Behaviorism in Psychology

Core Principles

The behaviorist movement began in 1913 when John B. Watson wrote an article entitled Psychology as the behaviorist views it, which set out several underlying assumptions regarding methodology and behavioral analysis:

All behavior is learned from the environment:

One assumption of the learning approach is that all behaviors are learned from the environment.

According to this view, people are not born with pre-set traits or instincts that drive behavior.

Instead, behavior is acquired through two main types of learning: classical conditioning (learning by association) and operant conditioning (learning through consequences).

Behaviorism emphasizes how environmental factors shape behavior. It largely excludes innate or inherited factors.

From this perspective, the human mind at birth is considered a tabula rasa – a Latin phrase meaning blank slate – ready to be written on by experience.

In classical conditioning, learning occurs when a natural, automatic response becomes associated with a new stimulus.

This type of learning helps explain how reflexive behaviors – like fear or salivation – can be triggered by previously neutral cues.

Pavlov’s Experiment

Ivan Pavlov showed that dogs could be classically conditioned to salivate at the sound of a bell if that sound was repeatedly presented while they were given food.

He first presented the dogs with the sound of a bell; they did not salivate so this was a neutral stimulus. Then he presented them with food, they salivated.

The food was an unconditioned stimulus and salivation was an unconditioned (innate) response.

“Ivan Pavlov repeatedly paired the sound of a bell with presenting food to his dogs. After several repetitions, the dogs began to salivate upon hearing the bell alone.

At this stage, the bell became the conditioned stimulus (CS), and the dogs’ salivation became the conditioned response (CR).

This experiment demonstrated classical conditioning clearly.

Watson & Rayner (1920): The Little Albert Experiment

Watson took Pavlov’s principles and applied them to human emotion. The result was one of psychology’s most famous – and most ethically troubling – studies.

Aim: to condition a fear response in a human infant.

Method: Watson and Rayner (1920) paired a tame white rat with a loud, frightening noise – striking a steel bar. The infant was 11 months old, known as “Little Albert”.

Results: after several pairings, Albert cried and tried to crawl away at the mere sight of the rat, with no noise at all. The fear response generalized to other furry, white objects, including a rabbit, cotton wool, and a Santa mask.

Conclusion: emotional responses, including phobias, can be learned through classical conditioning. The study remains the empirical cornerstone of that claim.

Examples of classical conditioning applied to real life include:

• taste aversion – using derivations of classical conditioning, it is possible to explain how people develop aversions to particular foods
• learned emotions – such as love for parents, were explained as paired associations with the stimulation they provide
• advertising – we readily associate attractive images with the products they are selling
• phobias – classical conditioning is seen as the mechanism by which – we acquire many of these irrational fears.

Skinner argued that learning is an active process and occurs through operant conditioning. When humans and animals act on and in their environmental consequences, follow these behaviors. 

If the consequences are pleasant, they repeat the behavior, but if the consequences are unpleasant, they do not.

Thorndike (1898): The Law of Effect

Before Skinner, Edward Thorndike ran the first systematic experiments on learning by consequences. He used cats in home-made puzzle boxes.

Aim: to establish whether animals learn a new response through sudden insight, or gradually through trial and error.

Method: a food-deprived cat was placed inside a puzzle box it could escape only by operating a latch that sprang the door open, with fish visible outside as the reward. The time taken to escape was recorded across many repeated trials.

Results: the first escape happened by chance. Each time the cat was returned to the box, though, it escaped faster.

In one box, average escape time fell from about 5 minutes on the first trial to roughly 5 seconds after 10-20 trials. There was no sudden flash of insight at any point.

Conclusion: learning was incremental trial-and-error, not insight.

Thorndike called this the law of effect (Thorndike, 1898, 1911): a response followed by a satisfying outcome is “stamped in,” and one followed by discomfort is “stamped out.”

Skinner built directly on this principle roughly forty years later. He relabelled stamping in and out as reinforcement and punishment.

Operant Conditioning: Reinforcement, Punishment and Shaping

B.F. Skinner called this operant conditioning. Voluntary behavior is strengthened or weakened by what follows it (Skinner, 1938).

He used an “operant chamber” – a Skinner box – in which a rat or pigeon presses a lever for food. There were four possible consequences.

Positive reinforcement adds a pleasant stimulus, such as food, after a response, increasing how often it occurs. Negative reinforcement works the other way. It removes something unpleasant, such as a shock, after a response – and it also increases the response, because escaping discomfort feels rewarding.

Punishment is different. It is any consequence that decreases a response, whether by adding something unpleasant or removing something pleasant. Extinction is different again. It is the gradual disappearance of a response once reinforcement is withheld altogether.

Skinner also demonstrated shaping.

This means building a complex behavior by reinforcing successive small steps toward it. He would reward a pigeon first for turning toward a target, then for approaching it, then for pecking it.

Reinforcement need not even follow every response. Skinner and Ferster showed that unpredictable, occasional reward – as in a slot machine – produces the most persistent behavior of all (Ferster & Skinner, 1957).

Behavior is the result of stimulus-response:

John B. Watson described the purpose of psychology as: “To predict, given the stimulus, what reaction will take place; or, given the reaction, state what the situation or stimulus is that has caused the reaction.” (1930, p. 11).

All behavior, no matter how complex, can be reduced to a simple stimulus-response association.

Stimulus refers to any feature of the environment that affects behavior. For example, in Pavlov’s experiment, food was a stimulus.

A response is the behavior elicited by the stimulus. For example, in Pavlov’s experiment, the dog’s salivation was a response.

Psychology should be seen as a science:

Theories must rest on empirical data. This means careful, controlled observation and measurement of behavior. Watson (1913) stated:

“Psychology as the behaviorist views it is a purely objective experimental branch of natural science. Its theoretical goal is the prediction and control of behavior” (Watson, 1913, p. 158).

This became behaviorism’s rallying cry.

The components of a theory should be as simple as possible. Behaviorists propose using operational definitions (defining variables in terms of observable, measurable events).

Behaviorism introduced scientific methods to psychology. Laboratory experiments were used with high control of extraneous variables.

These experiments were replicable, and the data obtained was objective (not influenced by an individual’s judgment or opinion) and measurable. This gave psychology more credibility.

Behaviorism favors the simplest explanation (parsimony):

Following the law of parsimony (Occam’s razor), behaviorists argue that the fewer assumptions a theory makes, the better.

Behaviorism therefore favors the simplest possible explanations of behavior, preferring learning histories over hidden mental machinery.

Behaviorism is primarily concerned with observable behavior, as opposed to internal events like thinking and emotion:

The starting point for many behaviorists is a rejection of the introspection (the attempts to “get inside people’s heads”) of the majority of mainstream psychology.

While modern behaviorists often accept the existence of cognitions and emotions, they prefer not to study them as only observable (i.e., external) behavior can be objectively and scientifically measured.

Although theorists of this perspective accept that people have “minds”, they argue it is never possible to objectively observe people’s thoughts, motives, and meanings. This applies even more so to unconscious yearnings and desires.

Therefore, internal events, such as thinking, should be explained through behavioral terms (or eliminated altogether).

There is little difference between the learning that takes place in humans and that in other animals:

There’s no fundamental (qualitative) distinction between human and animal behavior. Therefore, research can be carried out on animals and humans.

The underlying assumption is that the laws of behavior are, to some degree, the same for all species. Knowledge gained by studying rats, dogs, cats and other animals can therefore be generalized to humans.

Consequently, rats and pigeons became the primary data source for behaviorists, as their environments could be easily controlled.

Behaviorist Theory

Historically, the most significant distinction between versions of behaviorism is that between John B. Watson’s original methodological behaviorism, and forms of behaviorism later inspired by his work, known collectively as neobehaviorism (e.g., radical behaviorism).

John B. Watson: Methodological Behaviorism (1913)

Proposed by John B. Watson in 1913, methodological behaviorism focuses exclusively on observable, measurable behaviors and rejects the study of internal mental processes such as thoughts, feelings, and desires.

Watson argued that since internal experiences cannot be directly observed, they have no place in scientific psychology.

He believed all behaviors—whether in animals or humans—are learned through interaction with the environment.

In his influential 1913 article “Psychology as the Behaviorist Views It”, often referred to as the behaviorist manifesto, Watson wrote:

“Psychology as the behaviorist views it is a purely objective experimental branch of natural science. Its theoretical goal is the prediction and control of behavior.”

Watson’s approach emphasized environmental conditioning and assumed that the human mind is a tabula rasa (blank slate) at birth.

He saw no fundamental distinction between human and animal behavior, believing both could be studied in the same way.

This laid the foundation for the rise of experimental psychology and behavioral research.

B.F. Skinner: Radical Behaviorism (1938)

In 1938, B.F. Skinner introduced radical behaviorism in his book The Behavior of Organisms.

Building on Watson’s work, Skinner acknowledged internal events (such as thoughts and emotions) but insisted they must be explained through environmental influences and behavioral laws.

He introduced operant conditioning, the idea that behavior is shaped and maintained by its consequences – rewards and punishments.

Unlike Watson, Skinner recognized the role of genetics and innate behavior.

Radical behaviorism marked a shift from a strict blank slate view to a more nuanced understanding of the interaction between biology and environment.

Edward Tolman: Purposive Behaviorism (1930s–1940s)

Edward C. Tolman developed purposive behaviorism during the 1930s and 1940s, offering an early challenge to strict stimulus-response models.

His research on latent learning showed that organisms could form cognitive maps and learn without direct reinforcement.

Tolman’s work, particularly his 1948 study with rats navigating mazes, demonstrated that behavior is goal-directed and influenced by internal cognitive processes.

His theory is often described as a precursor to cognitive psychology, bridging the gap between behaviorism and emerging cognitive models.

Arthur W. Staats: Psychological Behaviorism (1960s)

In the 1960s, Arthur W. Staats proposed psychological behaviorism, which sought to expand behaviorist theory to address language development, personality, and emotion.

His work emphasized the integration of behavioral principles with verbal behavior and cognitive structures, applying behaviorist concepts to complex human phenomena.

Staats’ contributions helped move behaviorism beyond basic conditioning by focusing on how learning histories influence development and mental health, especially in humans.

Albert Bandura: Social Learning Theory (1963)

Albert Bandura introduced social learning theory in 1963 with the publication of Social Learning and Personality Development.

His theory emphasized that people learn not only through direct reinforcement, but also by observing and imitating others – a process known as modeling.

Bandura’s Bobo doll experiment in 1961 provided strong evidence for observational learning. 

Bandura’s theory introduced cognitive elements like attention, memory, and motivation, positioning social learning theory as a bridge between behaviorist and cognitive approaches.

Modern Perspectives: The Role of Biology and Cognition (1970s–Present)

Modern behaviorists are more likely to accept that heredity and biological predispositions influence learning. The evidence is clear.

For example, research has shown that animals are biologically primed to form certain associations more easily than others. One example: developing taste aversions after a single pairing of food and illness.

These findings highlight that learning is not entirely flexible and shaped solely by the environment, as early behaviorists believed. The blank slate view does not hold up.

While traditional behaviorism emphasized that the mind starts as a blank slate, contemporary perspectives recognize the interaction between biology and environment.

This more balanced view has allowed behaviorism to stay relevant in areas such as behavioral genetics, applied behavior analysis (ABA), and cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT). It has been integrated with, rather than replaced by, other psychological frameworks.

Applications

1. Mental health

Behaviorism suggests that abnormal behavior and mental illness result from faulty learning, rather than unconscious conflicts or internal struggles, as proposed by psychoanalysis.

From this perspective, behavior therapy aims to unlearn maladaptive behaviors and replace them with healthier, more constructive responses through techniques grounded in conditioning principles.

Systematic Desensitization

One widely used method is systematic desensitization, often used to treat phobias.

In this approach, the individual first learns relaxation techniques, then creates a fear hierarchy – a list of feared situations ranked from least to most distressing.

The logic is simple.

Gradually, they are exposed to these situations while practicing relaxation, allowing them to form new, calm associations with previously anxiety-provoking stimuli.

This process, known as counter-conditioning, relies on principles of classical conditioning. It works through reciprocal inhibition: a person cannot be relaxed and anxious at the same time, so the calm response gradually replaces the fear.

Aversion Therapy

Another method, aversion therapy, pairs unwanted behaviors (like smoking or nail-biting) with unpleasant stimuli, such as a bad taste or mild shock, to discourage them.

Token Economies

In token economies, desired behaviors are reinforced with tokens or points that can later be exchanged for rewards. This approach is often used in educational and clinical settings, including for individuals with autism or ADHD. It is simple in principle.

This method draws directly from operant conditioning, using positive reinforcement to shape behavior over time.

These therapeutic applications show how behaviorism extends beyond theory into practical strategies used by therapists, teachers, and caregivers to support behavior change and mental health.

2. Education

Classical conditioning is relevant in education, especially in shaping students’ emotional associations with learning.

However, operant conditioning plays a more significant role in everyday classroom management and motivation.

Teachers frequently use reinforcement strategies to encourage positive behavior and discourage disruptive actions.

Operant Conditioning in the Classroom

For example, praising a student for participation or awarding stickers for completing homework can increase the likelihood of those behaviors recurring.

Conversely, ignoring minor misbehavior (rather than reacting to it) may reduce its frequency, a technique known as extinction in operant terms.

Emotional Associations and Classical Conditioning

Although classical conditioning is less commonly applied directly, its impact is seen in the way students form emotional responses to school experiences.

If students consistently encounter positive emotional experiences—such as feeling safe, supported, and successful—they are more likely to associate learning with enjoyment and confidence.

However, if a student is bullied or humiliated by a teacher, they may begin to associate school or specific subjects with fear or anxiety, potentially leading to long-term aversions or even school phobia.

By understanding and applying conditioning principles thoughtfully, educators can create more emotionally supportive and behaviorally effective learning environments.

3. Addiction

Cue reactivity is the idea that people associate situations (e.g., meeting friends) and places (e.g., a pub) with the rewarding effects of nicotine. These cues can then trigger craving on their own (Carter & Tiffany, 1999).

These factors become smoking-related cues. Prolonged use of nicotine creates an association between these factors and smoking based on classical conditioning.

The Conditioning Process

Nicotine is the unconditioned stimulus (UCS), and the pleasure caused by the sudden increase in dopamine levels is the unconditioned response (UCR).

Following this increase, the brain tries to lower the dopamine back to a normal level.

The stimuli that have become associated with nicotine were neutral stimuli (NS) before “learning” took place but they became conditioned stimuli (CS), with repeated pairings.

They can produce the conditioned response (CR).

Without nicotine, dopamine levels drop and the person experiences withdrawal symptoms. They are then more likely to feel a need to smoke, especially in the presence of the cues already associated with nicotine use.

Issues & Debates

Strengths

1. Scientific Methodology

Behaviorism emphasizes observable and measurable behaviors, leading to a more scientific and objective approach to studying psychology.

This approach allows for greater objectivity and replicability in psychological research, as behaviors can be quantified and studied systematically.

By emphasizing scientific methods, behaviorism has contributed to the development of psychology as a more rigorous and evidence-based discipline.

2. Empirical Support

Behaviorism has experimental support: Pavlov showed that classical conditioning leads to learning by association.

Watson and Rayner showed that phobias could be learned through classical conditioning in the “Little Albert” experiment.

3. Parsimony

Behaviorist explanations are often simpler and more straightforward than those of other approaches, as they focus on observable behaviors rather than internal mental processes.

According to the law of parsimony, the fewer assumptions a theory makes, the better and the more credible it is. Therefore, behaviorism looks for simple explanations of human behavior from a scientific standpoint.

Therefore, people might behave differently from animals, so the laws and principles derived from these experiments might apply more to animals than humans.

2. Difficulty Explaining Spontaneous Behaviors

Behaviorism struggles to explain behaviors that seem to emerge without any apparent environmental triggers or reinforcement history. Creativity is a good example.

Spontaneous behaviors, such as creative insights, sudden changes in preferences, or unprompted acts of kindness, are difficult to account for within a strict behaviorist framework.

This inability highlights the limits of focusing solely on observable stimuli and responses. It suggests the need for a more comprehensive approach, one that considers internal mental processes and individual agency.

Humanism rejects the nomothetic approach of behaviorism.

It views humans as unique and believes humans cannot be compared with animals (who aren’t susceptible to demand characteristics).

This is known as an idiographic approach.

4. Limited Explanations for Complex Behaviors

Behaviorist principles may struggle to fully explain more complex human behaviors, such as language acquisition, creativity, problem-solving, and abstract thinking.

These behaviors often involve higher-order cognitive processes and symbolic representation, which are difficult to reduce to simple stimulus-response associations or reinforcement contingencies.

The limited explanatory scope of behaviorism has led to the development of alternative approaches, such as cognitive psychology, that aim to provide more comprehensive accounts of complex mental processes.

Behaviorism focuses on externally observable behavior, ignoring essential factors like emotions, expectations, and higher-level motivation.

This oversimplified view of the world has led to the development of ‘pop behaviorism, the view that rewards and punishments can change almost anything. 

Therefore, behaviorism only provides a partial account of human behavior that can be objectively viewed.

Essential factors like emotions, expectations, and higher-level motivation are not considered or explained.

Accepting a behaviorist explanation could prevent further research from other perspectives that could uncover important factors.

For example, the psychodynamic approach (Freud) criticizes behaviorism as it does not consider the unconscious mind’s influence on behavior and instead focuses on externally observable behavior.

Freud also rejects the idea that people are born a blank slate (tabula rasa) and states that people are born with instincts (e.g., eros and Thanatos).

Biological psychology states that all behavior has a physical/organic cause. They emphasize the role of nature over nurture.

For example, chromosomes and hormones (testosterone) influence our behavior, too, in addition to the environment.

Behaviorism might be seen as underestimating the importance of inborn tendencies.

Preparedness (Seligman, 1971) is the finding that organisms are evolutionarily primed to learn certain fears – of snakes, heights, the dark – far more readily than others. This is not random. It is why phobias cluster around ancestral dangers rather than modern ones like cars or electrical sockets.

Taste-aversion research supports the same point (Garcia & Koelling, 1966).

Rats that drank a novel flavored liquid and then fell ill hours later formed a lasting aversion to the taste, sometimes after a single pairing.

Yet the same illness would not readily condition to a sound or light. Learning, in other words, is selective about which cues it links, not the blank-slate free-for-all early behaviorists assumed.

A third study found the same limit. This time it came from animal training (Breland & Breland, 1961).

Raccoons trained to drop coins into a box for food instead drifted back to rubbing the coins together – an instinctive food-handling motion.

This showed that innate behavior can override conditioning altogether.

Cognitive psychology states that mediational processes – such as memory, thinking, and problem-solving – occur between stimulus and response.

Humanistic psychology, meanwhile, assumes that humans have free will (personal agency) to make their own decisions, rather than following the deterministic laws of science.

Despite these criticisms, behaviorism has made significant contributions to psychology.

These include insights into learning, language development, and moral and gender development, which have all been explained in terms of conditioning.

6. The Cognitive Revolution and the Legacy of Behaviorism

From the 1920s to the mid-1950s, behaviorism was the dominant force in psychology, particularly in the United States.

Its emphasis on observable behavior and controlled experiments helped establish psychology as a scientific discipline.

However, by the late 1950s, behaviorism began to decline in influence – a shift often referred to as the Cognitive Revolution.

This turning point came as psychologists grew increasingly aware of behaviorism’s limitations.

The cracks were showing.

While behaviorism was successful in explaining basic forms of learning, it struggled to account for complex mental processes, such as language acquisition, memory, and problem-solving.

A pivotal moment in this transition was Noam Chomsky’s 1959 critique of B.F. Skinner’s book Verbal Behavior.

Chomsky argued that behaviorist principles could not adequately explain how humans learn language, especially the ability to generate novel sentences that have never been heard before.

His review highlighted the need for a psychological model that considered internal mental structures and cognitive functions—not just stimulus and response.

As a result, cognitive psychology emerged, focusing on how the mind processes information.

This new approach treated the brain like an information processor, emphasizing concepts like attention, perception, memory, and decision-making.

By the 1970s, cognitive psychology had largely replaced behaviorism as the dominant paradigm in academic psychology.

However, behaviorism didn’t disappear – it evolved.

Many of its core ideas were incorporated into cognitive-behavioral therapies (CBT) and applied behavior analysis (ABA). Both are widely used today to treat conditions such as anxiety, depression, and autism.

The overlap runs deep.

This integration demonstrates that, although behaviorism may have lost its status as the leading theory, it continues to have a lasting impact on both psychological theory and practice.

Interestingly, recent historical analyses suggest that the “rise and fall” narrative of behaviorism may be too simplistic.

The real story is messier.

While behaviorism may not have dominated all areas of psychology, it consistently influenced research and methodology.

In this way, behaviorism’s legacy lives on – not just in therapy and education, but in the scientific rigor it brought to psychology as a discipline.

7. Historical Dominance Questioned

Many textbooks depict behaviorism as dominating and defining psychology in the mid-20th century before declining in the late 1950s with the “cognitive revolution.”

However, the empirical basis for claims about behaviorism’s prominence and decline has been limited.

Wide-scope claims about behaviorism are often based on small, unrepresentative samples of historical data.

Better data exist now.

This raises the question – to what extent was behaviorism actually dominant in American psychology?

To address this question, Braat et al. (2020) conducted a quantitative bibliometric analysis of 119,278 articles published in American psychology journals from 1920-1970.

They generated cocitation networks, mapping similarities between frequently cited authors, and co-occurrence networks of frequently used title terms, for each decade.

This allowed them to examine the structure and development of psychology fields without relying on predefined behavioral/non-behavioral categories.

Key findings:

• In no decade did behaviorist authors belong to the most prominent citation clusters. Even a combined “behaviorist” cluster accounted for max. 28% of highly cited authors.
• The main focus was measuring personality/mental abilities – those clusters were consistently larger than behaviorist ones.
• Between 1920 and 1930, John B. Watson was a prominent author, but behaviorism was a small (19%) slice of psychology. Larger clusters were mental testing and Gestalt psychology.
• From the 1930s, behaviorism split into two clusters, possibly reflecting “classical” vs. “neobehaviorist” approaches. However, the combined behaviorist cluster was still smaller than mental testing and Gestalt clusters.
• The influence of behaviorism did not dramatically decline after 1950. The behaviorist cluster was stable at 28% during the 1940s-60s, and its citation count quadrupled.
• Contrary to narratives, Skinner was not highly cited in the 1950s-60s – he did not dominate behaviorism after WWII.
• Analyses challenge assumptions that behaviorism was the single dominant force in mid-20th-century psychology. The story was more diverse.

However, behaviorist vocabulary became more prominent over time in title term analyses. This suggests behaviorists were influential in shaping psychological research agendas, if not fully dominating the field.

Overall, quantitative analyses provide a richer perspective on the development of behaviorism and 20th-century psychology. Claims that behaviorism “rose and fell” as psychology’s single dominant school appear too simplistic.

Psychology was more multifaceted, with behaviorism as one of several influential but not controlling approaches. The narrative requires reappraisal.

How Behaviorism Compares

Behaviorism is one of five major theoretical approaches in psychology. Each one explains behavior differently, and understanding what they share – and where they disagree – clarifies what makes behaviorism distinctive.

Cognitive Approach

The cognitive approach shares behaviorism’s commitment to controlled experiments and general, nomothetic laws. Where they part ways is over the mind itself. Behaviorism restricts psychology to observable stimulus-response relationships.

Cognitive psychologists treat internal mental processes – memory, attention, problem-solving – as the discipline’s central object of study. Behaviorism disagrees.

Noam Chomsky’s (1959) review of Skinner’s Verbal Behavior crystallized the divide. Reinforcement alone, he argued, could not explain how children generate entirely novel sentences they had never heard.

The critique landed hard. It helped trigger the cognitive revolution that displaced behaviorism as psychology’s dominant academic paradigm from the 1960s onward.

Yet the two traditions are not simply opposed. Cognitive-behavioral therapy grafts cognitive restructuring onto behaviorist technique. Social learning theory bridges the two directly, adding cognitive processes to an otherwise behaviorist account of learning.

Biological Approach

The biological approach shares behaviorism’s reductionism and its search for general laws, but locates the causes of behavior quite differently.

Behaviorism explains behavior through learning history – conditioning built up from environmental experience. Biological psychology instead explains it through genes, hormones, and neurochemistry, treating environmental learning as, at most, one input into a biologically constrained system.

The dispute is not just theoretical.

Preparedness (Seligman, 1971) and taste-aversion learning (Garcia & Koelling, 1966) show that some associations are acquired far more readily than others. This directly contradicts behaviorism’s founding assumption that any stimulus could, in principle, be linked to any response.

The two traditions have since moved closer together. Behavioral genetics and cognitive neuroscience now routinely combine learning-history and biological explanations of the same behavior. The underlying nature-nurture disagreement between them remains real, however.

Psychodynamic Approach

The psychodynamic approach and behaviorism are both broadly deterministic, but disagree sharply about where the causes of behavior lie.

Behaviorism locates them entirely in external learning history.

The psychodynamic approach locates them in unconscious drives and early childhood experience. This is psychic determinism. Freud built it into his structural model of id, ego, and superego (Freud, 1923).

Behaviorism rejects the unconscious as untestable, since it cannot be directly observed or measured.

The psychodynamic approach treats it as the primary engine of personality, accessible only indirectly through methods such as free association and dream analysis.

Both approaches are broadly nomothetic in ambition. But they explain individual differences differently: through a person’s distinct reinforcement history for behaviorism, and their distinct psychosexual development for the psychodynamic approach.

Humanistic Approach

The humanistic approach offers the sharpest contrast of all. Rogers (1951) and Maslow (1943) explicitly rejected both the determinism and the reductionism that define behaviorism.

Both said people possess genuine free will. They saw an innate drive toward self-actualization that cannot be reduced to stimulus-response units. This is not a small claim.

Humanistic psychology insists that behavior must be understood holistically, through a person’s own subjective experience. It refuses to break behavior into measurable laboratory components.

It developed partly as a direct reaction against behaviorism’s mechanistic, animal-derived model of human nature, which humanists regarded as dehumanizing. Methodologically, this pulls the two traditions apart.

Behaviorism favors controlled, nomothetic experiments. Humanistic psychology favors idiographic, person-centered methods, such as the case study and the unstructured interview.

Historical Timeline

• Pavlov (1897) published the results of an experiment on conditioning after originally studying digestion in dogs.
• John B. Watson (1913) launches the behavioral school of psychology, publishing an article, Psychology as the behaviorist views it.
• Watson and Rayner (1920) conditioned an orphan called Albert B (aka Little Albert) to fear a white rat.
• Thorndike (1898, 1911) formalized the Law of Effect through his puzzle-box experiments with cats.
• Skinner (1938) wrote The Behavior of Organisms and introduced the concepts of operant conditioning and shaping.
• Clark Hull’s (1943) Principles of Behavior was published.
• B.F. Skinner (1948) published Walden Two, describing a utopian society founded upon behaviorist principles.
• Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior began in 1958. 
• Chomsky (1959) published his criticism of Skinner’s behaviorism, Review of Verbal Behavior.
• Bandura (1963) published a book called the Social Leaning Theory and Personality development which combines both cognitive and behavioral frameworks.
• B.F. Skinner (1971) published his book, Beyond Freedom and Dignity, where he argues that free will is an illusion.
• 1980s-1990s – The development of behavior therapy and the increasing integration of cognitive and behavioral approaches in psychology.
• 2002 – The Association for Behavioral and Cognitive Therapies (ABCT) was formed through the merger of the Association for Advancement of Behavior Therapy (AABT) and the American Association of Cognitive and Behavioral Therapies (AACBT)

References

Bandura, A., & Walters, R. H. (1963). Social learning and personality development. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.

Braat, M., Engelen, J., van Gemert, T., & Verhaegh, S. (2020). The rise and fall of behaviorism: The narrative and the numbers. History of Psychology, 23(3), 252-280.

Breland, K., & Breland, M. (1961). The misbehavior of organisms. American Psychologist, 16(11), 681.

Carter, B. L., & Tiffany, S. T. (1999). Meta‐analysis of cue‐reactivity in addiction research. Addiction, 94(3), 327-340.

Chomsky, N. (1959). A review of BF Skinner’s Verbal Behavior. Language, 35(1), 26-58.

De Crescenzo, F., Ciabattini, M., D’Alò, G. L., De Giorgi, R., Del Giovane, C., Cassar, C., Janiri, L., Clark, N., Ostacher, M. J., & Cipriani, A. (2018). Comparative efficacy and acceptability of psychosocial interventions for individuals with cocaine and amphetamine addiction: A systematic review and network meta-analysis. PLOS Medicine, 15(12), e1002715. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002715

Freud, S. (1923). The ego and the id. Hogarth Press.

Garcia, J., & Koelling, R. A. (1966). The relation of cue to consequence in avoidance learning. Psychonomic Science, 4, 123-124.

Holland, J. G. (1978). BEHAVIORISM: PART OF THE PROBLEM OR PART OF THE SOLUTION?  Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 11(1), 163-174.

Hull, C. L. (1943). Principles of behavior: An introduction to behavior theory. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370-396. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0054346

Pavlov, I. P. (1897). The work of the digestive glands. London: Griffin.

Richards, D. A., Ekers, D., McMillan, D., Taylor, R. S., Byford, S., Warren, F. C., Barrett, B., Farrand, P. A., Gilbody, S., Kuyken, W., O’Mahen, H., Watkins, E. R., Wright, K. A., Hollon, S. D., Reed, N., Rhodes, S., Fletcher, E., & Finning, K. (2016). Cost and outcome of behavioural activation versus cognitive behavioural therapy for depression (COBRA): A randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial. The Lancet, 388(10047), 871-880. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)31140-0

Rogers, C. R. (1951). Client-centered therapy: Its current practice, implications, and theory. Houghton Mifflin.

Seligman, M. E. P. (1971). Phobias and preparedness. Behavior Therapy, 2(3), 307-320.

Skinner, B. F. (1938). The behavior of organisms: An experimental analysis. New York: Appleton-Century.

Skinner, B. F. (1948). Walden two. New York: Macmillan.

Skinner, B. F. (1971). Beyond freedom and dignity. New York: Knopf.

Staats, A. W., & Staats, C. K. (1963). Complex human behavior: A systematic extension of learning principles.

Thorndike, E. L. (1898). Animal intelligence: An experimental study of the associative processes in animals. Psychological Review Monograph Supplement, 2(4), 1-109. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0092987

Thorndike, E. L. (1911). Animal intelligence: Experimental studies. Macmillan.

Tolman, E. C. (1948). Cognitive maps in rats and men. Psychological review, 55(4), 189.

Watson, J. B. (1913). Psychology as the behaviorist views it. Psychological Review, 20(2), 158-177. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0074428

Watson, J. B. (1930). Behaviorism (revised edition). University of Chicago Press.

Watson, J. B., & Rayner, R. (1920). Conditioned emotional reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 3, 1, pp. 1–14.