Commentary
Mary Nolan, Shona Gore in Contemporary Issues in Perinatal Education, 2023
The reality is that there has never been, nor is there currently, a consensus on exactly ‘how to parent’, even within the scientific community. At present, two very different theoretical approaches are prominent both within scientific discourse and the wider media: Behaviorism and attachment parenting (Troutman, 2015). These approaches can seem to generate opposite recommendations about how best to parent. Simply put, behaviorism focuses mainly on strengthening certain behaviors through reinforcements (rewards) and reducing others through extinction (ignoring) (e.g. Skinner, 1953, 1974). Over the last 50 years, behaviorism has led the field of parenting research and currently forms the basis of the majority of evidence-based parenting intervention programs (e.g. Sanders, 1999; Webster-Stratton, 2005). By contrast, attachment parenting (Sears, 1982; Sears & Sears, 2001) is a somewhat more recent parenting philosophy that has become increasingly popular. The focus of attachment parenting approaches is usually on the development of a secure parent–child relationship and emotion-regulation skills in children. This is achieved through the presence of sensitive responsiveness on the part of the parent and respecting children’s choices (Miller & Commons, 2010).
The Twentieth Century
Arturo Castiglioni in A History of Medicine, 2019
psychology has had an enormous development in this period, which saw the first publications on the psychology of the newborn, the infant, and the adolescent. Eminent in this field is Pierre janet (b. 1859), Professor of Psychiatry at the College de France, who developed the theory of psychological automatism (1889) and the concept of psychasthenia (1903). A. binet (1857–1911) devised an intelligence test, widely known under the name of the “Binet-Simon test” (1914), which has introduced new trends into pedagogy and in the classification of soldiers and employees. Notable contributors to this field have been the Germans W. wundt, R. H. lotze, G. T. fechner, the French E. seguin and J. A. E. claparede, the Americans G. Stanley hall, William james, and Mc-Keen cattell, and the Italians S. desanctis, V. benussi, and Maria montessori. Comparative psychology, by its study of lower organisms, has contributed to knowledge of human mental behaviour, especially in the work of the Americans H. S. jennings, Jacques loeb (theory of tropisms), and R. M. yerkes. In fact, in the hands of J. B. watson (b. 1878) it has led to the concept of Behaviourism (1914), a psychologic system that attempts to explain the activities of the human mind in the simple behaviouristic form of stimulus and response.
Lens Models of Human Judgment for Rater-Mediated Assessments
George Engelhard, Stefanie A. Wind in Invariant Measurement with Raters and Rating Scales, 2017
Research on human judgment has also been influenced by several general trends in 20th-century psychology. Two dominant research traditions emerged in psychology in the past century: behaviorism and cognitive science. In the first part of the 20th century, behavorism was the dominant paradigm (Skinner, 1938; Watson, 1919). Essentially, behaviorism emphasizes the study of observable behaviors, and stresses that the study of the mind is too vague to be the focus of an objective science of human behavior. The second half of the 20th century marked the emergence of cognitive sciences that include the study of a variety of topics such as decision-making and judgment, thought processes, memory, information processing, and language (Barsalou, 1992; Neisser, 1967). The transition from behavorism to cognitive psychology is often marked by a book review written by Chomsky (1959) who reviewed a book entitled Verbal Behaviors (Skinner, 1957). Chomskey (1959) argued that language cannot be learned and understood solely from a behaviorist perspective. Chomsky argued for internal mental structures that are avoided from a classical behaviorist perspective. In essence, cognitive sciences stress that internal cognitive representations can lead to changes in behavior.
On Terms within Organizational Behavior Management
Published in Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 2023
Douglas A. Johnson, Rachael Ferguson
We hope this overview of terminology serves as an entry point for neophytes looking to connect behavioral concepts and principles to workplace practices as well as remind seasoned professionals about points sometimes forgotten. In conclusion, we return to the question that opened this paper: In short, what makes OBM different? At the core of this question is an attempt to define and differentiate the field from its competitors and complementary professions. By describing the terminology of the field, several themes are noted and worth making explicit. OBM professionals investigate and intervene upon workplace phenomena using a paradigm founded upon a natural science and selectionist account. This account emphasizes empirical data based upon actual performance and eschews hypothetical constructs or explanatory variables that take place at levels or dimensions different than our observations (e.g., training outcomes explained by schemas, success of incentives explained by expectancies or drives, leadership decisions explained by neurotransmitters or brain structures). We reject mentalistic approaches rooted in non-behavioral phenomena, but that should not be taken as a rejection of biological, cognitive, or internal events (as illustrated by our consideration of physiological stimulation, feelings, perceptions, and private verbal behaviors). This framework lies at the heart of a radical behaviorism position (Skinner, 1945, 1950), from which behavioral technologies developed.
Drug dependence as a split object: Trajectories of neuroscientification and behavioralization at the Max Planck Institute of Psychiatry
Published in Journal of the History of the Neurosciences, 2023
In the book, Feuerlein wrote in a positive tone about the fact that the WHO renamed drug addiction as dependence and, in particular, its “dual nature” in terms of both the physical and psychological forms of dependence. Among the psychological factors, he cited a wide range of both psychodynamic and learning-theory models, as well as neurophysiological aspects. In terms of neurophysiology, he referred to experiments in brain stimulation in laboratory animals using implanted electrodes. Under certain conditions, the animals would even apply electrical stimuli to the brain themselves by pressing a lever to “attain a high level of pleasure,” corroborating the neurophysiological model of substance dependence (Feuerlein 1974, 6). Thus, he referred to a growing approach in addiction research based on animal experimentation, which had begun in 1940 with the publications of Sidney Spragg (1909–1995) at Yale University on drug addiction in dogs and monkeys (Ahmed 2019). Spragg’s conclusion that people as well as animals could become addicted further strengthened the biological causal model of drug dependence. It, in turn, encouraged and advanced brain research in this area and led to the intracranial stimulation experiments in rats by James Olds (1922–1976) and Peter Milner (1919–2018) at McGill University. In their study, Olds and Milner used the behaviorist term “positive reinforcement” and operant conditioning; they also conceived of addiction as a neuronal stimulation of the pleasure center or reward circuit (Olds and Milner 1954).
Historical forerunners of neuropsychiatry: The psychiatric works of Albert W. Adamkiewicz (1850–1921)
Published in Journal of the History of the Neurosciences, 2022
Fabian-Alexander Tietze, Marcin Orzechowski, Moritz E. Wigand, Florian Steger
During his time in Vienna from 1891–1921, Adamkiewicz elaborated a complex theory of the unconscious based on his findings in neuroanatomy and neurophysiology. Throughout his scientific carrier, he was influenced by Jean-Martin Charcot (1825–1893) and his works on hysteria, but always tried to explain psychological and psychiatric phenomena based on natural scientific brain research (Adamkiewicz 1887, 1898, 1902, 1904, 1905, 1906a). His aim to understand human behavior through analyzing the mechanistic functioning of the brain therefore placed him with protagonists of early-nineteenth century behaviorism like Ivan Pavlov (1849–1936) and John B. Watson (1878–1958; see Coleman 2002, 3) and put him in opposition to early antireductionistic positions such as Henri Bergson’s Matière et mémoire (1896). Adamkiewicz’s own position should be also understood against the background of his apprenticeship years with Carl Westphal, who belonged to the school of thought of the so-called somatiker. Their doctrine interpreted mental phenomena in close feedback with neuroanatomy and thus stood in contrast to more speculative approaches to psychology as represented in the teachings of the psychiker (Griesinger 1844, 80).
Related Knowledge Centers
- Heredity
- Reflex
- Antecedent
- Reinforcement
- Punishment
- Three-Term Contingency
- Motivating Operation
- Stimulus Control
- Depth Psychology
- Law of Effect