Behaviorism

habits.

I

WHAT IS BEHAVIORISM?

The Old and New Psychology Contrasted

Before beginning our study of behaviorism or behavioristic psychology, it will be worth our while to take a few minutes to look at the conventional school of psychology that flourished before the advent of behaviorism in 1912—and that still flourishes. Indeed we should point out at once that behaviorism has not as yet by any means replaced the older psychology—called introspective psychology—of James, Wundt, Külpe, Titchener, Angell, Judd, and McDougall. Possibly the easiest way to bring out the contrast between the old psychology and the new is to say that all schools of psychology except that of behaviorism claim that consciousness is the subject matter of psychology. Behaviorism, on the contrary, holds that the subject matter of human psychology is the behavior or activities of the human being. Behaviorism claims that consciousness is neither a definable nor a usable concept; that it is merely another word for the soul of more ancient times. The old psychology is thus dominated by a kind of subtle religious philosophy.

The Religious Background of Current Introspective Psychology

No one knows just how the idea of a soul or the supernatural started. It probably had its origin in the general laziness of mankind. Certain individuals who in primitive society declined to work with their hands, to go out hunting, to make flints, to dig for roots, became keen observers of human nature.

They found that the loud noise from breaking limbs, thunder and other sound-producing phenomena, would throw the primitive individual from his very birth into a panicky state, causing him to stop the chase, to cry, to hide and the like—and that in this state it was easy to train or, more scientifically, to condition him. (I will talk to you about conditioning and conditioned reflexes later on in this lecture and again in the second lecture.) These lazy but good observers soon found devices by means of which they could at will throw individuals into this fearsome attitude and thus control primitive human behavior. For example, colored nurses down South have gained control over the young white children by telling them that there is someone ready to grab them in the dark; that when it is thundering there is a fearsome power which they can appease by being good boys and girls. The medicine men of primitive times soon established an elaborate control through signs, symbols, rituals, formulae, and the like. Medicine men have always flourished. A good medicine man has the best of everything and, best of all, he doesn’t have to work. These individuals have been variously called medicine men, soothsayers, dream-interpreters and prophets. Skill in bringing about these emotional conditionings of the people increased rapidly; organization among medicine men took place and we began to have religions of one kind or another, and churches, temples, cathedrals and the like, each presided over by a medicine man.

I think an examination of the psychological history of people will show that their behavior has always been easily controlled by fear stimuli. If the fear element were dropped out of any religion, that religion could not long survive. This fear element (equivalent to the electric shock in establishing conditioned reflexes see p. 21) was variously introduced as the devil, evil, sin and the like. The individual who functions as a medicine man in the narrow family group is, of course, always the father. In the larger group God or Jehovah takes the place of the family father. Thus even the modern child from the beginning is confronted by the dicta of medicine men—be they the father, the soothsayer of the village, the God or Jehovah. Having been brought up in this attitude towards authority, he never questions the concepts imposed upon him.

An Example of Such Concepts

One example of such a concept is that there is a fearsome God and that every individual has a soul which is separate and distinct from the body. This soul is really a part of the supreme being. This concept has led to the philosophical platform called dualism. All psychology except behaviorism is dualistic. That is to say we have both a mind (soul) and a body. This dogma has been present in human psychology from earliest antiquity. No one has ever touched a soul, or has seen one in a test tube, or has in any way come into relationship with it as he has with the other objects of his daily experience. Nevertheless, to doubt its existence is to become a heretic and once might possibly even have led to the loss of one’s head. Even today the man holding a public position dare not question it.

With the development of the physical sciences which came with the renaissance, a certain release from this stifling soul cloud was obtained. A man could think of astronomy, of the celestial bodies and their motions, of gravitation and the like, without involving soul. Although the early scientists were as a rule devout Christians, nevertheless they began to leave soul out of their test tubes. Psychology and philosophy, however, in dealing as they thought with non-material objects, found it difficult to escape the language of the church, and hence the concepts of mind and soul come down to the latter part of the nineteenth century. It was the boast of Wundt’s students, in 1879, when the first psychological laboratory was established, that psychology had at last become a science without a soul. For fifty years we have kept this pseudo-science, exactly as Wundt laid it down. All that Wundt and his students really accomplished was to substitute for the word soul the word consciousness.

An Examination of Consciousness

From the time of Wundt on, consciousness becomes the keynote of psychology. It is the keynote of all psychologies today except behaviorism. It is a plain assumption just as unprovable, just as unapproachable, as the old concept of the soul. And to the behaviorist the two terms are essentially identical, so far as concerns their metaphysical implications.

To show how unscientific is the concept, look for a moment at William James’ definition of psychology. Psychology is the description and explanation of states of consciousness as such. Starting with a definition which assumes what he starts out to prove, he escapes his difficulty by an argumentum ad hominem. Consciousness—Oh, yes, everybody must know what this consciousness is. When we have a sensation of red, a perception, a thought, when we will to do something, or when we purpose to do something, or when we desire to do something, we are being conscious. All other introspectionists are equally illogical. In other words, they do not tell us what consciousness is, but merely begin to put things into it by assumption; and then when they come to analyze consciousness, naturally they find in it just what they put into it. Consequently, in the analyses of consciousness made by certain of the psychologists you find such elements as sensations and their ghosts, the images. With others you find not only sensations, but so-called affective elements; in still others you find such elements as will—the so-called conative element in consciousness. With some psychologists you find many hundreds of sensations of a certain type; others maintain that only a few of that type exist. And so it goes. Literally hundreds of thousands of printed pages have been published on the minute analysis of this intangible something called ‘consciousness.’ And how do we begin work upon it? Not by analyzing it as we would a chemical compound, or the way a plant grows. No, those things are material things. This thing we call consciousness can be analyzed only by introspection—a looking in on what goes on inside of us.

As a result of this major assumption that there is such a thing as consciousness and that we can analyze it by introspection, we find as many analyses as there are individual psychologists. There is no way of experimentally attacking and solving psychological problems and standardizing methods.

The Advent of the Behaviorists

In 1912 the behaviorists reached the conclusion that they could no longer be content to work with intangibles and unapproachables. They decided either to give up psychology or else to make it a natural science. They saw their brother-scientists making progress in medicine, in chemistry, in physics. Every new discovery in those fields was of prime importance; every new element isolated in one laboratory could be isolated in some other laboratory; each new element was immediately taken up in the warp and woof of science as a whole. May I call your attention to the wireless, to radium, to insulin, to thyroxin, and hundreds of others? Elements so isolated and methods so formulated immediately began to function in human achievement.

In his first efforts to get uniformity in subject matter and in methods the behaviorist began his own formulation of the problem of psychology by sweeping aside all mediaeval conceptions. He dropped from his scientific vocabulary all subjective terms such as sensation, perception, image, desire, purpose, and even thinking and emotion as they were subjectively defined.

The Behaviorist’s Platform

The behaviorist asks: Why don’t we make what we can observe the real field of psychology? Let us limit ourselves to things that can be observed, and formulate laws concerning only those things. Now what can we observe? Well, we can observe behavior—what the organism does or says. And let me make this fundamental point at once: that saying is doing—that is, behaving. Speaking overtly or to ourselves (thinking) is just as objective a type of behavior as baseball.

The rule, or measuring rod, which the behaviorist puts in front of him always is: Can I describe this bit of behavior I see in terms of stimulus and response? By stimulus we mean any object in the general environment or any change in the tissues themselves due to the physiological condition of the animal, such as the change we get when we keep an animal from sex activity, when we keep it from feeding, when we keep it from building a nest. By response we mean anything the animal does—such as turning towards or away from a light, jumping at a sound, (and more highly organized activities such as building a skyscraper, drawing plans, having babies, writing books, and the like.)

At this point let me diverge to emphasize the fact that almost from infancy society begins to prescribe behavior. A Chinese baby must use chop sticks, eat rice, wear certain kinds of clothes, grow a queue, learn to speak Chinese, sit in a certain kind of way, worship his ancestors, and the like. The American baby must use a fork, learn quickly to form habits of personal cleanliness, wear certain kinds of clothes, learn reading, writing and arithmetic, become monogamous, worship the Christian God, go to church and, yes, even to speak upon a public platform. It is presumably not the function of the behaviorist to discuss whether these things which society prescribes serve as a help or a hindrance to the growth or adjustment of an individual. The behaviorist is working under the mandates of society and consequently it does come within his province to say to society If you decide that the human organism should behave in this way, you must arrange situations of such and such kinds. I would like to point out here that some time we will have a behavioristic ethics, experimental in type, which will tell us whether it is advisable from the standpoint of present and future adjustments of the individual to have one wife or many wives; to have capital punishment or punishment of any kind; whether prohibition or no prohibition; easy divorces or no divorces; whether many of our other prescribed courses of conduct make for adjustment of the individual or the contrary, such for example as having a family life or even knowing our own fathers and mothers.

Some Specific Problems of the Behaviorists

You will find, then, the behaviorist working like any other scientist. His sole object is to gather facts about behavior—verify his data—subject them both to logic and to mathematics (the tools of every scientist). He brings the newborn individual into his experimental nursery and begins to set problems: What is the baby doing now? What is the stimulus that makes him behave this way? He finds that the stimulus of tickling the cheek brings the response of turning the mouth to the side stimulated. The stimulus of the nipple brings out the sucking response. The stimulus of a rod placed on the palm of the hand brings closure of the hand and the suspension of the whole body by that hand and arm if the rod is raised. Stimulating the infant with a rapidly moving shadow across the eye will not produce blinking until the individual is sixty-five days of age. Stimulating the infant with an apple or stick of candy or any other object will not call out attempts at reaching until the baby is around 120 days of age. Stimulating a properly brought up infant at any age with snakes, fish, darkness, burning paper, birds, cats, dogs, monkeys, will not bring out that type of response which we call fear (which I would rather call reaction X) which is a catching of the breath, a stiffening of the whole body, a turning away of the body from the source of stimulation, a running or crawling away. (See lecture 7.)

On the other hand, there are just two things which will call out a fear response, namely, a loud sound, and loss of support.

Now the behaviorist finds from observing children brought up outside of his nursery that hundreds of these objects will call out fear responses. Consequently, the scientific question arises: If at birth only two stimuli will call out fear, how do all these other things ever finally come to call it out? Please notice that the question is not a speculative one. It can be answered by experiments, and the experiments can be reproduced and the same findings can be had in every laboratory in the land. Convince yourself of this by making a simple test.

If you will take a snake, mouse or dog and show it to a baby who has never seen these objects or been frightened in other ways, he begins to manipulate it, poking at this, that or the other part. Do this for ten days until you are logically certain that the child will always go towards the dog and never run away from it (positive reaction) and that it does not call out a fear response at any time. In contrast to this, pick up a steel bar and strike upon it loudly behind the infant’s head. Immediately the fear response is called forth. Now try this: At the instant you show him the animal and just as he begins to reach for it, strike the steel bar behind his head. Repeat the experiment three or four times. A new and important change is apparent. The animal now calls out the same response as the steel bar, namely a fear response. We call this, in behavioristic psychology, the conditioned emotional response—a form of conditioned reflex.

Our studies of conditioned reflexes make it easy for us to account for the child’s fear of the dog on a thoroughly natural science basis without lugging in consciousness or any other so-called mental, process. A dog comes toward the child rapidly, jumps upon him, pushes him down and at the same time barks loudly. Oftentimes one such combined stimulation is all that is necessary to make the baby run away from the dog the moment it comes within his range of vision.

In another lecture I shall show you other conditioned emotional responses, such as those connected with love, where the mother by petting the child, rocking it, stimulating its sex organs in bathing, and the like, calls out the embrace, gurgling and crowing as an unlearned original response. Soon this response becomes conditioned. The mere sight of the mother calls out the same kind of response as actual bodily contacts. I should like to point out that in rage we get a similar set of facts. The stimulus of holding the infant’s moving members brings out the original unlearned response we call rage. Soon the mere sight of a nurse that handles a child badly throws the child into a fit. Thus we see how relatively simple our emotional responses are in the beginning and how terribly complicated home life soon makes them.

In the next lecture we shall develop the idea of conditioned responses in general. We can set up conditioned responses in animals as low in the scale as the amoeba—not necessarily of the same kind as the above, but similar ones.

The behaviorist has his problems with the adult as well. What methods shall we use systematically to condition the adult? For example, to teach him business habits, scientific habits? Both manual habits (technique and skill) and laryngeal habits (habits of speech and thought) must be formed and tied together before the task of learning is complete. After these work habits are formed, what system of changing stimuli shall we surround him with in order to keep his level of efficiency high and constantly rising?

In addition to vocational habits, there comes the problem of his emotional life. How much of it is carried over from childhood? What part of it interferes with his present adjustment? How can we make him lose this part of it; that is, uncondition him where unconditioning is necessary, and condition him where conditioning is necessary? Indeed we know nothing about the amount and kind of emotional or, better, visceral habits (by this term we mean that our stomach, intestines, breathing, etc. become conditioned—form habits) that should be formed. In one of the later lectures I wish to bring out the fact that visceral habits can be formed, that organization in this field is possible but has hitherto been neglected.

Probably more adults in this universe of ours suffer vicissitudes in family life and in business activities because of poor and insufficient visceral habits than through the lack of technique and skill in manual and verbal accomplishments. One of the large problems in big organizations today is that of personality adjustments. The young men and young women entering business organizations have plenty of skill to do their work but they fail because they do not know how to get along with other people.

Does This Behavioristic Approach Leave Anything Out of Psychology?

After hearing this brief survey of the behavioristsic approach to the problems of psychology, I can almost hear you exclaiming: Why, yes, it is worth while to study human behavior in this way, but the study of behavior is not the whole of psychology. It leaves out too much. Don’t I have sensations, perceptions, conceptions? Do I not forget things and remember things, imagine things, have visual images and auditory images of things I once have seen and heard? Can I not see and hear things that I have never seen or heard in nature? Can I not be attentive or inattentive? Can I not will to do a thing or will not to do it, as the case may be? Do not certain things arouse pleasure in me, and others displeasure? Behaviorism is trying to rob us of everything we have believed in since earliest childhood.

Having been brought up on introspective psychology, as most of you have, these questions are perfectly natural and you will find it hard to put away this terminology and begin to formulate your psychological life in terms of behaviorism. Behaviorism is new wine and it will not go into old bottles; therefore I am going to try to make new bottles out of you. I am going to ask you to put away all of your old presuppositions and to allay your natural antagonism and accept the behavioristic platform at least for this series of lectures. Before they end I hope you will find that you have progressed so far with behaviorism that the questions you now raise will answer themselves in a perfectly satisfactory natural science way. Let me hasten to add that if I were to ask you to tell me what you mean by the terms you have been in the habit of using I could soon make you tongue tied with contradictions. I believe I could even convince you that you do not know what you mean by them. You have been using them uncritically as a part of your social and literary tradition, Let us forget them until later lectures.

To Understand Behaviorism Begin to Observe People

This is the fundamental starting point of behaviorism. You will soon find that instead of self-observation being the easiest and most natural way of studying psychology, it is an impossible one; you can observe in yourselves only the most elementary forms of response. You will find, on the other hand, that when you begin to study what your neighbor is doing, you will rapidly become proficient in giving a reason for his behavior and in setting situations, (presenting stimuli) that will make him behave in a predictable manner.

Definition of Behaviorism

Definitions are not as popular today as they used to be. The definition of any one science, physics, for example, would necessarily include the definition of all other sciences. And the same is true of behaviorism. About all that we can do in the way of defining a science at the present time is to mark a ring around that part of the whole of natural science that we claim particularly as our own.

Behaviorism, as you have already grasped from our preliminary discussion, is, then, a natural science that takes the whole field of human adjustments as its own. Its closest scientific companion is physiology. Indeed you may wonder, as we proceed, whether behaviorism can be differentiated from that science. It is different from physiology only in the grouping of its problems, not in fundamentals or in central viewpoint. Physiology is particularly interested in the functioning of parts of the animal—for example, its digestive system, the circulatory system, the nervous system, the excretory systems, the mechanics of neural and muscular response. Behaviorism, on the other hand, while it is intensely interested in all of the functioning of these parts, is intrinsically interested in what the whole animal will do from morning to night and from night to morning.

The interest of the behaviorist in man’s doings is more than the interest of the spectator—he wants to control man’s reactions as physical scientists want to control and manipulate other natural phenomena. It is the business of behavioristic psychology to be able to predict and to control human activity. To do this it must gather scientific data by experimental methods. Only then can the trained behaviorist 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.

Let us look for a moment more closely at the two terms—stimulus and response.

What is a Stimulus?

If I suddenly flash a strong light in your eye, your pupil will contract rapidly. If I were suddenly to shut off all light in the room, the pupil would begin to widen. If a pistol shot were suddenly fired in the back part of the room, practically all of you would jump and possibly turn your heads around. If hydrogen sulphide were suddenly released in the room you would begin to hold your noses and possibly even seek to leave the room. If I suddenly made the room very warm, you would begin to unbutton your coats and perspire. If I suddenly made it cold, another response would take place.

Again, on the inside of us we have an equally large realm in which stimuli can exert their effect. For example, just before dinner tonight the muscles of your stomach began to contract and expand rhythmically because of the absence of food. As soon as food was eaten those contractions ceased. By swallowing a small balloon and attaching it to a recording instrument we can easily register the response of the stomach to lack of food and note the lack of response when food is present. In the male, at any rate, the pressure of certain fluids (semen) may lead to sex activity. In the case of the female possibly the presence of certain chemical bodies can lead in a similar way to overt sex behavior. The muscles of our arms and legs and trunk are not only subject to stimuli coming from the blood, they are also stimulated by their own responses—that is, the muscle is under constant tension; any increase in that tension, as when a movement is made, gives rise to a stimulus which leads to another response in that same muscle or in one in some distant part of the body; any decrease in that tension, as when the muscle is relaxed, similarly gives rise to a stimulus.

So we see that the organism is constantly assailed by stimuli—which come through the eye, the ear, the nose and the mouth—the so-called objects of our environment; at the same time the inside of our body is likewise assailed at every movement by stimuli arising from changes in the tissues themselves. Don’t get the idea, please, that the inside of your body is any different or any more mysterious than the outside of your body.

Through the process of evolution human beings have put on sense organs—specialized areas where special types of stimuli are most effective—such as the eye, the ear, the nose, the tongue, the skin and semi-circular canals¹. To these must be added the whole muscular system, both the striped muscles and the unstriped muscles. The muscles are thus not only organs of response—they are sense organs as well. You will see as we proceed with the lectures that the last two systems play a tremendous rôle in the behavior of the human being. Many of our most intimate and personal reactions are due to stimuli set up by tissue changes in our striped muscles and in our viscera.

How Training Ever Enlarges the Range of Stimuli to Which We Respond

One of the problems of behaviorism is what might be called the ever increasing range of stimuli to which an individual responds. Indeed so marked is this that you might be tempted at first sight to doubt the formulation we gave above, namely that response can be predicted. If you will watch the growth and development of behavior in the human being, you will find that while a great many stimuli will produce a response in the new-born, many other stimuli will not. At any rate they do not call out the same response they later call out. For example, you don’t get very far by showing a new-born infant a crayon, a piece of paper, or the printed score of a Beethoven symphony. In other words, habit formation has to come in before certain stimuli can become effective. Later I shall take up with you the procedure by means of which we can get stimuli which do not ordinarily call out responses to call them out. The general term we use to describe this is conditioning. Conditioned responses will be more fully gone into in the next lecture.

It is due to conditioning from earliest childhood on that the problem of the behaviorist in predicting what a given response will be is so difficult. The sight of a horse does not ordinarily produce the fear response, and yet there is one person here tonight who will walk a block to avoid coming near to a horse. While the study of behaviorism will never enable its students to look at you and predict that such a state of affairs exists, nevertheless if the behaviorist sees that reaction taking place, it is very easy for him to state approximately what the situation was in the early experience of such a one that brought about this unusual type of adult response. After all, though, we have proceeded upon this practical basis since the time of Adam.

What Does the Behaviorist Mean by Response?

We have already brought out the fact that from birth to death the organism is being assailed by stimuli on the outside of the body and by stimuli arising in the body itself. Now the organism does something when it is assailed by stimuli. It responds. It moves. The response may be so slight that it can be observed only by the use of instruments. The response may confine itself merely to a change in respiration, or to an increase or decrease in blood pressure. It may call out merely a movement of the eye. The more commonly observed responses, however, are movements of the whole body, movements of the arm, leg, trunk, or combinations of all the moving parts.

Usually the response that the organism makes to a stimulus brings about an adjustment, though not always. By an adjustment we mean merely that the organism by moving so alters its physiological state that the stimulus no longer arouses reaction. This may sound a bit complicated, but examples will clear it up. If I am hungry, stomach contractions begin to drive me ceaselessly to and fro. If, in these restless seeking movements, I spy apples on a tree, I immediately climb the tree and pluck the apples and begin to eat. When surfeited, the stomach contractions cease. Although there are apples still hanging round about me, I no longer pluck and eat them. Again, the cold air stimulates me. I move around about until I am out of the wind. In the open I may even dig a hole. Having escaped the wind, it no longer stimulates me to further action. Under sex excitement the male may go to any length to capture a willing female. Once sex activity has been completed the restless seeking movements disappear. The female no longer stimulates the male to sex activity.

The behaviorist has often been criticized for this emphasis upon response. Some psychologists seem to have the notion that the behaviorist is interested only in the recording of minute muscular responses. Nothing could be further from the truth. Let me emphasize again that the behaviorist is primarily interested in the behavior of the whole man. From morning to night he watches him perform his daily round of duties. If it is brick-laying, he would like to measure the number of bricks he can lay under different conditions, how long he can go without dropping from fatigue, how long it takes him to learn his trade, whether we can improve his efficiency or get him to do the same amount of work in a less period of time. In other words, the response the behaviorist is interested in is the commonsense answer to the question what is he doing and why is he doing it? Surely with this as a general statement, no one can distort the the behaviorist’s platform to such an extent that it can be claimed that the behaviorist is merely a muscle physiologist.

The behaviorist claims that there is a response to every effective stimulus and that the response is immediate. By effective stimulus we mean that it must be strong enough to overcome the normal resistance to the passage of the sensory impulse from