A Science of Behavior

The major principles of conditioning are pretty simple. There are a few basic relationships that underlie all conditioning and learning, and you'll learn those pretty quickly. The manner in which these basic principles interact, however, gives this view of human nature, a scientific analysis of behavior, a complexity that we'll spend the rest of the semester coming to appreciate. Here, then, are the basic principles that we'll see coming up over and over again in our study:

At the root of all learned behavior is genetically inherited, pre-wired behavior. Pavlovian, operant, even intrinsically motivated behavior (such as doing good deeds anonymously), have developed from our more basic (i.e., inherited) interactions with the environment.
Our current behavior is a product of our past interactions with the environment. More specifically,

What is a Scientific Analysis of Behavior all about?

Scientific analysis, within the confines of the assumptions it makes, looks at observable events, tries to formulate lawful relationships about those observable events, uses these statements of lawful relationships to predict future behavior, and tries to reproduce certain behaviors by establishing the antecedent conditions that should produce this behavior (control).

The goal of any scientific analysis is to reduce the complexity of nature to understandable principles. All sciences simplify nature by formulating general principles to describe that part of nature that the scientist is interested in describing. Biologists make general simplified statements about living organisms, Chemists make simplified statements about how atoms interact with each other, and Sociologists make simplified statements about how groups of people interact with each other. We tend to have less difficulty accepting what scientists in the "hard" sciences do--their subject matter is more remote from our personal experience, so less threatening.

While simplification does make nature easier to understand, it by necessity means that some things about the subject matter get dropped out of the analysis. For example, what thoughts come to mind when you look at a picture of an Australian Rosella (right)? How would you describe it? For most of us, we might talk about how beautiful it is, etc. A biologist, however, would be comfortable (scientifically) talking about the reasons why a Rosella may be colored as it is, but would be uncomfortable talking (scientifically) about the beauty of a Rosella, even though the biologist probably finds it beautiful, also. Beauty is one of those characteristics that is subjective, and therefore beyond a scientific analysis. Such reluctance on the part of a biologist makes a Rosella no less beautiful to the biologist, it's just that subjective analysis is outside of the boundaries that biologists impose on themselves when they are talking about a scientific analysis of living organisms.

General principles are statements of lawful relationships between parts of nature. These general principles, if they are to have much value, are at a level of abstraction that they are postulated relationships called hypothetical constructs. A construct is something made up (constructed), and it is hypothetical, in that it can not be seen but is assumed to exist. Such well-known scientific principles as gravity, electricity, evolution, intelligence, and reinforcement are all hypothetical constructs-we can't see them, but we believe that they tell us something about nature because they can be used to describe, predict, and control that part of nature under study.

In the case of a science of behavior, the lawful relationships under scrutiny are between observable behavior and changes in the environment. Other processes, such as thinking, feeling, etc. may be going on, but they are inaccessible, and therefore beyond a scientific analysis. Behaviorists are not claiming that their analysis is the total definition of human nature, but an attempt to understand behavior in the manner that any scientific analysis does.

Let's look at the components of a scientific analysis in more depth:

within the confines of the assumptions it makes...
The Basic Assumptions of a Scientific Analysis of Behavior:
- Hedonism--based on Thorndike's Law of Effect, organisms seek pleasure and avoid pain
- Objectivity--Assumes an orderly universe, and basic relationships (laws) can be discovered.
- External orientation--Look to the environment to understand (predict and control) behavior.
- Continuity between species--We have inherited our conditionability, as have other species to which we are evolutionarily linked, because it is adaptive.
- Complex behavior is not qualitatively different from simple behavior--by studying and understanding simpler lawful relationships we will gain insight into more complex (human) behavior.
looks at observable events...

A scientific analysis assumes that, within the confines of our inherited predispositions, we are the products of our interaction with our environment. The observable events, then, that they are interested in are our behavior, changes in the environment as a result of our behavior, and the resulting changes in probability of similar behavior in the future.
tries to formulate lawful relationships about those observable events...

As a result of looking for systematic relationships between behavior and environment, a scientific analysis tends to propose lawful relationships about the environment and resulting changes in behavior.
uses these statements of lawful relationships to predict future behavior...
The test of the accuracy of the statements about lawful relationships is the extent to which these lawful relationships can be used to predict behavior in the future. To a scientific analysis, the worth of a theory is the extent to which it can predict future events under specified circumstances.
and try to reproduce certain behaviors by establishing the antecedent conditions that should produce this behavior (control)...

The "C" word. Control is a part of most sciences, and rarely causes much concern, unless the subject matter of the science happens to be ourselves and what we do. The fact is that behavior is already being controlled by the environment (in the form of society), so why not use our knowledge to help people lead more productive lives? The counterclaim would be that the control may not be used for the good of the individual controlled, but for the purposes of the controller (as is frequently the case now). This is really the realm of philosophy (ethics), not science, but must be dealt with by all people interested in a science of behavior.
This progression from description to prediction to control is fundamental to all scientific endeavors. A scientific analysis is just one of a myriad of explanations for human behavior, and is inherently no better nor worse than any other explanation. It depends on what one's goal at the time is. For example, a scientific analysis may be preferable if one is trying to understand and control criminal behavior, but a good novel may be better at conveying a crime victim's experience.

A starting place for a science of behavior:
Scientific vs. Everyday Explanations.

Everyday explanations--we tend to explain the behavior of ourselves and others in terms of the purposeful intentions of the individual. He does careful work because he doesn't want to get yelled at by his boss. The explanation is future directed, with an explanatory mechanism (want) that is subjective-- internal, unobservable, and private.

Scientific explanations--A scientific analysis wants to stick to observable (or at least potentially observable) actions and changes in the environment. The key to understanding current behavior lies in the past history of the individual. He does careful work because in the past, when he has done sloppy work, his boss has yelled at him, which he found aversive, making it more probable that he does careful work now. It's a small change, but we are no longer looking to the future, or at subjective experience (wishes, desires, fears, etc.), so objective relationships can be formulated. We can see what he did before, what happened as a result of it, and the effect it had on his behavior.

Before going any farther, try to come up with a scientific explanation of a couple of examples of everyday behavior.

What do behaviorists really believe?

The assumptions of behaviorism are heuristically important--they act as guiding principles.

Types of behaviorism:

Radical--other things aren't important, so don't bother (rare.)
Methodological--other things can't be studied, so ignore it (rare).
Pragmatic--The important things in human behavior (including thinking, falling in love, etc.) are a product of our interaction with the environment, so if we study such interactions directly, we will learn what's most important. Other types of analysis, such as neuropsychology, etc., are of value, but are unrelated to a scientific analysis of behavior (most common).
B. F. Skinner, the most famous proponent of behaviorism, kind of vascillated between radical and pragmatic. We'll spend some more time later in the semester looking at some of his work.

Before going on, be sure to Make Up Your Own Question!

Go to:
UGLI 1	Principles of Learning and Behavior
Spawn UGLI 1 in Word	Tom Creed	CSB/SJU page

Email Tom