|Pavlov, Watson, and Skinner are considered the originators of behaviorism. All contributed to learning theory. All three of the researchers studied the effects of the environment on learning.|
Select one of the three behaviorists who, in your opinion, offers the most compelling argument for the use of behaviorism when teaching a new subject to an adult and to a child. Identify that behaviorist, then answer the following questions about his approach:
- Describe how that behaviorist would teach an adult a new skill. Be specific; what is the skill?
- What steps would the behaviorist use?
- Would that behaviorist use a different approach with a child?
- Why do you think this behaviorist’s approach is best?
- What issues or problems do you find in the other two behaviorists’ approaches?
The Behaviorists dominated the field of Psychology for 40 years and did a great deal of research with both animal and human subjects. Pavlov was a pioneer of classical conditioning research, most famous for his experiment during which he trained a dog to salivate to the sound of a bell. Shortly thereafter, Watson furthered Pavlov's work using classical conditioning, this time to instill fear into a young child. While classical conditioning helps to explain our involuntary or automatic behaviors and to a large extent our emotional reactions to things, operant conditioning helps to explain our voluntary behavior. Skinner believed that we could shape future behavior by how we respond to current behavior, either increasing or decreasing the likelihood of a given behavior in the future. He conducted some very interesting experiments, such as training pigeons to guide missiles and his "Skinner box" is still used by Behaviorists today.
Be sure to address all aspects of the assignment in your initial post.
Amanda June Lewis
Advanced General Psychology
April 13, 2014
I choose Skinner because he is the most tailored to the individual.
1. Describe how that behaviorist would teach an adult a new skill. Be specific; what is the skill?
Skinner might instruct a grown-up ability by evaluating what might strengthen the taking in. That is; the thing that extraneous or natural prize might make the individual well on the way to go to, practice and take in the expertise? On the off chance that you are showing budgetary planning, some will be most strengthened by the likelihood of developing fortune for travel, other by the wellbeing of knowing you can possess your home along these lines can keep away from rent, and still others will be fortified by the, sheer delight of connected math. Through "shaping" the adults, we have found that they are now a little more financially sound. They have learned that the positive (having savings) has outweighed the negative (no money).
2. What steps would the behaviorist use?
The behaviorist might fortify every minor taking in unit. So, for example, they may have an advanced piggy bank where the investment funds go every week from effective planning. This might demonstrate the developing investment funds. Also, month to month, the investment funds, could be put into a record. This money saved could develop into what could be used to pay a contract to diminish a remarkable parity (i.e. house note, bank loan). Contingent upon strengthening for every scholar, they may have a funds offset estimate or advance reimbursement figure to show how long until objective ($60,000 travel funds or credit result).
3. Would that behaviorist use a different approach with a child?
No, the steps might be comparative yet the reinforcers might be custom to the child and they will probably happen all the more rapidly as they do not concede satisfaction like grown-ups. So, the youngster could be permitted to get a marshmallow when they complete their calculations. On the other hand, they could be let outside to run for five minutes or they might get to peruse reading books. The fortifier might be something the child could "pick" from a selection of trinkets. Maybe the child might win points, and those could be "traded in for spendable cash" for prizes, such as toys. Perhaps the child would prefer an opportunity to be the first in line at lunch. Every child would not require the same "reinforces."This has been achieved through operant conditioning. Every time the child is good there are rewards, yet when they are bad there are also "adverse stimuli."
4. Why do you think this behaviorist's approach is best?
Distinguishing the distinct contrasts for learners makes a difference. Learners respond when educators consideration (or they observe the instructors actions) and then modifying the fortifications to the learner truly matters. My daughter was permitted to sit on a yellow couch in math (which she loathed). That made her feel uncomfortable enough to participate in class and get a B. This coach was completely one of a kind to my daughter, however; it was gigantic for her which made her feel very small. The instructor additionally kept all her papers in an envelope in the room with the goal that it might never be "lost." That was likewise enormous. This sort of custom strengthening could be the enchantment between learning and falling flat (as it was with my daughter). It was not about the lesson conveyance. It was about expanding the likelihood of the learner going to and advancing the exertion. This was done through "behavior modification." Skinner was more tuned to how each of us is strengthened separately than the other two scholars. That is, the thing that works for one learner may not work for an alternate. Anyway a reinforcer will build the conduct, as long as that occasion is strengthening for the single person. I expect this is a more compelling hypothesis for a classroom of children. It could be all the more so for grown-ups. The learning could be conveyed consistently (without the need for matching occasions) and afterward the learner can select the fortifier that suits them.
5. What issues or problems do you find in the other two behaviorists' approaches?
Watson completed not have confidence in "distinct contrasts" along these lines everybody might get the same lesson and same reinforcers. Watson accepts completely in "support" and not in "nature." The studies on indistinguishable twins differentiated during childbirth has provided for us understanding about nature being significant. Watson looked at his work as a "Behaviorist" which was founded on the basic ideas of enviromentalism.
Pavlov was more intrigued by "pairings" of occasions. It would be inconvenient in a classroom to discover and pair occasions. While he might concede that some may respond diversely to the pair and the quality of the molding, he might say that all would in the long run to respond to the blending. This is not the same as independently tweaking the fortification. He used Classical Conditioning through stimulus generation and eventually extinction.
Boeree, C. George, (2006). B. F. Skinner, Retrieved on April 15, 2014 from
Danielson, R. R. (2007, February, 17). DrDnotes. retrieve on April 15, 2014 from