ABSTRACT
In his time J.B.Watson was referred to as ‘the behaviourist’, a title which if used nowadays would undoubtedly have to be conferred on B.F.Skinner. But there is more than one behaviourism and Skinner cannot be held responsible for (or take the credit for) the achievements of many of them. If behaviourism is taken to be simply the insistence on objective methods of study in psychology, then the general acceptance of this doctrine is the legacy in large measure of Watson himself and would have occurred without Skinner. To say that this doctrine has been generally accepted prompts us to ask (along with Broadbent, 1964): by whom? Broadbent’s answer is, ‘by those people in the English-speaking countries who engage in pure academic research in psychology’ (p. 35), and he quickly goes on to point out that this excludes many (in particular, a large number of psychiatrists) who are regarded by the public as authorities on human nature. Although Skinner has been in the forefront of those eager to carry a behaviourist message both to the public (as in Beyond Freedom and Dignity, 1972) and to the psychiatric community (see his ‘Critique of Psychoanalytic Concepts and Theories’, Skinner, 1954), these activities are not the unique outcome of his brand of behaviourism. The contributions of Eysenck, for instance, have been quite as prominent in this area (e.g., Eysenck, 1972).
