ABSTRACT
Research in Würzburg showed that introspection failed to explain higher mental processes and therefore provided a poor explanation of behaviour. Pavlov and Thorndike conducted research with animals that demonstrated associative learning, ideas that were developed by Watson, who was the founder of behaviourism. Watson’s contributions (now called methodological behaviourism) included advice on child rearing, some of which was controversial, even at the time. Skinner proposed an atheoretical approach to psychology, now called radical behaviourism; his contributions included the promotion of positive over negative reinforcement as a way of controlling behaviour. The neobehaviourists Hull and Tolman introduced operationally defined theoretical terms, Hull promoting S-R bonds and Tolman S-S bonds, the latter anticipating the cognitive paradigm. The cognitive paradigm arose in response to cultural changes brought about by computers, the limitations of behaviourism, and the acceptance of hypothetical constructs (in contrast to intervening variables) as theoretical terms, these being modelled on mechanisms derived from technology. The findings of behaviourism are not wrong, but they fail to explain many behaviours that distinguish rats from humans, behaviours explained using theories within the cognitive paradigm, theories that are part of a modern psychology course, including cognitive psychology, social and developmental psychology, clinical psychology, personality and individual differences.
