Article Analysis on Behaviorism in the Cognitive Revolution - Psychology Essay Sample

Behaviorism is a theory that states that human behavior can be explained as a response to stimuli while cognitivism is a branch of psychology concerned with the study of the human mind. Psychology refers to the study of human mind and its functionality. This paper analyzes the article On Behaviorism in the Cognitive Revolution: Myth and Reactions authored by Watrin and Darwich (2012). It aims at dispelling doubts and myths about the revolution of cognitivism in relation to behaviorism. The topic is significant because in the early 20th century, behaviorism emerged as a revolution in psychology. Another significant development in psychology was the rise of cognitivism. It is argued that the cognitivist revolution may have led to the decline or event extinction of behaviorism. The analysis will delve into the development of behaviorism and cognitivism, how the rise of cognitivism affected behaviorism and explain cognitivism from a behaviorist point of view.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

Article Summary and Analysis

Behaviorism analysis is a psychological study of behavior in relation to environmental effects. It has three main domains; experimental behavior analysis, applied behavior analysis and conceptual behavior analysis. According to Watrin and Darwich (2012), these fields are interrelated and have their basis in radical behaviorism. The 1920's saw the rise of psychologists who were identified as behaviorists, among them, B. F. Skinner. His experiments on reflexes led to new investigation methods. When Skinner's methods were experimented in the 1950's with psychiatric patients, they had a high degree of success. Skinner's work laid the foundation for behaviorism. The article further explains that cognitivism rose due to a series of developments in various disciplines such as psychology, computer science, neuroscience, philosophy, and linguistics. Each discipline provided a different perspective about cognitivism. Cognitivism began to flourish in 1950's due to exponential development in computing. Computers were being compared with human minds. This analogy between computing and cognitivism was vital in the development of cognitive psychology. In the 1960s, cognitivism was being taken seriously. Furthermore, with the consolidation of the cognitive movement in 1970's, a revolution in psychology that challenged behaviorism was witnessed.

According to the article, most psychologists believed that behaviorism dominated in the advent of cognitivism between the 1920's and 1950's. These claims of dominance have, however, never been substantiated. For most cognitive historiography, claims of behaviorism hegemony are common. It is even a common assumption for cognitivism introductory books. Few authors present any evidence for the dominance and if produced, it is inconsistent. Watrin and Darwich (2012) claim that various surveys on major psychological developments showed evolution of cognitivism corresponding with the decline of behaviorism. While some showed growth in cognitive psychology, others showed a decrease in behavioral psychology. These studies prove that the growth of cognitivism is a widely accepted fact. However, opinions on the decline of behaviorism vary. These studies are too inconsistent to make an accurate impression on the psychological history. The inconsistencies are most likely due to complexity of behaviorism as a subject-matter.

This historiography, like all historiographies, disseminates certain interpretations. It presents behaviorism as an antagonist. For many years, behaviorism dominated psychology and prevented the study of mind. Cognition was introduced, and it renewed interest in the mind. It rescued the mind from the darkness. Watrin and Darwich (2012) argue that historiography goes as far to compare the rebirth of the mind with the Renaissance which implies a period of innovation, enlightenment, and progression. It promotes cognitivism and casts cognitivism as advancement from behaviorism. The purpose of this cognitivism narrative includes assigning cognitivism to a place in history, boost cognitivist's agenda and consolidate a historical identity for the cognitivist movement.

Behaviorists believe behavioral psychology is still flourishing. Due to criticism from the cognitivism historiography, they would favor an alternative story. Behavior analysts see cognitivism as a new form of mental studies. Growth in cognitivism awareness and claims of a decline of behaviorism has led to a tense and ambiguous relationship between the two types of psychology. According to Watrin and Darwich (2012), Skinner criticized cognitivism key features. He even labeled cognitivism as an ineffective approach. Many behavior analysts responded to the question about the decline in behaviorism by criticizing cognitive psychology. By reacting, behavior analysts have shown that cognitivism and its portrayal of behaviorism were quite noticeable. Watrin and Darwich (2012) affirm that the ChomskySkinner issue received particular attention when Chomsky reviewed Skinner's Verbal Behavior. The report became the principal source of controversy involving behavior analysis and the cognitive revolution. The influence of Chomsky critique caused neglect to other critical works on Skinner, some of which had positive criticism.

In conclusion, it is important to note that disagreements between behaviorists and cognitivists are important for the understanding of the alleged revolution. Cognitivists argue out that a psychological revolution shifted attention from behaviorism to cognitive psychology. For a revolution to have taken place, behavior analysis would have been changed drastically. Some cognitivists argue out it was a counter-revolution pointing out an earlier behavioristic revolution. These cognitivists believe that they did not reform behaviorism, but they replaced it. This brings about a lot of ambiguity. They generalize behaviorism, and this generalization may bring about misattributions. Some psychologists believe that behaviorism focuses on the relationship between discernible behavior and environmental properties such as stimuli. These arguments ignore unobservable events such as thinking and feelings that Skinner studied. This brings about ambiguities which have been taken advantage of by conventional historiography to legitimize the revolution idea. This ambiguity is very dangerous for modern behaviorism and behavior analysis. The cognitive historiography is content that cognitivism revolution replaced behaviorism. It shows that cognitivism was a psychological revolution that stole all the attention from behaviorism. This statement is not wholly true. Cognitivism did not displace behavior analysis. These two psychological disciplines developed independently. When behavioral psychology chose to isolate itself, it suffered a decline. However, working together will unify psychology and make it open to new ideas and positive criticism. Unity will enable psychologists to pool together their resources to work towards a common goal. The time and effort used to discredit cognitivism and behaviorism can be used to bring about developments in both fields. Therefore, as they work together, it is important for both behaviorism and cognitivism to maintain their identities.

Reference

Watrin, J. P., &Darwich, R. (2012). On behaviourism in the cognitive revolution: Myth and

reactions. Review of General Psychology, 16(3), 268-282.

Watrin, J. P., &Darwich, R. (2012). On behaviourism in the cognitive revolution: Myth and

reactions. Review of General Psychology, 16(3), 268-282.

Watrin, J. P., &Darwich, R. (2012). On behaviourism in the cognitive revolution: Myth and

reactions. Review of General Psychology, 16(3), 268-282.

Watrin, J. P., &Darwich, R. (2012). On behaviourism in the cognitive revolution: Myth and

reactions. Review of General Psychology, 16(3), 268-282.

Watrin, J. P., &Darwich, R. (2012). On behaviourism in the cognitive revolution: Myth and

reactions. Review of General Psychology, 16(3), 268-282.

Watrin, J. P., &Darwich, R. (2012). On behaviourism in the cognitive revolution: Myth and

reactions. Review of General Psychology, 16(3), 268-282.

Watrin, J. P., &Darwich, R. (2012). On behaviourism in the cognitive revolution: Myth and

reactions. Review of General Psychology, 16(3), 268-282.

Watrin, J. P., &Darwich, R. (2012). On behaviourism in the cognitive revolution: Myth and

reactions. Review of General Psychology, 16(3), 268-282.

Watrin, J. P. & Darwich, R. (2012) On Behaviorism in the Cognitive Revolution: Myth and Reactions. Review of General Psychology, 16(3), 268-282