Understanding the Relationship between Behaviorism and the Conspiracy Theory

For this paper, I wish to write about the behaviorism theory. The focus will be on the conspiracy facet of behaviorism theory that was suggested by Ivan Pavlov. In his argument, Ivan stated that dogs salivated before food was served because of the conditioning behavior that was influenced by the ringing bell rather than their stomachs (Jarius & Wildemann, 2015). I ascertain that Pavlov’s invention provided the most suitable explanation regarding how environmental stimuli impact the behavior of both animals and individuals (Walker, 2017). As such, my intention for this paper is to provide arguments that support the theory. In particular, my writing will be grounded on linking Pavlov’s experiment results in the distinct behaviors seen among students in the current learning context. The conspiracy theory presented by Pavlov’s is of great importance to me because I believe it assists in the understanding of emotional, mental, and cognitive characteristics of people in addition to how aspects of the environment influence their behavior.

For now, I presume that Pavlov’s experiment results are closely related to the assumptions of the behaviorism theory. Notably, behaviorism is learning theory and is grounded on the notion that all behaviors showed by a person resulting from the association between the individual and the environment in a process described as conditioning (Raiola, 2014). I acknowledge the fact that the association between people and their environment happens in two ways, which are either classical conditioning or behavioral conditioning (Staddon, 2014). Behaviorists state that a person’s response to a particular stimulus is determined if the action is punished or motivated, thus sharing similar assumptions with Pavlov’s experiment (Clark, 2018). Conclusively, I believe my paper will support Ivan Pavlov’s conspiracy principle concerning the impacts of environmental factors on people’s actions and behaviors.

.

Introduction????

Literature review on Behaviorism

Behavioral studies developed in the field of psychology in response to understanding that psychology studies should only focus only on cognitive processes. Freud and other psychologists of his time focused on cognitive studies to relate feelings and thoughts to the brain (Dico, 2018). The seminal paper written by John Watson in 1913 posited that psychology studies should be grounded on studying behaviors that can be seen instead of using reflection to comprehend unseen cognitive processes. John Watson stimulated a transition from the traditional techniques of studying psychology, which focused on mental tenets to the study of overt behavior. Behaviorism posits that a person cultivates all features of practice via experiences linked to the relationship between environmental incentives and reactions to those motivations. The reactions are such as choices in resolving a person’s behavior, non-visible cognitive processes, and mental processes.

Many theorists have developed behaviorism, such as Pavlov, Ivan- classical conditioning)-, Thorndike, Edward, and Watson. Of all the three, Watson contributed immensely to the field of psychology by defining behaviorism (Moore, 2017). He conducted dissertations to identify logical connections among behavior and the physical and social environment (Jensen, 2006). Such assessments were crucial in transitioning the effort of earlier psychologists who based their studies on psychotherapy (Marzi, Demetriou, & Reimers, 2018). In the beginning, behaviorism studies were grounded on glandular and muscular responses, but Skinner broadened the studies to assess the impacts behavior has on the surroundings (Epstein, 1991; Reber & Reber, 2001).

‘The studies to understand the impacts of behavior on the environment developed a sub-branch of neo-behaviorism created by Hull and Spence (Hineline, 1992). Their studies were based on chains of intermediating occasions that happen amid a person’s behavior and the environment. Studies on neo-behaviorism incorporated radical behaviorism, free behaviorism, and logical behaviorism, which supported the idea studies contain something that can be measured or observed (Greenwood, 2015). It is critical to understand that there are many branches of behaviorism other than the classical behaviorist theory and the neo-behaviorist principle. Some branches of behaviorism operate on the notion that not all acts are visible, thus affective and cognitive behaviors that are perfected, practiced, and learned (Staats, 2017). For instance, neo-cognitive behaviorism posits that there are unconditional and condition levels of perception, and there are aspects that conclude whether a person conducts himself to either standard (Kelley, 1993).’ Similarly, the relational frame theory satisfies this condition and is a principle used to analyze both mental processes and behavior of human conduct (McIIvane, 2003). The numerous branches of behaviorism have influenced advancements in forming measurable and observable aspects from cognitive and affective processes (Ziafar & Namaziandost, 2019).

‘In the 20^th century, James (1912) postulated a new approach to behavior embodied in his dogma of radical empiricism, which centers on the purpose of experience and relationships among experiences. He claimed that expertise is not dichotomized but unified, falsifying the belief that the mind is distinct from the world (Hatfield, 2015). James named the coexistence of the brain and the world as pure experience (Chemero, 2003). Therefore he rejected the classic tenet (stimulus-response- dogma) that was founded on the dichotomy of the world and mind’ (Koonin, 2015). As such, James emphasized the significance of perception and experience in leading to response and stimuli. ‘Dewey (1905) also criticized the dichotomy of that separate the mind from the action, world, and body while supporting the role of lived experience in his devotion to immediate empiricism. The concentration on skills and the part before lessons happen in forecasting and creating future behaviors has developed the discipline of environmental education since most of his notions reflected the element of social behaviorism (Garrison, 1995)’. In 1896, Dewey claimed that the stimulus-response framework was a generalization and created on a false premise of body and mind (Dewey, 1986). The traditional conviction was that motivation would happen, and the body via a sequence of nerve networks would react (Rogers, 1962). Numerous notions have joined the discipline of psychology, general vernacular, education, and motivation concerning the dogma of behaviorism (Malone, 2014). Controlled and uncontrolled stimuli and responses are the most common ideologies. The terms are central in all behaviorist theorists; thus, stimulus-organism-response is the main structure that builds the behaviorism theory (Fikri, Nurmalina, Najib, & Simanjuntak, 2019). Nevertheless, cognitive behaviorism incorporates the environmental inputs by studying how the mind processes data that leads to behavior as well as how memory results in motor responses (Hofmann, Asnaani, Vonk, Sawyer, & Fang, 2012). Conclusively, most practices are performed without thought as they are acts learned in a stable environment.

Classical conditioning is subdivided into parts, in particular, the latent inhibition, which is a principle stating that if a person is pre-exposed to the conditional motivations, he or she is slow in receiving the message(Pearce & Hall, 1992). People make many decisions each day, which makes it challenging to understand each behavior. Nevertheless, some very few actions are isolated, such that they include routines and patterns that have grown to be automated or fixed (Witten & Belkin, 1990). These routines and habits are arranged in series and differ depending on a person’s level of expertise in piloting the skills that make the behaviors (Annett, 1995). It is important to note that humans must develop routines as they help them deal with complex situations in life (Rouleau, Karbowski, & Persinger, 2016). Thus, routines are described as a habit that is a learned act (Eelen, 2018). Traditionally, practices were described as physical responses and motor patterns; however, the dogma has now developed to accommodate affective, cognitive, and perceptual habits (Reber & Reber, 2001).

Additionally, habits are also described as learned acts and a series of responses in a routine. With time, routines, and practices result in a precise response, which is known as a default action (Benner, Hughes, & Sutphen, 2008). These forms of behaviors are continuous as the dispensation that sparks and manages performances grows to be automatic (Vargas, 2018). In situations where reactions occur in unpredictable ways, people must develop rational decisions to influence the desired behavior (Outllette & Wood, 1998). Of great importance is that practices are embedded in skills that unite to become errands. It is not easy to teach behavior because there are clusters of expertise, but, if shown, they incorporate teaching about the cognition and impact that support the practice as well as the skill (Abramson, 2013). Notably, behaviors are not just physical but also showcase an intricate relationship between cognitive and affective processes that influence a decision in the long and short term (Muja & Appelbaum, 2012). Mainly, cognitive skills can be taught with a focus on motor, cognitive, and perceptual processes ( Ericsson & Oliver, 1995). for instance, professions that require cognitive elements are such as arts, surgery, and sports. People need open skills for unpredictable environments so that they can use the ability depending on the situation at hand (Magill, 2000).

It is essential to understand that teaching skills involve interrupting a person’s daily habits and replacing old skills with new ones (Budiman, 2017).  The new abilities are either products of modified early skills or new practices (Darling-Hammond, Flook, Cook-Harvey, Barron, & Osher, 2019).  For many years, health studies have conducted dissertations to understand how and whether distinct methods of behavior change are sufficient (Kelly & Barker, 2016).  As a result, several models have been created to direct health professionals and academics (Michie, West, Sheals, & Godinho, 2018).  The communication model postulates that communication can alter behavior and attitudes related to the same causal chain (McGuire, 1964).  This framework incorporates the following inputs; the source, message, channel, the recommended change, and the destination (Ajzen & Fishbein, 2014), which are the alterations in cognition and observed behavior (Graeff et al. 1993).  The assumptions developed are that inputs result in the desired cognitive results, and ultimately, the desired action (Holland, 2011).

Another model is the diffusion of Innovation (check grammar), which purports that change spreads among people via a standard distribution curve (Rogers, 2003).  Diffusion theory has been studied and applied worldwide.  The theory asserts that behaviors are affected across a community via change agents (Durantini, Albarracin, Mitchell, Earl, & Gillette, 2016).  Intrinsic control, response information, social support ad involvement are the elements that would impact a change agent’s conduct while diffusing Innovation (?). In particular, the diffusion theory is essential in academics because it stresses the significance of the four elements in driving motivation for people to adopt a new behavior (Smith, Kim, Zhu, Doudou, Sternberg, & Thomas, 2018). Consequently, these motivations are swayed by the social environment, social processes, and social support.  Another model is the health belief model that posits that beliefs impact behavior. Notably, beliefs are not fixed personal features but values acquired via primary interactions.  This model focuses on two factors of a person’s perception of health and behavior, namely behavioral evaluation and threat perception. Conclusively, the health belief model purports that as risks increase, a person is likely to develop behaviors that mitigate the threats.

Bibliography

Abramson, C. I. (2013, January 18). Problems of Teaching the Behaviorist Perspective in the Cognitive Revolution. Behavioral Sciences, 3, 55-71.

Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (2014). The Influence of Attitudes on Behavior. (D. Albarracin, B. T. Johnson, & M. P. Zanna, Eds.) 173-221.

Benner, P., Hughes, R. G., & Sutphen, M. (2008, April). Chapter 6: Clinical Reasoning, Decisionmaking, and Action: Thinking Critically and Clinically. Patient Safety and Quality: An Evidence-Based Handbook for Nurses.

Budiman, A. (2017). Behaviorism and Foreign Language Teaching Methodology. 1(2), 101-114.

Clark, K. R. (2018). Learning theories: behaviorism.

Darling-Hammond, L., Flook, L., Cook-Harvey, C., Barron, B., & Osher, D. (2019, February 17). Implications for the educational practice of the science of learning and development. Journal of Applied Developmental Science.

Dico, G. L. (2018, May 19). Freud’s psychoanalysis, contemporary cognitive/ social psychology, and the case against introspection. Theory and Psychology, 28(4), 510-527.

Durantini, M. R., Albarracin, D., Mitchell, A. L., Earl, A. N., & Gillette, J. C. (2016). Conceptualizing the Influence of Social Agents of Behavior Change: A Meta-Analysis of the Effectiveness of HIV-Prevention Interventionists for Different Groups. Psychological Bulletin, 132(2), 212-248.

Eelen, P. (2018, July 26). Classical Conditioning: Classical Yet Modern. (J. D. Houwer, & T. Beckers, Eds.) Journal of the Belgian Association for Psychological Science, 58(1), 196-211.

Fikri, A., Nurmalina, R., Najib, M., & Simanjuntak, M. (2019). THE DETERMINANTS OF ONLINE VEGETABLES/FRUITS REPURCHASE INTENTION: STIMULUS-ORGANISM-RESPONSE MODEL AND THEORY OF PLANNED BEHAVIOUR. European Scientific Journal, 15(10).

Greenwood, J. D. (2015, September). 11 – Neobehaviorism, radical behaviorism, and problems of behaviorism. A Conceptual History of Psychology, 410-453.

Hatfield, G. (2015, February 10). Radical Empiricism, Critical Realism, and American Functionalism: James and Sellars. The Journal of the International Society for the History of Philosophy of Science, 5, 129-153.

Hineline, P.N., 1992. A self-interpretive behavior analysis. American Psychologist, 47, no. 11: 1274–1286.

Hofmann, S. G., Asnaani, A., Vonk, I. J., Sawyer, A. T., & Fang, A. (2012, October 1). The Efficacy of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy: A Review of Meta-analyses. Cognitive Theory Research, 36(5), 427-440.

Holland, P. C. (2011). Cognitive versus stimulus-response theories of learning. Learning behavior, 36(3), 227-241.

Jarius, S., & Wildemann, B. (2015). And Pavlov still rings a bell: summarising the evidence for the use of a bell in Pavlov’s iconic experiments on classical conditioning. Journal of neurology, 262(9), 2177-2178.

Jensen, R., 2006. Behaviorism, latent learning, and cognitive maps: Needed revisions in introductory psychology textbooks. Behavior Analyst, 29, no. 2: 187–209.

Kelly, M. P., & Barker, M. (2016, July). Why is changing health-related behavior so difficult? Public Health, 136, 109-116.

Koonin, E. V. (2015, September 16). Why the Central Dogma: on the nature of the great biological exclusion principle. Biology Direct, 10(52).

Malone, J. C. (2014, May). Did John B. Watson Really “Found” Behaviorism? Association for Behavioral Analysis International Journal, 37(1), 1-12.

Marzi, I., Demetriou, Y., & Reimers, A. K. (2018, July 3). Social and physical environmental correlates of independent mobility in children: a systematic review taking sex/gender differences into account. International Journal of Health Geographics, 17(24).

Michie, S., West, R., Sheals, K., & Godinho, C. A. (2018, April). Evaluating the effectiveness of behavior change techniques in health-related behavior: a scoping review of methods used. Translational Behavioral Medicine, 8(2), 212-224.

Moore, J. (2017, June 2). Behaviorism. The Psychological Record, 61, 449-463.

Muja, N., & Appelbaum, S. (2012, November). Cognitive and affective processes underlying career change. Career Development International Journal, 17(7), 683-701.

Raiola, G. (2014). Motor control and learning skills according to cognitive and ecological dynamic approach in a vision on behaviorism, cognitive, Gestalt, and phenomenology theories. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 5(15), 504.

Rogers, E.M., and F.F. Shoemaker. 1971. Communication of innovations; A cross-cultural approach (Revised edition of Diffusion of Innovations).Free Press of Glenco.

Rouleau, N., Karbowski, L. M., & Persinger, M. A. (2016, October 20). Experimental Evidence of Classical Conditioning and Microscopic Engrams in an Electroconductive Material. PLOS ONE, 11(10).

Smith, R. A., Kim, Y., Zhu, X., Doudou, T. D., Sternberg, E. D., & Thomas, M. B. (2018, February 15). Integrating Models of Diffusion and Behavior to Predict Innovation Adoption, Maintenance, and Social Diffusion. Journal of Health Communication: International Perspectives, 23(3), 264-271.

Staats, A. W. (2017, July 8). Psychological Behaviorism and Behaviorizing Psychology. The Behavior Analyst, 17, 93-114.

Staddon, J. (2014). The new behaviorism. Psychology Press.

Vargas, E. (2018). B. F. Skinner’s theory of behavior. European Journal of Behavior Analysis, 18(1), 2-38.

Walker, S. (2017). Learning theory and behavior modification. Routledge.

Ziafar, M., & Namaziandost, E. (2019, December). From Behaviorism to New Behaviorism: A Review Study. English Studies Journal, 12(2), 109-116.