How Did Bf Skinner Contribution To Psychology?
Asked 246 days ago
Similar Questions for from Yahoo Answers|
||How would I write an antithesis about psychologists?
My thesis statement is:
Through his work in behaviorism and conditioning, John Watson holds the title of having the greatest impact on psychology today.
The persuasive essay is picking one out of several (Wilhelm Wundt, William James, Abraham Maslow, John Watson, BF Skinner, Sigmund Freud) pioneering psychologists and saying who had the greatest impact and why. Any help is greatly appreciated!
An antithesis is something that is the complete opposite of your given subject. So an antithesis to a psychologist would be someone who does not give two cents about human behavior and mental process. Because your statement is about Watson having the greatest impact on psychology today, an antithesis would be a fact that proves that Watson had the least/worst contributions to psychology. |
Clearly, you don't want to write an essay based solely on antitheses. Instead, try to give at least one antithesis and use facts to dispel the drawbacks of Watson's contributions. So that's like me writing: "There is no doubt that TV is heavily impacting today's youth in the most negative ways. Research has shown that children who watch TV excessively tend to have shorter attention spans, but the TV isn't entirely the enemy. Because of the TV, people are able to learn more about the world around them. They can see and hear of places they have never heard or dreamed about." Blah Blah Blah. Hopefully you get the point.
Anyways, good luck with your essay!
p.s. Because your essay is persuasive, it IS a good idea to include an antithesis that you can contradict. By showing two sides of the story, and dispelling the negative, you show the reader that you are well informed about your subject and that your essay and research isn't entirely biased.
||Hey - psychology homework help?
Okay, I have to write a powerpoint about BF Skinner. I have 5 slides, excluding the title slide and the bibliography slide.
What's required for the presentation:
Defend Why They're on the List (there was a list of 25 psychologists we picked from)
And their important contributions
So far, I have his biography completed. I don't need help with that haha.
It's his contributions.. I have the Skinner Box and Radical Behaviorism.
I feel that only "7" slides for a presentation is one or two short.. and I don't know what else to mention in a slide. There was his Project Pigeon, air crib, and the books he wrote. What do you all suggest?
I did a conditioning report earlier this year. Mention other related scientists, their contributions, and how they relate to Skinner. Definitely involve his books.|
Other than that, I've got nothing else.
Radical Behaviorism (RB) and BF Skinner|
1. What’s the radical part?
a. radical means “root”
(1) means an all-encompassing and overarching theory
(2) all psychological events are treated as arising from and being maintained by environmental relationships
(3) e.g., a radical biological view would mean that all human events are understood as originating and are maitained by biological (physiological, neuro-physiological) events
b. RB is an analysis that seeks to understand all behavior using a precise, limited, and consistent analysis
(1) This is a way of understanding all human behavior in terms of behavioral principles, that is in terms of operant and respondent conditioning
(2) All events that are considered psychological can be understood using a three (or four) term contingency
(3) This includes dreams, angst, love, depression, eating disorders, everything!
2. The goal of RB is to eliminate hypothetical constructs that prevent us from engaging in a science of human behavior
a. hypothetical constructs label behavior they do not explain behavior
3. do thoughts exist? Of course, Skinner stated clearly that thoughts exist as do emotional states; HOWEVER, they are not by themselves a cause of behavior, they are behavior to be explained
a. why do people think that Skinner said that thoughts don’t exist?
(1) Because they believe what others have told them, that that’s what he said
(2) this is bad scholarship (bad exegesis)
b. when thoughts are said to be causes of behavior this produces inconsistencies in a learning analysis (behavioral analysis)
(1) these are called Behavior-Behavior relations and are not logically or philosophically sound from a RB perspective
(2) however, thoughts as behaviors can become part of other stimuli that lead to later responses (second order behaviors)
4. Skinner also believed that not all behaviors occur at a conscious level (credited this as Freud’s best contribution to psychology)
a. not all behaviors are done consciously
b. we don’t always “know” why we do what we do”
The basics: operant psychology
Before Skinner, Ivan Pavlov and John B. Watson studied respondent behavior. For example, the behaviors they studied (salivation and fear, respectively) are both automatically elicited by unconditioned stimuli (the presentation of meat powder in Pavlov's case and loud metallic crashings in Watson's). Pavlov was the first to find (quite by accident) that after repeated pairings of a neutral stimulus (a ringing bell) with an unconditioned stumulis (in this case the presentation of meat power is the US), the sound of the bell alone (now a conditioned stimulus, or CS) would come to elicit salivation (now a conditioned response, or CR). This process, sometimes called classical conditioning or Pavlovian conditioning, was extended to emotional behavior (to the manipulation of the sympathetic nervous system) by Watson. However, Skinner saw that classical conditioning didn't account for the behavior most of us are interested in (like riding a bike or writing a book). His observations, building on Thorndike (1898), led him to propose a theory about how these and similar behaviors (called operants) come about.
Roughly speaking, in operant conditioning, an operant is actively emitted and produces changes in the world (consequence) that alter the likelihood that the action will occur again.
If the strength, or frequency, of a behavior is increased as a consequence of the presentation of a stimulus, that stimulus is a positive reinforcer. R+
If the strength, or frequency, of a behavior is increased as a consequence of the withdrawal of a stimulus, that stimulus is a negative reinforcer R-
If the strength, or frequency, of a behavior is decreased as a consequence of the presentation of a stimulus, that stimulus is a positive punisher. P+
If the strength, or frequency, of a behavior is decreased as a consequence of the withdrawal of a stimulus, that stimulus is a negative punisher or response cost punishment. P-
Negative reinforcement and punishment are often confused. It is important to note that a reinforcer is anything that increases the likelihood that a behavior will happen again. A punisher will always decrease behavior.
B.F. Skinner loathed the use of punishers and he argued their undesirable side effects were often worse than the actual behavior that was to be reduced.
Instrumental conditioning is another term for operant conditioning that is most closely associated with scientists who studied learning that occurred over discrete trials, such as runs through a maze. Skinner pioneered the free operant technique, where organisms could respond at any time during a protracted experimental session. Thus Skinner's dependent variable was usually the frequency or rate of responding, not the errors that were made or the speed of traversal of a maze.
Operant conditioning tells something about the future of the organism: That in the future, the reinforced behavior will be likely to occur more often.
Many textbooks wrongly label Skinner or Radical Behaviorism as S-R (Stimulus-Response, or respondent (Skinner's term), or Pavlovian) psychology, and argue that this limits the approach. This error even appears in Daniel Dennett's "Consciousness explained" (1991), where he says, "...B. F. Skinner's Behaviorism, in which stimulus-response pairings were the candidates for selection..." (page 183).
Many textbooks argue that radical behaviorism maintains the position that animals (including humans) are passive receivers of conditioning, failing to take into account that
Operant behavior is emitted, not elicited: Animals act on the environment and the environment acts back on them
The consequence of a behavior can itself be a stimulus. One needs not present anything for shaping to take place