Discuss behaviorism as the 2nd major force in psychology and why is behaviorism a “better” alternative than the first force of psychology which was the Freudian psychoanalytic theory.
Discuss behaviorism as the 2nd major force in psychology and why is behaviorism a “better” alternative than the first force of psychology which was the Freudian psychoanalytic theory.
Note: Please cover the introduction (origins of behaviorism and its development). And, also discuss why it was better than psychoanalysis, but less not as good as….cognitive social learning theory (I guess). How did it evolve?
Directions:
Locate the annotated bibliography and outline you created in the Topic 2 assignment. Using the outline you developed, the information from the annotated bibliography, and the feedback provided by your instructor, write a paper (2,000-2,250 words) that synthesizes the articles you have read and addresses the following:
Intro- Trace the origins of behaviorism and the impetus for its development. APPROX. 500
Discuss behaviorism as the 2nd major force in psychology and why is behaviorism a “better” alternative than the first force of psychology which was the Freudian psychoanalytic theory.
Name three crucial researchers in the school of behaviorism.
Analyze the contributions of these researchers to the development of behaviorism.
PLEASE COMPLETE LINE ITEMS 1 & 2 …..SHOULD BE 1,00-1250 WORDS
Annotated Bibliography
Clark, R. E. (2004). The classical origins of Pavlov’s conditioning. Integrative Physiological and Behavioral Science, 39(4), 279-294. Retrieved from http://eds.b.ebscohost.com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=0c5930f8-2858-4ab6-8798-4d950cba628d%40sessionmgr101&vid=1&hid=120
Clark examines the definition of classical conditioning through the lens of several researchers and traces its origin back to the late 1800s and the turn of the nineteenth century. The article offers insight into the development of classical conditioning in both the United States and Russia. While keeping with history, he credited Pavlov as the founder of classical conditioning. However, he describes the various positions of other researchers that weighed in and attempted to alter or clarify the stimuli-response process. Notably, Edwin Twitmyer, a U.S. doctoral student, made a “reflex” discovery before the Russian-born physiologist, Pavlov. Interestingly, Twitmyer never pursued his experimental findings beyond his initial observation while Pavlov’s findings are richly sketched in the fabric of psychology because of his commitment in the field of physiology. The author delivered a clear picture of the roles of Twitmyer and Pavlov in addition to other researchers: Watson’s classical conditioning, Hull instrumental conditional, and Skinner’s operant conditioning were all brought together and synthesized by Hilgard and Marquis, both are credited with coining the term ‘classical conditioning.’ The author who holds a Ph.D. in psychiatry sufficiently assessed how the term ‘classical conditioning’ came into being and the relevance of other researchers.
Digdon, N., Powell, R. A., & Harris, B. (2014). Little Albert’s alleged neurological impairment. History of Psychology, 17(4), 312-324. doi:10.1037/a0037325.
This article provides insight into the discrepancies of the historical account of Douglas “Albert” Merritte of the infamous Albert B. or Little Albert experiment. The study, itself, was conducted in the early 20s where a 9-month old baby was traumatized with a white rabbit for fear responses. The purpose of the article is to examine the claims of Baby Albert’s assumed mental deficiencies and determine whether there is validity to the accusations made by other scholars: it was noted that Douglas Merritte was actually Albert Barger, an unhealthy infant born around the same time as the “Little Albert.” Arguments and data were the primary sources used to discharge alleged inconsistencies, i.e. did the baby die before the final stage in the experiment, was the baby healthy or not, did Watson mislead other scholars? The author does a thorough job of tracing the accounts and shedding light on variations; however, the critics remain, and the skepticism still seems to engross the study as it is probably one of the most unethical experiments in the history of psychology. Although the discrepancies may be significant, the lack of ethics, which is a present concern, has caused the original analysis to be under immense scrutiny.
PLACE THIS ORDER OR A SIMILAR ORDER WITH AMAZON PAPERS TODAY AND GET AN AMAZING DISCOUNT
