Radical behaviorism emerged as a distinct philosophical approach to psychology in the mid-20th century. Psychologist Burrhus Frederic Skinner developed this perspective as an extension of earlier behaviorist ideas.
Unlike John B. Watson’s classical behaviorism, radical behaviorism acknowledges private events like thoughts and feelings. It considers these internal experiences as behaviors subject to the same principles as external actions.
The core tenet of radical behaviorism is that all behavior can be explained through environmental contingencies. This view rejects mentalistic explanations and focuses on observable relationships between behavior and environmental stimuli.
Radical behaviorism emphasizes the study of behavior as a natural science. It aims to discover and describe lawful relationships governing behavior, much like physics or biology.
Key principles of radical behaviorism include:
- Operant conditioning
- Functional analysis of behavior
- Verbal behavior theory
- Rejection of hypothetical constructs
B.F. Skinner’s approach diverges from other forms of behaviorism by including private stimulation as part of the scientific study of behavior. This expanded scope allows for a more comprehensive analysis of human experience.
Radical behaviorism serves as both a philosophy of science and a conceptual framework for understanding behavior. It continues to influence modern behavior analysis and psychological research methodologies.
Key Theoretical Constructs
Radical behaviorism encompasses several core concepts that form the foundation of its approach to understanding behavior. These constructs provide a framework for analyzing and predicting behavioral patterns across various contexts.
Operant behavior refers to actions that are influenced by their consequences. This concept is central to radical behaviorism’s explanation of how behavior is shaped and maintained.
Reinforcement plays a crucial role in operant conditioning. Positive reinforcement involves adding a desirable stimulus to increase behavior, while negative reinforcement removes an aversive stimulus to achieve the same effect.
The strength of operant behavior is determined by its history of reinforcement. Behaviors that have been consistently reinforced are more likely to occur in similar future situations.
Schedules of reinforcement, such as fixed ratio or variable interval, influence the rate and persistence of behavior. These schedules explain why some behaviors are more resistant to extinction than others.
Radical behaviorism inherits from behaviorism the view that the science of behavior is a natural science, the belief that animal behavior can be profitably studied and compared to human behavior, a strong emphasis on the environment as a cause of behavior, and an emphasis on the operations involved in behavior modification.
Radical behaviorism does not assert that creatures are tabula rasa, with behavior untouched by biological or genetic endowment. Rather, it contends that experiential elements have a significant influence in shaping the behavior of many complex species, and that studying these topics is a large field of research in and of itself.
Private and Public Events
Radical behaviorism acknowledges both private and public events as legitimate subjects of scientific inquiry. Private events include thoughts, feelings, and sensations that are only directly observable to the individual experiencing them.
Public events are behaviors that can be observed by others. Radical behaviorists argue that both types of events are subject to the same behavioral principles and can be studied using similar methods.
The inclusion of private events distinguishes radical behaviorism from earlier forms of behaviorism that focused solely on observable behavior. This approach allows for a more comprehensive analysis of human experience.
Radical behaviorists propose that private events can function as stimuli or responses in behavioral chains, influencing overt behavior in meaningful ways.
Behavioral Events and Selection by Consequences
Selection by consequences is a key principle in radical behaviorism, drawing parallels between behavioral evolution and biological evolution.
This principle suggests that behaviors are selected and maintained based on their consequences. Behaviors that lead to favorable outcomes are more likely to be repeated, while those with unfavorable consequences are less likely to recur.
Behavioral events are viewed as part of an ongoing stream of behavior, rather than discrete units. This perspective emphasizes the continuous nature of behavior and its relationship to environmental contexts.
The analysis of behavioral events focuses on identifying functional relationships between behaviors and their antecedents and consequences. This approach helps in predicting and influencing future behavior patterns.
Radical Behaviorism vs Methodological Behaviorism
Radical behaviorism and methodological behaviorism represent two distinct approaches within behavioral psychology. The latter focuses primarily on observable behaviors, eschewing the study of internal mental processes.
Radical behaviorism, in contrast, takes a more comprehensive view. It acknowledges the existence of private events and covert behaviors, including thoughts and feelings.
The treatment of mental terms differs between these approaches. Methodological behaviorists avoid using mentalistic language, while radical behaviorists may incorporate such terms in their analyses.
Introspection is rejected by methodologicalists as an unreliable method. Radical behaviorists, however, consider self-reports as behavioral data, albeit requiring careful interpretation.
Overt behavior is the primary focus for both approaches. Yet radical behaviorism extends its scope to include covert behaviors as legitimate subjects of study.
Evolution of Behaviorism
John B. Watson coined the term “behaviorism” in 1913, emphasizing observable behavior and rejecting introspection. Watson’s classical behaviorism focused on stimulus-response associations and environmental influences on behavior.
B.F. Skinner later developed radical behaviorism, expanding on Watson’s ideas. Skinner emphasized the role of consequences in shaping behavior and introduced the concept of operant conditioning.
Radical behaviorism differed from classical behaviorism by acknowledging private events and considering thoughts and feelings as behaviors. This approach aimed to provide a more comprehensive explanation of human behavior.
Neobehaviorism emerged as an intermediate stage between classical and radical behaviorism. Key figures in this movement included Clark Hull and Edward Tolman.
Hull developed a mathematical approach to learning theory, proposing that behavior was driven by primary drives and habits. His work influenced many researchers in the field of psychology.
Tolman introduced the concept of cognitive maps and latent learning, suggesting that organisms form internal representations of their environment. This idea challenged the strict stimulus-response model of classical behaviorism.
Neobehaviorists incorporated hypothetical constructs and intervening variables to explain complex behaviors, bridging the gap between observable actions and internal processes.
References:
- Baum, W.M. (2011), What Is Radical Behaviorism? A Review of Jay Moore’s Conceptual Foundations of Radical Behaviorism,. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 95: 119-126. doi: 10.1901/jeab.2011.95-119
- Day, W. (1983). On the Difference between Radical and Methodological Behaviorism. Behaviorism, 11(1), 89–102.
- Holland, J.G.; Skinner, B.F. (1961). Analysis of behavior. McGraw-Hill
- Johnston;, James M; Pennypacker, H.S.; Green, Gina (2019) Strategies and Tactics of Behavioral Research and Practice. Routledge. ISBN 9781138641594
- Moore, Jay (2008) Conceptual foundations of radical behaviorism. Cornwall-on-Hudson, NY: Sloan
- Moore, J. (2011) Methodological Behaviorism as a Radical Behaviorist Views It. Behavior and Philosophy, 39/40, 145–202.
- Schneider, S.M., Morris, E.K. (1987) A History of the Term Radical Behaviorism: From Watson to Skinner. Behav. Analyst 10, 27–39
- Skinner, B. F. (1945). The operational analysis of psychological terms. Psychological Review, 52, 270–277, 291-294
- Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior. New York: Free Press
- Zuriff GE. Radical behaviorism and theoretical entities. Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 1984;7(4):572-572. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X00027394