Neobehaviorism, radical behaviorism, and problems of behaviorism

摘要: While many psychologists accepted Watson's rhetoric of prediction and control, few the theoretical details his behaviorist system, in 1930s 1940s, neobehaviorism Clark L. Hull (1884–1952) Edward C. Tolman (1866–1959) superseded positivist brand behaviorism. followed Watson maintaining that scientific psychology should be directed to explanation, prediction, control observable behavior rather than introspected mental states, they rejected form structural championed by Titchener followers. Yet contrast Watson, recognized legitimacy explanations terms internal states organisms, including their on a par with properties physical elements composition structure (such as explanation carbon its molecular structure). The neobehaviorist attempt approximate orientation natural sciences more closely marked an advance over restriction description stimulus–response sequences. However, model upon sciences, neobehaviorists did not look actual practice such physics chemistry, but adopted equally restrictive logical account theory advanced philosophers science early decades twentieth century. As Sigmund Koch put it: In pursuit these ends, go directly physics, turned instead for directives middlemen. These were, most part, (especially positivists) number scientists who had been codifying synoptic view nature who, thirties, were actively exporting from specialties scholarly community at large.(Koch, 1964, p. 10) exercised debilitating influence development theory. Burrhus F. Skinner 411(1904–1990) exploited limitations this developed radical behaviorism eschewed theories about organisms.