Psychology: Behaviourism and Free Will
I. Introduction: Behaviorism and Free Will
Behaviorism (or learning theory) focuses primarily on overt or observable and quantifiable behaviors and excludes subjective phenomenon such as motives, feelings, and so on. It explains the processes, principles and laws by which learning occurs. Many schools of thought under behaviorism include Pavlovian, also known as classical or respondent, conditioning.
Under the basic tenet of classical conditioning, individuals learn by means of associating neutral stimulus with a meaningful response. Another behaviorism is Skinnerian, a.k.a. operant or instrumental, conditioning. Operant conditioning is the process whereby learning takes place when an action is done repeatedly because it is positively reinforced or is avoided because it is something made undesirable by its consequences. In relation to free will, behaviorists are materialists and determinists; hence, they do not consider free will as part of any behavioral modification theories.
Despite of that fact, this paper will try to do research on the topic by first presenting the history and idea of behaviorism and find free will’s possible link in the field of psychology (Caruso, 2012; Kentridge, 2007).
II. Brief History of Behaviorism
Many significant events shaped the foundation and progress of behaviorism (O'Donohue & Kitchener, 1998). In 1900, Russian Physiologist Ivan Pavlov (1849-1936) studied animals’ salivary responses to conditioned stimuli and other reflexes. In his dog and bell experiment, he observed that the dogs salivate at the sight of food. He then rang a bell prior to the administration of dog food. After some times, the dogs started to salivate by simply hearing the ring of the bell even without any of their foods in sight. He labeled the bell’s sound as the conditioned stimulus and the dog’s salivation when the bell was rang as conditioned response. On the other hand, when the dog heard the bell ringing and there was no food given to him/her, after some times, there was systematic desensitization (that is, the dog will cease salivating because there was already a broken pairing of stimulus and response).
In 1913, John B. Watson (1878-1958), also known as the Founder of Behaviorism, published his “Psychology as a Behaviorist Views It” where he outlined many of the key concepts of behaviorism. Watson also conducted his experiment, which he called “Little Albert.” In that experiment, he used in his research Little Albert, rats, and loud noise. He labeled the loud noise as the unconditioned stimulus (UCS), the rats as the conditioned response (CS), the child’s fear as unconditioned response (UCR), and the fear itself as the conditioned response (CR). Watson paired repeatedly the rat with loud, frightening noise in order to bring about fear in the child. He demonstrated that fear could be generalized with other objects that have the characteristics of a rat (e.g., furry, white, small, soft, etc.).
In 1948, Burrhus Frederic "B. F." Skinner (1904–1990) published “Walden Two” where he conceived of a utopian society built upon his principles. He was the one who stated that an action that is reinforced by good consequences will tend to reoccur more often whereas an action that is met with adverse consequences is less likely to be repeated by an individual. It was Skinner who made a detailed analysis of operant conditioning. He used a conditioning chamber to measure rates of responses in addition to a recording of key pecks or lever presses.
Nearly a decade later, Noam Chomsky (1928-___), a cognitive scientist, published his “Review of Verbal Behavior” as a critique against Skinnerian behavioral principles. In 1971, Skinner published “Beyond Freedom and Dignity” where he argued that free will is an illusion. However, there are anti-Skinnerian people who insist that considering free will as illusionary tends to make individual more antisocial (Bering, 2010)
III. Basic Ideas and Principles of Behaviorism
According to behaviorists, the basic premises of behavior should be anchored on behavioral learning principles where the environment and other observable factors play important roles. For behaviorism, anything that goes on in the mind should be ignored. Only overt or observable behaviors and environmental forces should be studied in a controlled setting. Whatever is covert or non-observable should be dealt with suspicion because it is difficult to study human behavior in terms of affection, thoughts, free will, and other internal factors. Behaviorists assert that actions or behaviors are determined by external stimuli since they believe that people, like animals and complex machines, are subject to natural processes and other laws.
Some of the commonly used principles of classical conditioning are reinforcement, extinction, spontaneous recovery, higher order conditioning, and stimulus generalization and discrimination . Reinforcement is the increase or strengthening of a response by means of an unconditioned stimulus. Extinction is a conditioned response that ceases to occur. Spontaneous recovery is the reoccurrence of a response that was thought of as extinguished already. Higher level conditioning is the addition of an aspect of the original conditioning. Stimulus generalization is when there is the presence of a general condition with the same stimuli. Stimulus discrimination is when there are various stimuli that were conditioned but only one respond to them.
On the other hand, some of the frequently used principles in operant conditioning include positive and negative reinforcement, and positive and negative punishments. Additionally, there is operant extinction, extinction burst, and so on . In an operant extinction, a trained behavior may no longer occur because there is no more reinforcement or because the type of reinforcement ceases to become rewarding. In an extinction burst, an increasingly sudden, previously learned behavior is reduced and then fades away because it was lessen in intensity as previously paired appetitive or aversive stimulus are made absent.
IV. Major Types of Behaviorist Thoughts
A. Classical Conditioning refers a type of behavioral leaning whereby a neutral stimulus is associated to another stimulus for it to produce a response. Based on the initially neutral stimulus, an individual learns to respond or adapt to his environment. Classical conditioning can be reversed by extinction.
Ivan Pavlov (1849–1936), a Russian physiologist, made a serendipitous discovery of Classical Conditioning. He was engaged originally in a long-term project concerning the process of digestion. As he observed his dogs, he found out that they did not drool despite the food delivered to him. However, after several occasions, he discovered that his dog salivated whenever he sees the lab assistant. He observed that this type of associative learning was an interesting topic and thus studied it further.
Pavlov’s initial finding as to what made his dog salivates is the fact that the dog’s food served as the unconditioned stimulus to a conditioned stimulus – his lab assistant.. Since Pavlov’s lab assistant was the one who delivered the food to the dog, he later on became the conditioned/learned stimulus. Even without the food, his mere presence made the dog drool, especially when hungry. From then on, Pavlov devoted most of his life studying this type of learning.
In Pavlo’s succeeding experiments, he used a bell as his conditioned stimulus for a conditioned/learned reflex (salivation). He did his experimental procedures repeatedly wherein he rang a bell when food is brought to the dog. Later on, the mere sound of the bell made the dog salivates even without the presence of a food. Pavlov’s Classical Conditioning, thus, became the oldest systematic study of the fundamental phenomenon of conditioning.
It was initially discovered and extensively studied by Edward Lee Thorndike (1874–1949). He observed cats’ behavior as they attempted to escape from puzzle boxes. When the cats where initially placed inside the boxes, they took a while before their escape. However, with experience, the cats’ successfully escaped in less and lesser time. In Thorndike’s law of effect, he theorized that actions followed by gratifying results are likely to reoccur more often while those that produce adverse results tend to happen again or reoccur less often. Thus, some behaviors tend to be repeated most often because of their favorable consequences whereas some behaviors only are weakened because of their undesired outcomes. Using this theory, Thorndike was the first to produce the behaviorists’ learning curves. In 1911, Thorndike published “Animal Intelligence.”
Operant conditioning was later analyzed by Skinner. Operant conditioning is defined as the process whereby an organism’s behavior becomes modified by rewards, incentives, or results of an action. In operant conditioning, the consequences of an action increase the likelihood of a response from reoccurring. For example, when a mother’s attention is obtained whenever her infant cries. Crying, thus, reinforces the baby’s behavior to keep crying just to attract her mother’s attention.
Learned consequences of a behavior may be reinforcement, punishment, or extinction. Reinforcement is a rewarding or positive occurrence and it causes a behavior to reoccur more often. On the other hand, punishment is a punitive or negative outcome; it causes a behavior to be less likely repeated. Then there is extinction where a behavior has no ensuring result; it is where a behavior would happen less frequently.
Further, in operant conditioning, the terms “positive” and “negative” are jargon or have behaviorists’ usage. Positive refers to something that is added whereas negative means something is deducted. The different contexts where the terms are used include positive and negative reinforcements, as well as, positive and negative punishments. In positive reinforcement, a certain kind of behavior is get rewarded; hence, it increases that behavior to reoccur. For instance, a reinforcer could be in the form of medal for a learner to continue excelling in class. In a negative reinforcement, an unfavorable stimulus is removed for a behavior to likely happen more often. In a positive punishment, an adverse stimulus is given so that a behavior would less likely to be repeated. Example is spanking a child. Lastly, in a negative punishment, a favorable stimulus is taken away for a behavior to happen less frequently. Taking away a child’s toy, for instance, when he/she misbehaves
V. Free Will Explained
Free will, a most distinctly human belief, has been defined as the discretionary power to make free choices unconstrained by external forces such as necessity or fate (Baer, Kaufman, & Baumeister, 2008). Freedom of choice, self-determination, independence, etc. are some of the phrases or terms used interchangeably for it. Many psychologists believe that if people have free will, they should be able to make decisions undetermined by the biology, physics of our brain, and other internal psychological states.
However, based on the free will thesis, individuals sometimes freely act considering that they are responsible for their decisions and actions. However, responsibility requires determinism, which is the opposite of free will. If individuals are responsible for their choices, then their actions are causally determined. On the other hand, if people act accidentally, then they are not responsible for it. It seems then that people are either determined or not depending on the circumstances.
Behaviorists, such as Pavlov and Skinner, claimed that psychological processes are not based on free will but are deterministic. That is, an individual’s behavior can be controlled or manipulated using behavioral approaches (e.g., rewards, punishments, reinforcements, etc.). Behaviorists deny the existence of the human free will and other innate aspects of the human person. For instance, any problems within a person’s mind are nothing but maladaptiveness in one’s surrounding.
VI. Behaviorism and Free Will
Given Pavlov’s Classical Conditioning and Skinner’s Operant Conditioning theories, peoples’ behaviors can be explained using any of these major types of behaviorism. During childhood, for instamce, individuals learned that the mere smell of a freshly cooked vegetables and grilled fish can make them feel hungry immediately. Whenever they smell such foods, they have the craving to eat. On the other hand, individuals are sometimes conditioned to do a particular tasks (e.g., using their cellphone during class discussion) when caught by their teachers and sanctioned with negative punishment .
Another example of Pavlovian conditioning is when a child experienced a car accident in an accident-prone area. Whenever that person sees an APA signpost, he feels very anxious, wary, and experiences a vague and unpleasant emotion. His/her palms may feel sweaty and tremble. Another is when a grade school pupil ordered a food from a nearby restaurant from his way to school, ate the food, and made his stomach upset. He might, from then on, avoid buying food from that place; instead, simply order food in the school canteen. One more example is when someone is bullied by one or several of his/her classmates. Because he/she did not retaliate but reported the matter to the school authorities (e.g., guidance counselor, principal), the bully never again bullied him/her.
On the other hand, some other examples of Skinnerian or Operant Conditioning is when a person avoids to get a ticket when there is a police in sight (that is, avoidance conditioning). If the person crosses the pedestrian lane when it is not yet time for him/her to do so, he would be penalized (that is, positive punishment). Another example is when a child performed poorly in his/her math test. His/her parents take away his/her cellphone from him/her (that is, negative punishment). There are other examples of operant conditioning that, in whatever way they are presented, free will is denied its place or simply denied as an erroneous mental representation.
Pavlov and Skinner made big contributions in the field of educational psychology. Their theories are as relevant as they were decades ago. It is thus important that their theories of learning should be taught be applied in everyday life. The influence exerted by a person’s family members, classmates, teachers, and other people could either bring good or unpleasant behavioral changes on perception. People should acquire positive outlook using behaviorism as a guide in order to overcome anxiety disorders, stresses, fears, phobias, traumas, and other negative emotions that only hinder normal development in its fullest potentials.
Behaviorism deals only with observable and quantifiable human behaviors. It has removed from its equation subjective aspects of psychology (e.g., thoughts, emotions, motives, etc.) For behaviorists, some acts are better explained by the presence of neutral or unconditioned stimulus until such time that they elicit conditioned responses. Classical Conditioning, for that matter, is focused on automatic or involuntary behaviors. On the other hand, through a system of rewards and punishments, people can either perform the same act because of positive or negative consequences that followed. Moreover, operant conditioning is centered on voluntary behaviors.
Despite of any explanation that would prove contrary to behaviorism, behaviorists maintained that there is no free will because human behavior can be controlled or manipulated and are simply subject to the laws of nature. Since everyone is under natural laws that dictate the flow of events, individual actions, and situational outcomes, a person’s behavior is already determined at the outset.
VII. Concluding Remarks
In view of free will, it is far removed from the behaviorists’ equation. However, whether behavior is dependent on observable stimuli, events, and/or consequences, people should learn to value their freedom of choice. Whenever a person is self-determined to choose and act on it, he/she has free will. The reason for this is that there are choices people can make prior to performing it. In the event they want to change their decisions, they can then act or behave differently. It is not the case that people are always dependent on external stimulus for them to act according to their best interest.
Although Pavlov and Skinner, just like other behaviorists, have shown strong aversion against free will, they still lack the method to prove or disprove free will. Because central to behavioristic paradigm is a measure of human behavior objectively, they always rely on people’s expressed or explicit behaviors. Behaviorists do not pay much attention to internal processes (e.g., free will). Hence, there is no sense of focusing on the possible association between behaviorism and free will. Free will is a mental state or disposition whereas behaviorism focuses on stimulus-response, consequences of rewards and punishments, and so on. When any of the behavioral techniques are used to study free will, it defies the intention of what behaviorism is all about and what is free will on the one hand.
Hence, despite the appeal of behaviorism in the mid 20th century, it has lost its vigor from (Graham, 2010) because of the emergence of new and promising sciences. Cognitive psychologists and scientists, for instance, dismissed behaviorism considering that there are intricate internal info processing cognition. However, by no means did behaviorist principles disappear in the limelight of animal training and in areas where there is a need to teach new behaviors and discard/discourage old ones. Thus, other than the displacement of free will within the domain of behavioral psychology, free will still has its place in the other subfields of psychology. Just like behaviorism is dismissed by cognitive science, so is free will a possible aspect of other fields (e.g., chaos theory, neurobiology, etc.) (Searle, 2002).
References
Baer, J., Kaufman, J., & Baumeister, R. (2008). Are We Free?: Psychology and Free Will. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bering, J. (2010, April 6). Scientists say free will probably doesn’t exist, but urge: “Don’t stop believing!”. Retrieved from Scientific American: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/bering-in-mind/2010/04/06/scientists-say-free-will-probably-doesnt-exist-but-urge-dont-stop-believing/
Caruso, G. (2012). Free Will and Consciousness: A Determinist Account of the Illusion of Free Will. Ohio: Lexington Books.
Chalmers, D. (2009). Free Will and Psychology. Retrieved from Mind Papers: http://consc.net/mindpapers/5.4a.4
Gormezano, I., Prokasy, W., & Thompson, R. (1987). Classical Conditioning. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Graham, G. (2010, July 27). Behaviorism. Retrieved from Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/behaviorism/#7
Kentridge, R. (2007). Operant Conditioning and Behaviorism - an historical outline. Retrieved from Lehrstuhl für Genetik und Neurobiologie: http://genetics.biozentrum.uni-wuerzburg.de/behavior//learning/behaviorism.html
O'Donohue, W., & Kitchener, R. (1998). Handbook of Behaviorism. Massachusetts: Academic Press.
Open Learn. (2011, July 28). Exploring childrens' learning. Retrieved from The home of free learning from The Open University: http://www.open.edu/openlearn/education/educational-technology-and-practice/educational-practice/exploring-childrens-learning/content-section-2.3
Searle, J. (2002). Free Will as a Problem in Neurobiology. The Royal Institute of Philosophy, 491-514.
