Title

Is behaviorism the best thing that ever happened to psychology?

Guidance

Behaviorism declared that psychology is a purely objective experimental branch of natural science. It considered human behaviour as the only valid topic of study and it explicitly eliminated consciousness as a proper object of investigation for psychologists.

As pointed out by Leahy (1992), behaviorism was never really overthrown and its influence in psychology is ongoing. For instance, although the definitions of psychology by the APA and the BPS hedge their bets, it is clear that they consider the study of behaviour as an important cornerstone of psychology. Under the influence of behaviorism, scientific psychology adopted the rules of strict experimental control, clearly defined variables and hypothesis testing.

If you go back to people William James and Wilhelm Wundt however, it seems that they had a much richer conception of psychology, where experimental methods are only one part of the arsenal of psychology. The enduring popularity of Sigmund Freud also hints at a desire in the general public for more comprehensive answers than behaviorism looks able deliver.

So, on the one hand, behaviorism was a clear and positive move to a natural science approach to psychology. On the other, with its emphasis on animal behaviour and experimental control, it put clear limits on the scope of psychology.

Behaviorism chose objectivity over subjectivity, but was this the right choice? Did it create the conditions for the expansion of psychology by providing the solid foundation that was missing until Watson (1913) wrote his call to arms? Or has behaviorism betrayed the intentions of Wundt by removing everything from psychology that makes us human?

 

Can you provide me some good readings and insights?