Theories of behaviourism

Published Date: 23 Mar 2015 Last Modified: 10 May 2017

Breadth

The breadth section will discuss behaviorism as conceptualized by three of its major proponents. In this section, the principles developed by John B. Watson, B.F. Skinner and Albert Bandura will be compared and contrasted in an attempt to have a deeper understanding of behaviorism. Watson, Skinner and Bandura are among the greatest proponents of behaviorism and conducted empirical studies to prove their point. The significant aspects of behaviorism, particularly the learning process and controlling of behavior, will be discussed and shall serve as the foundation for discussion in the other sections of this paper.

Behaviorism, as is well-known, takes its roots from Watson's pioneering work, Psychology as the Behaviorist Views It, and remains to be a significant influence in the study of behavior to date. Subsequently, developments have taken place and new concepts and principles are being introduced, such as Skinner's operant conditioning theory and Bandura's philosophy of social cognitive learning. These developments have made an impact in behaviorism, in particular, and in the entire academic field of Psychology in general. The postulations by these authors are among the most significant influences in the current psychological studies and practices.

In this section, behaviorism, based on Watson, Skinner and Bandura, is dissected with an aim to apply it in understanding human development. The similarities, differences and continuity in the principles of the three philosophers will be critically analyzed to create a synthesis and build the foundation for the Depth and Application sections of this paper. The objective of this section is to understand behavior and human development as discussed on the theories advanced by the above philosophers and develop a synergy of these theories to be used in the later sections.

A Historical Perspective on Behaviorism

Behaviorism is generally acknowledged to have originated from the works of John B. Watson. It was Watson who introduced the theoretical framework of behaviorism and criticized heavily the contemporary psychological theories and principles during his time. Watson tried to bring to psychology the same measure of objectivity of the other fields of sciences such as physics and chemistry (Hart & Kritsonis, 2006). His 1913 masterpiece article entitled Psychology as the Behaviorist Views it, which is also referred as the Manifesto of Behaviorism, established the foundations of behaviorism. Watson asserts that psychology is a purely objective experimental branch of science and that behavior must be studied in its observable state and not by mere introspection, which "forms no essential part of its methods" (1913, par. 1).

Hence, behaviorism is defined as an approach that puts emphasis on the study of objectively observable behavior rather than inner mental experiences (psy1.clarion.edu/mm/General/Glossary). This definition puts into context the significance of environment in influencing an individual's behavior. Subsequently, several other theories have spawned out of Watson's behaviorism and developed into new theories and principles. B.F. Skinner is one of those who developed new trends in behaviorism. Skinner's operant conditioning theory brought new perspectives in behaviorism. The main thrust of Skinner's theory is that people behave the way they do due to the consequences learned from their past actions. An individual's behavior is induced by a stimulus and could recur or be discarded based on the outcome of such behavior.

Albert Bandura, meanwhile, presents another branch in the development of behaviorism with his social learning theory. Bandura puts forward the principle that a person's behavior is a result of the relationship between the environment, personal or internal factors and the behavior itself. This new development in behaviorism served to cement the validity of Watson's and Skinner's theories and at the same time creates a synergy among the three theories in behaviorism. While there are significant differences in their theories, the development of each theorist's principles served to fill their gaps. This will be covered in the discussion below. The main questions this section attempts to answer are the following:

• What is behaviorism?
• In what ways does the environment affect the behavior as behaviorists claim?
• How does a behavior emerge?
• How does an individual acquire and perform a particular behavior or sets of behaviors?
• How do the principles of behaviorism influence the current principles and practices of behaviorists?

Watson and Behaviorism

John B. Watson attempted to make psychology a natural science that deals with the "behavior and activities of a human being" rather than just focusing on the "consciousness" of the individual (1924, p. 3). In his definition, behaviorism is "a natural science that takes the whole field of human adjustments as its own" (p. 11). He drastically criticized the old concept of psychology which deals mainly with consciousness, which according to him is merely spiritual and is improvable and unapproachable (p. 5). Psychology's goal is the prediction and control of behavior (1913).

Watson pointed out that, "Scientific method has enabled us not only to find the stimulus causing the reaction but also how effectively to control the reaction by removing or modifying the stimulus" (1924, p. 20). For psychology to be truly a natural science, the vestiges of religious or superstitious concepts such as consciousness (which according to him is the modern translation of soul) should be removed and instead focus on the practical activities of man in trying to learn or understand its behavior.

Watson's theory aims at explaining the relationships between the stimuli, responses and their consequences into an individual's behavior. He said that there is a causal relationship between the stimulus and the response in that the latter originates from the former and vice versa (Watson, 1920; 1924). Consequently, the individual's behavior can be conditioned using the stimulus-response model (1920, 1924).

The Stimulus-Response Model

According to Watson (1924), the interest of a behaviorist is not merely to become a spectator in observing one's behavior, but to predict and control human activity. In order to understand, predict or control a person's behavior, one must first understand the stimulus that initiates a response and what responses can produce stimuli. In other words, one must understand the interaction between a stimulus and the individual's response.

Watson said that an individual's behavior is a result of a response to a stimulus. The stimulus initiates the person to respond or behave in a manner that corresponds to the gravity of the stimulus. For example, an electric shock will cause a person to withdraw his hand or body from the object that releases the electricity. Watson (1924) explained that if the stimulus is conditioned, a conditioned response will likely occur. For instance, if a ray of light is produced, there might be no reaction from the person apart from the pupil constricting, but if the ray of light is shown and simultaneously stimulate the person's hand with an electric shock and in a repeated manner, the person will behave in a way that when the ray of light is shown he will immediately withdraw his hand.

Watson (1914) theorized that there must be some form of stimulus to make an animal move in a certain way; otherwise habits cannot be forced upon the subject. Human beings, according to him, have been controlled by their fears from their environment, culture and other situations. This can be removed or unconditioned upon the person through conditioning. He warned, however, that controlling or conditioning the person to remove his fears is contingent upon the proper method to be used, i.e. appropriate stimulus and environment.

For Watson, psychology should set the observation of human behavior as its central tenet. It must be a purely objective, experimental branch of science that investigates the behavior of humans and animals in the same plain without appealing to consciousness (Watson, 1913). A person's overt observable behavior must be the subject of study as this shows the actual behavior of the person. Prediction and control of behavior is dependent upon the observable behavior as this determines the causal relationship between the stimulus and response.

Conditioned Responses and Behavior

Watson is a strong proponent of the belief that behaviors can be conditioned and thus controlled. In fact, he claims that conditioned responses can be a cause of phobia and conversely can be used to remove it. Watson (1924) contends that the conditioning of responses is as equally imperative as the conditioning of stimuli (p. 23) in order to establish a desired behavior. He argued that every part of an individual's body can be conditioned, and not just his mind or consciousness (p. 33). He likened the environment in the early stages of a child's life to that of a laboratory environment. The child acquires particular responses to various stimuli. Thus, every child can be nurtured to become whatever their parents like them to be if the child's growth is conditioned from birth. Watson exclaimed:

Give me a dozen healthy infants, well-formed, and my own specified world to bring them up in and I'll guarantee to take any one at random and train him to become any type of specialist I might select - doctor, lawyer, artist, merchant-chief and, yes, even beggar-man and thief, regardless of his talents, penchants, tendencies, abilities, vocations, and race of his ancestors (1924, p. 82).

Skinner's Operant Conditioning Theory

Burrhus Frederick Skinner, a radical behaviorist, developed the operant conditioning theory whereby he concluded that one's behavior can be controlled and is determined by its consequences. He said, "It is now clear that we must take into account what the environment does to an organism not only before but after it responds. Behavior is shaped and maintained by its consequences" (Skinner, 1971, p. 18). Skinner based this principle upon Thorndike's theory of the Law of Effect and argued that effects occur under "conditions which are optimal for producing changes called learning" (1954, p. 86). He believes that an individual is taught by his verbal community (1971, p. 63) and that one's behavior can be modified by consequences. A behavior that produces good outcomes has higher tendency to be repeated while a behavior with bad outcome will be less likely to recur (Skinner, 1953).

The Theory of Operant Conditioning

Skinner's theory of operant conditioning was developed based upon Thorndike's Law of Effect. Thorndike said that a person's behavior is "stamped in when followed by consequences" (cited in Skinner, 1953). Skinner (1954) reinforces this principle in saying that "effects do occur and that they occur under conditions which are optimal for producing the changes called learning" (p. 87). The effects that a behavior has upon the person determine the probability of it to recur or be discarded. Positive effects of a certain behavior will therefore make the person to do it again while negative consequences urge him to reject it.

Skinner's theory is also heavily influenced by the theory of Pavlov. The classical (Pavlovian) conditioning is a type of associative learning wherein a behavior is produced based on establishing an association between a conditioned stimulus and unconditioned stimulus. However, Skinner's theory differs with Pavlov's in that operant conditioning aims to modify one's tendency to repeat or discard a behavior in the future (Skinner, 1974). Skinner believes that an individual's behavior can be manipulated through operant conditioning by utilizing the reward and punishment method (Skinner, 1953). Through the system of punishment and reinforcement, an undesirable behavior can be discarded by employing a punishment and a positive behavior can be reinforced by giving a reward. This is because every behavior is followed by a consequence.

The above theory was developed by Skinner in his experiments using the "Skinner Box," where the organism is placed in a chamber under a controlled condition and cut off from all outside influences and distractions. Through these experiments, Skinner was able to conclude that an individual's behavior can be shaped almost at will (1954). He further said:

The behaviors classified as good or bad and right or wrong are not due to goodness or badness, or a good or bad character, or a knowledge of right and wrong; they are due to contingencies involving a great variety of reinforcers, including the generalized verbal reinforcers of "Good!" "Bad!" "Right!" and "Wrong!" (Skinner, 1971).

Hence, Skinner believes that the science of human behavior is the study of conditioning and removal of operants.

This has been demonstrated through the Skinner Box. In his experiments, Skinner proved that behaviors can be modified by employing consequences in each action. Skinner used animals as subjects for the experiments and he argued that the principles derived from these can also be applied to humans. He claimed that the results of these experiments are important because "it makes the extrapolation of our laboratory results to daily life much more plausible" (Skinner, 1954, p. 88).

Operant conditioning can redirect and reprimand unwanted behaviors through the use of punishment. Desirable behaviors, on the other hand, can be continued or improved by giving rewards. Thus, a person learns to act or behave through perceived consequences of the behavior. The knowledge a person gains is therefore learned from the consequences of each behavior. Prior knowledge is therefore a key factor in acquiring new knowledge and behavior.

Skinner defined knowledge as "simply to be in contact with, to be intimate with" (1974, p. 172). He said we know something about a thing and how to do it because of our prior exposures to it. Knowledge is socially constituted and that the acquisition of new knowledge or behavior is contingent upon exposure to it. It is only then that value formation is created and developed.

Operant Behavior

Operant behavior is independent of any stimulus. Skinner said that operant behavior is a product of reinforcements used to produce such behavior. He said:

The consequences of behavior are particularly emphasized in the study called "operant conditioning." Behavior reinforced by its consequences is not to be confused with the conditioned reflexes of Pavlov, and only certain instances of operant reinforcement are appropriately called rewards. What is important here is the extraordinary power - fully demonstrated both in the laboratory and field applications - to change behavior in specified ways through properly arranged reinforcements. (Skinner, 1964, par. 4).

Operant conditioning aims to explain behavior through lessons from past occurrences. This method utilizes consequences to alter the rate of recurrence and various forms of behavior. Operant conditioning targets the redirection of voluntary behavior (Skinner, 1974). Moreover, operant behavior functions on the environment and is sustained by the consequences of the behavior. It refers to associative learning in that it fortifies a contingency between the response and the reinforcer.

He demonstrated this in his Skinner Box experiments wherein he concluded that random animal behaviors can be conditioned through a reinforcer. In his still famous rat experiment, Skinner was able to modify the random movement of the rat by providing reinforcers every time the rat performed a particular behavior, which is pressing a bar. The frequency of the use reinforcer was increased or decreased depending on the level of reinforcement given by Skinner. This frequency in use of reinforcement determines the success of modifying the rat's behavior.

In another experiment, Skinner was able to determine that operant conditioning can also determine how frequently an animal performs an action. He put several pigeons in a cage attached to a mechanism that regularly delivers food to the pigeons regardless of the birds' behavior. Here, Skinner discovered that the pigeons associate the delivery of the food with whatever they are doing at the time it is delivered. The pigeons then repeatedly perform these actions in a hope of the delivery of their food. This experiment showed that some form of behavior, such as superstition, is learned as well.

Bandura's Social Learning Theory

Albert Bandura's philosophy of social cognition, originally known as observational learning, is based on the theory that an individual's behavior is influenced by the interaction of three factors - behavior, environment and personal factors - in a relationship called reciprocal determinism. Under this theory, human learning process occurs by taking information from observing other's behaviors, conceptualizing the information from these observations, selecting which of these behaviors are to be adopted and which are to be discarded and later perform the selected behaviors. He said:

Consciousness is the very substance of mental life that not only makes life personally manageable but worth living. A functional consciousness involves purposive accessing and deliberative processing of information for selecting, constructing, regulating, and evaluating courses of action. This is achieved through intentional mobilization and productive use of semantic and pragmatic representations of activities, goals, and other future events (Bandura, 2001, p. 3.

By observing the events occurring around a person, he/she can conceptualize the behavior of others and stores all of the gathered information for later use (Bandura, 1977).

Bandura (2001) criticized the earlier theories in psychology as merely founded on behavioristic principles of an input-output model, which consider behavior as automatically and mechanically controlled only by environmental stimuli. He said people do not simply absorb information or standard conducts from outside models, rather they create generic standards from the various evaluative rules taken from these models (Bandura, 1991, p. 9). People have the capability to pay attention to these influences in order to determine which of these influences will be retained (Bandura, 1986).

The Observational Learning Process

As mentioned earlier, observational learning is imbued in a relationship called reciprocal determinism - the interrelation between environment, behavior or internal factors. Hence, it is a process of learning that starts from observing the events occurring in the environment and ending in the adoption or rejection of a behavior by one person. Bandura (1986) argued that influences on a person's actions or behaviors are usually lined up with his observation of the actions taken by others. Thus, human behavior is realized or learned observationally through modeling - the act of observing others and forming an idea of how it is performed (Bandura (1977). In his observational learning process, Bandura established four components namely, attentional, retention, motor reproduction and motivational.

Attentional

Bandura said that attentional processes aid people from selecting, visualizing and conceptualizing their models and what they adopt from observing the models' behaviors or actions (Bandura, 1977, 1986). To learn from or imitate the other's behaviors, one must have the ability to pay attention. It is this through the attentional process that a person can conceptualize from the models and learn what model of behavior to retain or discard (Bandura 1977). He argued that the profundity of knowledge gained from attentional processes is realized when people imitate or reenact the model's behaviors and personalities, the circumstances surrounding the behavior and the structural composition of the exchanges between humans. Essentially, he claims that new knowledge is dependent upon the observer's comprehension and recognition of the relationship between the several factors mentioned.

The observer must be able to associate itself with those that they imitate to provide an opportunity for the acquisition of new knowledge and alter his behavior. Indeed, Bandura (1961) cemented this point by arguing that a large part of acculturation an individual received during childhood come from the people that are closely related and important to them (p. 311). Bandura also postulated that, concomitant with intentional direct training, a portion of incidental learning is instilled in the individual as well. For example, if a child observes their parents showing aggressive behavior towards others, this may be instilled in the child's memory. Bandura (1961) explained that this form of incidental learning can be stored by the child and later retrieved to be used as a guide in their future relationship with others.

To put it briefly, the individual will mirror himself with those persons or behaviors that he imitates. For the model behavior to be effective, the learner must identify himself with the model to build greater confidence and motivation to imitate the model behavior. Furthermore, the model has to cultivate or create an avenue or way to allow the learner from envisioning the importance and the existence of the relationship between him and the model behavior. The learner must generate some form of relationship with the model behavior that he emulates in order to generate new information and change his behavior.

The attentional process has a greater impact or influence if the behavior a person wants to emulate is coming from somebody who is close to him, most especially his, parents, elder siblings or close relatives (Bandura 1961). The greater the similarity between the model and the learner, the more likely the model behavior will be perceived as desirable and as a result increases the probability for it to be emulated (Bandura 1986). Additionally, if the model's actions produce positive consequences, this will further strengthen the observer's resolution that their actions would produce similar or comparable results and increases the likelihood of the continuation of similar behaviors. The closer the connection between the learner and the model, the greater the influence of the model behavior to the person would be.

A final point that is often times overlooked is the importance of nurturing in the learning environment. Bandura (1961, 1963) hypothesized that nurturing facilitates learning. He found that children display a significant amount of social learning through incidental learning and that if they perceive the learning environment as one where they are valued and there is a genuine sense of caring for them, they will be more inclined to imitate the model.

Retention

The second process in the social learning theory advocated by Bandura is the retention processes. Bandura puts forward that learning will not be possible if the learner cannot retain what they have learned or observed. Learning through observation is essentially useless if the observer is unable to store the information learned from the model behavior (Bandura, 1977). The learner must build some system of "response patterns" that allows him to withdraw the information learned in the absence of the model (p. 25). Through this method, the learner creates abstract or verbal representations that put the models' actions into his memory permanently.

If the learner is constantly exposed to the stimuli that remind him of his observations, it will initiate the extraction from his memory of the images, actions and behaviors of his models (Bandura, 1977, p. 25). Therefore, an individual can arouse the behavior that he observed if he will associate the model's actions with something that reminds him of the particular actions displayed by the model from the previous circumstance. He pointed out that abstract representation and visualization is used more often by younger children since their verbal skills were not yet fully developed. Bandura, meanwhile, stated that human behavior is regulated by the cognitive process of learning through verbal representation more than visual representations. He explained that when an individual verbalize what he has just observed, he transforms this data into a system of codes for comfortable storage and later retrieval.

Motor Reproduction

The learner now comes to act or put into action the behavior learned from his model. Through motor reproduction, people demonstrate the learned behavior by recalling the imagery and verbal representation of modeled behavior. This is realized by "organizing our responses spatially and temporally in accordance with the modeled pattern" (Bandura, 1977, p. 27). In simple terms, people collect and store what they have learned and proceed to reenact or imitate what we have those stored information. And, through a system of trial and error, people aim to attain some level of mastery by self-evaluation and gathering feedback from others.

Bandura (1977) also stressed the importance of skills, apart from knowledge, in reproducing the modeled behavior. The level of success in imitating the model behavior depends on the competency of the learner to reproduce it. Although the learner may have efficiently and effectively coded and visualized the information from the model behavior, a certain level of skill and competency is still required to demonstrate it in action. The learner must develop the necessary skills in order to reproduce the model behavior; hence if there is a disparity between his knowledge and skills to reenact the behavior, the learner should enhance his skills through practice. Nevertheless, the learner may be unable to exactly imitate the model but he can achieve a "close approximation of the new behavior" (p. 28).

Although people have the ability to observe, codify and reproduce behaviors, they will simply not apply or reenact the behaviors they have learned. There needs to be a motive for them to do what they have learned. This is called the motivational process of social learning. The person must be pushed by some outstanding benefit in order to apply what he learned (Bandura, 1986). Bandura added that standards alone do not drive people to act (1991b). However, self-beliefs on efficacy play a crucial role in the self-regulation of motivation (1991c). People motivate themselves to act through proactive controls by setting exigent objectives and mobilizing their skills to attain such objectives, and those who have higher sense of self-efficacy set even higher goals to achieve after pursuing and achieving their previous objectives (Bandura, 1991c).

Motivation

Apart from observing, codifying and retaining the models of behavior, people also have the ability to reproduce, reenact or imitate these behaviors. Bandura (1977) theorized that people demonstrate this reproductive process by applying in practice the modeled behaviors. This is achieved by organizing "our actions spatially and temporally" in line with the model behavior's patterns (1977, p. 27). People reproduce all what they have learned from the modeled behaviors and aim to master such behavior and improve their own knowledge of that behavior through self-evaluation.

While the learner learns some behaviors, codifies it and knows how to perform or reenact the model behavior, it does not necessarily follow that they will reenact what they have learned. The learner must envision some salient benefit that will propel them to want to participate or engage in the said activity (Bandura 1977, 1986). The observer needs to distinguish the consequences of performing the action by perceiving its value to him. Bandura stated that the learner assesses the consequences of performing an action. If the consequences of not participating are negative then they are more likely to perform the task.

Bandura clarified however that the individual still maintains some level of free will that ultimately regulates their decision to act or not. Even the status of the model may not necessarily lessen the power of autonomy within the learner. According to Bandura, it is not simply because the model, who is not a teacher but a well-known personality, teaches students in classroom does not necessarily guaranty student participation. And if the students do participate in the class, it does not guarantee that they have stored, coded, or even considered the "underlying processes" that they employed. Hence, motivation should take on many forms and will involve personal factors as well.

Bandura (2001) stated that, "An agent has to be not only a planner and forethinker, but a motivator and self-regulator as well" (p. 8). The individual also has to become self-reflective. He claims that a person's belief that he can carry out actions required to deal with complex situations is self-efficacy (Bandura & Schunk, 1981). Self-efficacy is acquired by a person through performance accomplishments, vicarious experiences, verbal persuasions and emotional arousals (Bandura, 1977). "Performance accomplishments are based on personal mastery of experiences" (Bandura, 1977, p. 195). These factors help an individual learn, retain, imitate and motivate to perform a particular behavior.

While the self is socially constituted, a person acts generatively and proactively - not reactively - by exercising self-influence and self-control (Bandura, 2001). Self-efficacy does not necessarily result to "individualism feeding to selfishness" but rather it promotes a prosocial orientation such as cooperativeness, helpfulness and sharing (ibid, 2001).

Discussion

The three principles outlined above create a synergy in understanding behaviorism - that is the prediction, formation, and control of human behavior. While there are differences in the theories developed by the three philosophers, particularly in the understanding of how a behavior is formed, there is unity among them that behavior can be predicted and controlled, particularly in the aspect of conditioning. One point of agreement among the three philosophers is the belief that behavior is learned. They vary, however, as to how behavior is learned and how it can be controlled or conditioned to produce a desired behavior.

Learning

John B. Watson, the first behaviorist to make serious challenge against the predominant thoughts during his time, believes that understanding behavior should be done objectively and removing mentalism or spirituality in the learning process is the central tenet of psychology. He said that Psychology should discard subjectivism and introspection in order to understand how a behavior is formed and how the person performs such behavior. In other words, Watson is advancing a methodological approach to the study of human behavior.

Skinner agreed with him in rejecting mentalism in the study of human behavior. He asserts that it is the environment that has the greater impact on behavior; that is behavior is learned from the environment and not acquired from birth. The phenomena surrounding the display of the behavior must be observed in order to understand the causes and the actions an individual performs. Bandura also agrees in the sense that behavior is learned from external conditions and not in-born. He said that behavior is a result of the interaction between cognitive and environmental factors. Behavior is learned from observing, retaining and imitating the acts of others.

By applying the classical conditioning method, Watson believed that behavior is a result of contiguity of environmental occurrences. People associate two events when they occur simultaneously in time and continuously for a period of time. It is through this method that people learn to behave or act in a certain manner. He strengthened this in his experiment with an 11-month-old boy Little Albert. Watson's stimulus-response theory was developed along these experiments. Watson puts forward the assertion that a stimulus produces a response that people come to learn in time. The response is based on the stimuli that occur around the person.

However, Watson's advancement of the stimulus-response model faced serious questions from other behaviorists, particularly from Skinner. While this formula solidifies his stand of having a unified experimental procedure in dealing psychological issues, this has failed in providing solutions as to how this can be achieved (Hart & Kritsonis, 2006). The stimulus-response model, however, provided the early basis for objectively studying behavior. It provided the first step in understanding how to predict, shape and control a behavior.

Watson's stimulus-response method, however, was the point of departure between him and Skinner. The model was criticized by Skinner and argued that even though a stimulus and response situation occur, this is not enough to be included into a single formula for shaping a behavior (Skinner, 1953). Skinner claimed that the stimulus does not cause a response and that the relation between the two is flexible and does not constitute a definitive formula.

According to Skinner, the animal is active and behaves in a manner that produces a reward; that is learning happens as a result of the consequences of one's actions (Saddock & Saddock, 2003). In his Skinner Box experiments, Skinner proved that behavior is learned due to consequences and not merely due to the use of stimulus. The rat, when given food for pressing a lever learns that it will get his food by pressing the correct lever and consequently continues to act in that way.

Skinner's theory is different with the classical conditioning principles in that the subject is not a passive object but rather an active one. In operant conditioning, the behavior is independent of the stimulus in that the individual learns from the past consequences of his actions. The objective of operant conditioning is to

Meanwhile, Bandura postulates that behavior is learned by observing the other's actions. This is another theory in the social learning process advanced by him which differ from the above two theorists. He described this process as modeling or learning through imitation (Saddock & Saddock, 2003). Under this theory, a person behaves or acts based on what he learns from his models. If the model displays positive behaviors, the learner develops self-efficacy and can adapt to everyday normal situations as well as threatening conditions. On the other hand, in order for the learner to reject learned negative behaviors alternative models displaying positive behaviors must be chosen.

Using a child as an example, Watson theorizes that a child learns to behave based on the stimulus presented to him and that he acts in accordance with how he associates the conditioned stimulus with an unconditioned stimulus. A child can associate a rat with a fearful experience if the rat is presented to him simultaneously with producing a frightening noise or sound. Thus, the child acts fearful of the rat because he associates it with a terrifying noise.

But Skinner does not agree with Watson's conclusion. He asserts that such a behavior can be reinforced or eliminated by a system of reward and operant conditioning. "Reinforcements continue to be important, of course, long after an organism has learned how to do something, long after it has acquired behavior" (Skinner, 1954, p. 87). If we follow Skinner's operant conditioning theory, the child can be nurtured to remove his fearful behavior toward a rat by teaching him or conditioning him to remove his fears through the use of reinforcements. By giving a reward to the child every time he displays courage in front of the rat, his behavior can be conditioned to reject his fear of the animal.

Bandura's modeling theory is another alternative to Watson's proposal. His theory, obviously in disagreement as well with that of Watson, can be used to modify the child's behavior. He declared:

People develop moral standards from a variety of influences. They form standards for judging their own behavior partly on the basis of how significant persons in their lives react to it. . . As a result of such evaluative reactions, children eventually come to respond to their own self-approving and self-critical ways, depending on how it compares with the evaluative standards set by others (Bandura, 1991b, p. 8).

Following the above statement, the above example of the child can be taught to reject his fear by learning from the behavior of the others, most especially those who are closely related to him. If the people around him display no fear of the rat, the child can develop self-efficacy and learns to overcome his fear.

It is, therefore, apparent that behavior is learned and in various forms as explained by the above theorists. Social learning, as the behaviorists above theorized it, is a process of learning and relationship between the self and the environment. Behavior is formed out of this process.

Controlling of Behaviors

As discussed above, the three theorists provided some basic principles in the development of human behavior and learning. A behaviorist's view is that behavior is learned and can therefore be conditioned or controlled. According to Watson (1913), organisms do adjust themselves to their environment by means of hereditary and habit equipments and that certain stimuli lead the organisms to make responses. The stimuli are therefore powerful means to predict, form and control a certain behavior.

Watson's view is that by using stimulus, a certain response can be generated. This can be used in controlling or removing a certain behavior such as phobia or anxiety. He is one of those who claim that human behavior can be controlled or conditioned in any way we want.

For example, Watson (1920) theorized that anxiety is produced by a naturally frightening stimulus that occurs in contiguity with an inherently unconditioned stimulus. This contiguity resulted in the unconditioned stimulus being capable of arousing anxiety itself. In the same vein, using an unconditioned stimulus, anxiety or fear can be controlled or removed.

The conclusion derived by Watson is based on his experiment with Little Albert wherein the child developed phobic symptoms with rats as a result of laboratory experiments. He concluded that, "This was as convincing a case of a completely conditioned fear response as could have been theoretically pictured" (Watson & Rayner, 1920). Thus, he claims that behavior can be controlled and that every part of an individual can be conditioned.

This experiment shows that behavior can be controlled or conditioned using the stimulus-response theory as advocated by Watson. He asserts that a stimulus can produce a desired behavior or can be used to condition a present behavior. Little Albert's behavior has been altered from having no fear of the rat at first into becoming frightened of it using an unconditioned stimulus.

He makes an analogy of the early childhood stage with that of a laboratory environment. Watson said that the child develops behavior by acquiring various stimuli and giving specific responses to such stimuli. These stimuli influence the development of the child into becoming what he is. How the child responds to these stimuli determines his capability to adapt to the environment. As such, if the child is exposed to various stimuli inducing negative responses, the child will be likely to develop negative behaviors. Thus, he challenged:

Give me a dozen healthy infants, well-formed, and my own specified world to bring them up in and I'll guarantee to take any one at random and train him to become any type of specialist I might select - doctor, lawyer, artist, merchant-chief and, yes, even beggar-man and thief, regardless of his talents, penchants, tendencies, abilities, vocations, and race of his ancestors. I am going beyond my facts and I admit it, but so have the advocates of the contrary and they have been doing it for many thousands of years. (Watson, 1924, p. 82)

However, Skinner challenged the validity of Watson's stimulus-response model. While he concedes that a stimulus and a response occur in the same order, this does not automatically support the assertion that the stimulus and the response are the only factors in the conditioning of a behavior. Skinner argues that a stimulus does not cause a response, but rather alters the probability of a particular behavior from occurring. He likened the situation with the problem of alcoholism wherein he stated that:

We shall not solve the problems of alcoholism and juvenile delinquency by increasing a sense of responsibility. It is the environment which is responsible for the objectional behavior, and it is the environment, not some attribute of the individual, which must be changed (Skinner, 1971, p. 70).

He believed that there is no definitive correlation between the stimulus and the response because the relationship between the two is flexible and that the stimulus does not bear any significant impact upon the response.

For Skinner, the consequence of an action is the one that produces substantial implication upon the behavior and the stimuli that is used to generate a response and create a behavior. He asserts that behavior "exists only when it is executed" (Skinner, 1971, p. 151). Skinner further clarifies that behavior when it is reinforced should not be confused with the classical conditioning method such as that of Watson. It differs with the classical conditioning in that operant conditioning aims to redirect voluntary behavior, it operates in the environment and sustained by the consequences of the behavior.

In Skinner's operant conditioning method, a particular behavior can be controlled through the utilization of reinforcements that sustains the occurrence or removal of such behavior. Skinner described two types of behavior; respondent behavior and operant behavior. A respondent behavior results from a known stimulus such as the pupil's constriction to light. An operant behavior, on the other hand, is independent of any stimulus, e.g. the random movements of an infant (Saddock & Saddock, 2003). It is the operant behavior that can be controlled using reinforcements. A reinforcer is anything that maintains or increases the intensity of response.

Through the use of reinforcements, a particular behavior can be modified or altered depending on the consequences elicited by the response. If the consequences are negative, the behavior is less likely to recur in the future, but if the consequences are positive the more likely it will recur. By using reinforcers, a negative behavior can be gradually removed while a positive behavior can be strengthened.

This assertion is fortified in the experiments conducted by Skinner. Among his notable laboratory experiments are the use of a rat placed in the Skinner Box. In this experiment, the rat was deprived of food, and in the course of its random movement it pressed lever. At some point during the experiment, food was released when the lever was pressed. The food reinforced the pressing of the bar. Skinner concluded that, "As we learn more about the effects of the environment, we have less reason to attribute any part of human behavior to an autonomous controlling agent" (Skinner, 1971, p. 96). This assertion directly contradicts Watson's stimulus-response theory.

However, Bracey (1994) argued that the use of rewards and punishment is not always effective or may have positive results in controlling behavior. In fact, giving of rewards does not have any impact on the individuals especially if they have intrinsic motives in exhibiting or performing a particular behavior. This conclusion is founded on a study of students aged 8-10, half of them have been shown a videotape discussing why children worked hard in school while the others were not. The students who watched the videotape developed intrinsic motives in studying and distanced themselves from "extrinsic rewards". They were able to show creativity inside the classroom than those students who were not able to watch the videotape. Bracey's article will be discussed in detail in the depth section of this paper.

Meanwhile, Bandura believes that behavior can be controlled through modeling. While he agrees with Watson and Skinner that behavior is influenced by the environment, he is not in approval that behavior is controlled by stimuli. He criticized the early behavioristic principles in that it "embraced an input-output model linked by an internal conduit that makes behavior possible but exerts no influence of its own in behavior" (Bandura, 2001, p. 1). He characterized this view as shaped and controlled manually and mechanically by environmental stimuli which he believes is actually of no impact on behavior itself.

Bandura theorizes that behavior is a product of one's imitation or observation of the actions of others. Thus, behavior can be controlled through the use of models. Bandura (1991b) argued that social sanctions coupled with reasoning foster self-restraints better than do sanctions alone. He further claims that, "social consequences that transgressors might bring on themselves through their actions do not materialize if they avoid detection" (p. 7). These arguments contradict both Watson's and Skinner's postulations.

According to Bandura, an individual needs to perceive the consequences of a particular behavior before performing an action. If the individual perceives that the consequences are positive, he will more likely do the act. Hence, free will still plays a role in the framing of decisions made by an individual. This assertion simply rejects Watson's stimulus-determinant model as well as Skinner's theory of operant conditioning. In effect, Bandura suggests that people do not behave simply due to the consequences of their past actions or being pushed by a stimulus. Rather, people also use cognitive processes in their performance of an action or behavior. He asserted that "cognitive processes are emergent brain activities that exert determinative influence" (Bandura, 2001, p. 4).

A person's behavior is formed and can be controlled by using models. If the person perceives the model behavior to be fruitful or positive, it will be more likely that the person will imitate or reenact such behavior. This is because the individual retains self-efficacy. The effects of self-efficacy on cognitive learning take on various forms. Bandura (1991c) believes that much of human behavior is regulated by forethought characterizing cognized goals. As such, behavior can only be modified or controlled if the model behavior presented to the person embodies the personal goals the individual wants to achieve. This principle is used in several programs such as weight reduction and smoking cessation.

Another point of difference between Bandura's principles and the principles of Watson and Skinner is in the role of thought or cognition. According to Bandura (1991c), a chief purpose of thought is to enable an individual to predict events and to develop ways to control those events that affect their lives. Watson outrightly discarded mentalism, consciousness and introspection while Skinner believes that behavior should be studied in its overt observable state. However, Bandura claims that these theories are still incomplete in failing to understand the importance of cognitive processes in the prediction, formation and control of behavior.

Bandura (1991b) stressed that the degree to which the influence of social sanctions is enhanced by reasoning depends on its content and on a person's cognitive abilities. He said that appealing to abstractions does not have much influence on a child who lacks experience to comprehend them. As the child gains experience and knowledge about what is right and wrong, they become more responsive to social rules and regulations and moral directives.

Skinner, however, criticizes the cognitive approach in the study of behavior. He claims that mentalistic terms is insufficient in explaining behavior in comparison with what can be explained at the observational level. He added that the performance of a behavior does not require either storage of that behavior or contingencies possible for it, rather the individual as a behavior system is changed when behavior is acquired, and changed system is all that is possessed (cited in Schnaiter, 1975).

Bandura retorted that the early psychological principles that are based on an input-output model or mechanical implications of stimulus-response paradigm are rendered obsolete with the emergence of computers. He said that if computers can perform cognitive operations that can solve problems, regulative thought could therefore not be denied to humans. If the mindless organism (the computer) became cognitive, it is still devoid of consciousness and agentic abilities (Bandura, 2001).

Another form of controlling behavior, according to Bandura, is through self-efficacy. "People are sentient, purposive beings" (Bandura, 2001, p. 5). He said that in understanding the basic mechanisms governing human behavior or functioning, two lines of theorizing may be used. The first line of inquiry focuses on microanalyses of the inner mechanisms of the mind in processing, representing, retrieving and using coded information to manage different activities and locating these cognitive processes occur within the brain (ibid, 2001). In other words, when people are confronted by tasks, they formulate hypotheses and test their efficacy to perform the tasks. People set for themselves personal goals or motivate themselves to act in order to impress others or satisfy themselves. Bandura claims that this theory is generally neglected in that the previous theories. He said that while there is an effort in studying the mechanisms working within the human mind that govern behavior, this is commonly done but is detached from "interpersonal life, purposeful pursuits and self-reflectiveness" (p. 5).

The second line of theory concentrates on the macroanalysis of socially situated factors in human development, change and adaptive behaviors. In this context, human behavior is analyzed as "socially interdependent, richly contextualized and conditionally orchestrated within the dynamics of various societal subsystems and their complex interplay" (Bandura, 2001, p.5). He explains that there is an interplay between personal cognitive processes and sociostructural factors in the formation and performance of behavior. A macroanalytic approach of understanding human behavior by linking the environmental conditions, sociostructural factors and inner workings in the mind will explain how an individual develop self-efficacy in performing a particular behavior.

McCormick (2001) reinforced Bandura's theory in the application of social cognitive theory in leadership. He said that enhancing self-efficacy increases the confidence of a leader on his capabilities to lead an organization and will select higher goals and employ his skills and efforts more effectively. McCormick concludes, "Adapting the self-regulation model to the leadership process produces a conceptual framework that includes a person's sense of confidence that they can perform the leadership role within an established theoretical system" (p. 22). Bracey (1994) also supports Bandura's social cognitive theory by concluding that internal motivation through cognitive process and self-regulation can produce a more desirable behavior than using rewards and punishment.

Summary

Based on the discussion above, it can be seen that Watson, Skinner and Bandura agree on many things, particularly on the view that behavior is learned and influenced by the interplay between the person and its environment. That there is congruence among the three theorists on this aspect is a major point in behaviorism. In particular, the behaviorists agree that behavior must be associated with environmental factors along with underlying internal issues that exist within the person.

Watson proposed that behavior must be studied objectively and as such notions like introspection, consciousness or mentality must be not be taken into consideration as these were only superstitious. He advocates a psychological method similar to that of the other branches of natural science. Taking off from this assertion, Watson's behaviorism used a quantitative methodology in studying human behavior. The same method can also be used to predict and control behavior.

Skinner also agrees in that he repeatedly criticizes mentalism and cognitive approaches in behavior. He said that the system of storing and retrieving information is nothing different with the practices employed in libraries, warehouses, postal systems and other similar conditions. He advocates a study of behavior at an observational level with careful description of the overt activities of the individual. Likewise, Skinner believes that behavior can be conditioned through reinforcements. Reinforcers can be used to predict or control human behavior and can also be effective in eliminating undesirable behaviors.

However, as can be seen in the discussion, Bandura's philosophy is in contradiction with many principles laid down by the Watson and Skinner. In particular, Bandura's postulation of the cognitive learning theory contrasted many of the principles of the two former behaviorists. Bandura puts some significance in the role played by consciousness or cognitive process in the formation and performance of a behavior. Consciousness, according to him, is the very substance of mental life that makes life manageable and worth living. It involves purposive accessing of information and deliberative processing of it to select, construct, regulate and evaluate courses of action.

It is evident now that where Watson and Skinner left off, Bandura takes in. Watson and Skinner deliberately ignored the role of consciousness and deny its significance in behavior formation. This is where Bandura enters the scene and explains the importance of cognitive process in behavior. It must be noted however that much of behaviorism as Watson constituted it has radically changed the way human behavior is studied.

Depth

The depth section will discuss the current theories and studies on human development. The analysis on contemporary theories of human development will focus on human development in the context of organizational and social conditions. It will be anchored on the theories of Watson, Skinner and Bandura discussed in the breadth section and supported by other theories. The focus of in the depth discussion will be the contribution of the principles developed by the above philosophers on the development of current theories or research. How the theories of Watson, Skinner and Bandura helped advance the understanding of human development and how the current studies expanded these ideas or developed new principles from these will be discussed and analyzed.

The objective of this section will be to widen our understanding of human development beyond the theories presented by earlier psychologists or behaviorists. The depth section will attempt to provide an answer the following questions:

• How were the current theories on human development developed out of the principles laid down in the breadth section?
• Is there a significant change or progress made by the current research?
• Do these current researches advanced the understanding of human development?
• Are these studies useful in the expansion of knowledge in human development among organizations?

To answer the above questions and broaden the knowledge on human development, a review of the current literature will be conducted as well as critically analyzed. These current studies will be examined in juxtaposition with their application in managing organizations, which will also be discussed in more detail in the application section.

Current Issues on Human Development

The principles and philosophies in understanding human development are growing ever deeper. As research on human development and behavior continue to increase, more new theories and principles are being developed. The growth in the area of studies of human development has been spurned primarily by the early behaviorist principles developed among others by Watson, Skinner and Bandura. Even up to the present century, Bandura continues to publish his recent findings, experiments and theoretical conclusions.

There is a wide array of current literature aside from that of Bandura's that proposes new concepts and principles in human development. There are also several studies that go way beyond theories of the three personalities mentioned. Several researches even have different results and have criticized some of the works of the early behaviorists. These new research can be applied in the current context, and will be discussed in detail in the application section of this paper. Meanwhile, this section will deal with the basic and concepts of these new research and studies.

Literature Review

In the discussion of the principles of behaviorism and human development in the breadth section of this paper, a synergy was discovered in the aspect of learning and control of behavior. The breadth section showed that Watson's stimulus-response model provided the basis and preliminary tools for studying human behavior. Skinner expanded this to include operant behavior as an advancement of Watson's theory. Bandura added that while the environmental factors strongly influence the formation of behavior, it must also be noted that such behavior will not be displayed or put into action by the individual without cognitive thought. Here, a systematic development in theory of human development is created.

The Relational Frame Theory

Although there are differences and disagreement among the three, it is substantial to point that their principles have actually formed a single process in understanding human actions and behavior. They actually supported each other's principles in fundamental terms. Nevertheless, there have been developments in the current research. The behaviorist thought has branched out into several facets and fields. There are also others who made new propositions that either contradict or advance behaviorism. For example, Hayes, Dermot and Barnes (2001) advance the relational frame theory (RFT) that aims to explain language and cognition in behavioral terms, in different methods as formulated by Skinner. In the Skinners (1957) proposition, language that language is a behavior and therefore it can be taught and learned as well using the operant conditioning method. It can be affected by reinforcement, thus it is learned by way of reward and punishment.

Hayes, Gifford, Townsend and Barnes-Homes (2001), meanwhile, propose that language and human cognition does not flow from verbal behavior. Using a relational frame theory, the authors put forward the argument that human language and cognition do not necessarily come from verbal behavior or that the former is a result of the latter. The writers stated that Skinner's definition of verbal behavior is not functional and too broad. In their RFT framework, Hayes et al. said that verbal language can be learned without arbitration. Verbal behavior can also be properly delivered through the application of stimulus equivalence wherein a hierarchical and bi-directional relationship between two stimuli which allow for the stimuli to be interchangeably described.

According to the RFT model, people learn to communicate not only through operant conditioning as described by Skinner. The RFT proponents argue that communication is not a manipulation of things using stimuli but is a result of an interactive relationship with the environment. In the Hayes et al. (2001) example, presenting a child with two cups of milk sitting side by side, one cup is physically larger than the other. Ask the child which cup has more milk and the child will point to the larger cup. But when you ask the child which cup has 200 ml milk on it, the child will resort to trial and error by pointing randomly between the two cups. In the first example, the child displays non-arbitrary behavior while he displays an arbitrary behavior in the second choice due to the application of verbal response to the question "which has 200ml milk?" asked to the child. In both instance, a relational frame model is used by the child by trying to find the relationship between the cups, such as cognitively processing which of the cup is larger and by trial and error pointing which cup holds 200 ml. Here, the child did not say any word but acted on a verbal question. The child develops an ability to derive relations from things that are not explicitly taught to him. Hayes, Dermot and Barnes-Holmes (2001), posit that people learn by using symbols differently from other animals, which symbols are processed into language to easily store the information in the memory. Language produces a bi-directional relationship between two things and which can be interchangeably used to describe the things and the relationships between them and the environment.

One piece of information can produce additional understandings or relations that are not explicitly stated in the original information. This is the crux of the relational fame theory developed by Hayes. As discussed above, verbal language is therefore not exclusively produced by reinforcements and contingencies as espoused by Skinner. Barnes-Homes, et al (2001) argue that for a behavior to be considered verbal, "it must show the contextually controlled qualities of mutual entailment, combinatorial entailment, and transformation of stimulus functions" (p. 105). That is, a verbal behavior can be classified as such if the verbal stimuli function as such, a verbal stimulus in a verbal context. For example, a speaker (child) will say "cookies" and the parent will get a cookie from the jar or counter and gives it to child. In this context, the function of the stimulus, the word "cookies" becomes verbal and the responses are verbal because the word "cookies" is derived in a relational frame with cookie. However, the verbal behavior can be considered as such as well even in a different contextual condition such as the training of a dog to fetch slippers on command. The latter example does not display any use of language and yet it elicited a verbal response because the function of the stimulus control that defines it as verbal behavior.

Behavioral Cusps

Rosalez-Ruiz and Baer (1997), meanwhile, present another view of human development in the form of behavioral cusps. A cusp, according to the writers, is a behavior change that produces consequences for the individual beyond the change itself, which may be considered as important depending upon several factors. These behavior changes "expose an individual's repertoire to new environments, especially new reinforcers and punishers, new contingencies, new responses, new stimulus controls and new communities of maintaining or destructive contingencies" (p. 534). When an individual learns new things, this will expose him to more new things or behaviors that come along with the learning of the previous new things. Thus a cusp is a behavior change that will allow the individual to learn more from the behavior and the environment. For example, when a child learns to count from 1 to 10, the child will be able to develop the skills more easily to learn to count beyond 10 and all other arithmetical problems.