, developed using dogs, have been applied to human phobic disorders, notably in Watson and Rayner's 'Little Albert' experiment. Similarly, Skinner's work with rats on operant conditioning has been applied to human settings such as education (using star charts or merit systems) and prisons (through token economy systems).
Application to Relationship Formation
Behaviourist principles are applied to explain how romantic relationships form, most notably through the Reward/Need Satisfaction Theory proposed by Byrne and Clore (1970). This theory suggests that relationships are modeled on conditioning. Under operant conditioning, rewarding stimuli produce positive feelings, while punishing stimuli produce negative feelings. If individuals are viewed as stimuli, those who make us happy provide rewards, making us more likely to repeat the behaviour of associating with them. Byrne and Clore suggest that we form relationships because the presence of a specific individual is directly associated with positive reinforcement, making that person more attractive to us.
From the perspective of classical conditioning, we learn to like people who are associated with pleasant events. If we are in a positive mood when meeting someone, we are more likely to evaluated that person (the neutral stimulus) positively. Byrne and Clore suggest that the success or failure of a relationship depends on the balance of these feelings; if positive feelings outweigh the negative, the relationship is likely to succeed. Conversely, if negative feelings outweigh the positive, the relationship is likely to fail.
Systematic Desensitization: Main Components and Process
Systematic Desensitization (SD) is a behavioral therapy developed by Joseph Wolpe in the 1950s designed specifically to treat phobias. The central aim of the therapy is to replace the anxiety response to a phobic stimulus with a relaxation response, a process known as counter-conditioning. This works because the client is taught a new association that counteracts the original fear. In the early development of SD, clients confronted feared scenarios directly in real life, known as in vivo exposure. In more recent years, therapists have often favored in vitro exposure, where the client imagines the scenario. In vitro is often preferred initially as it is less invasive, though in vivo is considered more successful due to direct contact with the stimulus. Some techniques also include modeling, where the client observes someone else coping successfully with the feared object.
The therapy follows a structured four-step process. In Step 1, the patient is taught relaxation techniques, as relaxation and anxiety are physiologically incompatible. In Step 2, the therapist and patient together construct an anxiety hierarchy, which lists scenarios involving the phobic stimulus from the least feared to the most feared. In Step 3, the patient gradually works through this hierarchy, visualizing or experiencing each event while maintaining a relaxed state. This can be done in vitro or in vivo. Finally, in Step 4, the therapy is deemed successful once the patient is counter-conditioned, having learned to associate the phobic stimulus with relaxation instead of fear.
Evaluation of Systematic Desensitization
The effectiveness of Systematic Desensitization is supported by several research findings. Patients with a fear of flying showed reduced physiological signs of fear and less anxiety in flight simulators following a typical treatment period of to weeks. Barlow found that of patients with phobias of injections and injury were cured after only sessions. McGrath et al. reported that of patients with general phobias respond well to SD. Even for difficult-to-treat conditions like agoraphobia, SD can provide an improvement of to .
However, there are concerns regarding side effects and whether the therapy treats the cause or the symptom. Behavioral therapies like SD may lead to symptom substitution, where removing one phobia causes another anxiety disorder to surface because the underlying cause of the phobia was never addressed. Furthermore, SD is not appropriate for all phobias. Fears that are 'genetically programmed' or linked to evolutionary survival—known as biological preparedness—are harder to treat. For example, humans are more naturally predisposed to fear ancient threats like rats (linked to the Plague) than modern objects like toasters or cars. These ancient fears are much more difficult to counter-condition.
Regarding patient involvement and ethics, SD is relatively accessible because it requires a low level of patient involvement outside of therapy sessions, with no homework required. Ethically, SD is often preferred over alternate therapies like flooding because it uses gradual exposure, protecting the patient from sudden harm. Because patients are taught relaxation and generally maintain a grip on reality, they are considered capable of giving informed consent and are aware of their right to withdraw. Nevertheless, the process inherently involves some level of anxiety during the initial stages of confronting the phobia.
General Evaluation of the Behaviourist Approach
A primary weakness of the behaviourist approach is its commitment to the 'nurture' side of the debate. By treating humans as tabula rasa, it overlooks the role of nature, genetics, neuroanatomy, and biochemistry. For example, while a behaviourist explains aggression through learned imitation (as in Bandura’s Bobo Doll study), they might ignore the influence of abnormal levels of neurotransmitters like dopamine and serotonin. Another weakness is the approach's reductionism, as it breaks down complex human behaviours into simple components of conditioning. This simplification can overlook various contributing factors to behaviors like crime.
The approach is also criticized for being deterministic. By suggesting that the environment determines all actions, it undermines the concept of free will and personal responsibility. This implies that individuals raised in violent homes have no choice but to become aggressive, which is not always the case. Despite these weaknesses, a significant strength of the approach is its utility. Its principles have been successfully applied in the real world to treat mental disorders and improve education. Furthermore, the approach is highly scientific and objective. By using controlled experimental methods, such as Skinner's rat experiments or Bandura's studies, behaviourism allows for the creation of clear cause-and-effect relationships based on observable, measurable facts rather than subjective beliefs.
Watson and Rayner (1920): Little Albert Study
Watson and Rayner’s 1920 study on 'conditioned emotional reactions' investigated whether fear could be classically conditioned in a human. The participant was a nine-month-old male infant known as 'Albert B' or 'Little Albert.' The methodology was a controlled observation conducted in a well-lit dark room, where Albert was placed on a mattress on a table. His responses were recorded using a motion picture camera. Preliminary tests showed Albert had no natural fear of objects like a white rat, a rabbit, a dog, a monkey, cotton wool, or burning newspapers. However, he did show fear (the unconditioned response) when a hammer was struck against a suspended steel bar behind his head.
The conditioning process occurred over five sessions. In Session 1 (at months and days old), a white rat was presented; when Albert reached for it, the steel bar was struck. In Session 2 (one week later), Albert was tested with the rat alone and then subjected to five more joint stimulations of the rat and the sound. By the end of this session, Albert would cry and crawl away from the rat. Session 3 tested for generalisation (at months and days), where Albert showed fear toward the rat, a rabbit, a dog, and a fur coat, though he still played with wooden blocks and Watson's hair. Session 4 (at months and days) changed the environment to a large lecture room, where his fear responses remained but were less extreme. Session 5 (at months and days) tested the effect of time; Albert still avoided and whimpered at the furry objects compared to the control building blocks.
Watson and Rayner concluded that a fear response could be created with ease (only seven joint stimulations were needed) and that these learned responses can generalise to similar stimuli. They suggested many phobias are acquired this way. However, the study faced evaluation on several fronts. Its internal validity was high due to controlled conditions and the use of control objects (blocks) and filmed evidence. However, its population validity was low because it relied on a single participant. Historically, researchers intended to study more participants but were unable to. Ethically, the study is highly controversial. While 'loci parentis' was gained from Albert's mother, the child was not protected from harm, and the Researchers deliberately heightened his fear by removing his thumb when he tried to suck it for comfort. Furthermore, Albert was removed from the hospital before counter-conditioning could occur, potentially leaving him with a long-lasting phobia.
Social and Economic Implications
Conditioning techniques have broad social implications. Applied to vulnerable children, conditioning can help normalize behaviour, making them more likely to be accepted in society. However, reliance on rewards may lead to a society motivated primarily by extrinsic factors. In education, operant conditioning (rewards for success) can lead to a better-educated workforce, benefiting society as a whole. There are also significant economic arguments; it is estimated that the NHS could save million with healthier work environments. In the private sector, companies like Google found that increasing maternity leave from months to months reduced staff turnover, thereby saving the company money on recruitment and training.