What are the similarities, if any, between cognitivism and behaviorism?

-- Laura Davenport (rhode@ktc.com), April 26, 2001

Answers

They agree on many general points about the study of psychology. Where they differ primarily is on the issue of whether mental representations play a role in the generation of behavior. This difference has led to some methodological differences as well: cognitivists use computers to model psychological phenomena whereas behaviorists rarely did. (Then again, computers weren't widely available when behaviorism was in its heyday. You'd probably find that today's "experimental analysts of behavior" use computers as much as any scientist.

-- Christopher Green (christo@yorku.ca), April 28, 2001.

Thanks for the input, I did a bit of research myself. Here it is. Whereas both cognitivism and behaviorism are both viable learning theories, cognitivism has overshadowed behaviorism as the dominant perspective. For the last two decades and more stringently at the turn of the century, behaviorism no longer holds the dominance it once held as a learning theory. Discontent with behaviorism’s “thoughtless” approach to learning, cognitivism and its subcategories of multiple intelligence, brain-based learning and learner-style learning have usurped behaviorism as the most widely acceptable and utilized theories today. While behaviorist theories explain learning in terms of strictly observable behavior with the learner as a passive recipient of knowledge through stimulus-response interaction with the environment, cognitivists view the learner as an active participant in the learning process. Cognitivist place greater interest in knowledge, meaning, intentions, feelings, creativity, expectations and thoughts as well as cognitive structures and processes such as memory, perception, problem-solving, comprehension, attention, and concept- learning (Lucksinger, 2001). Despite the major difference between the two theories—the fact that behaviorists do not take into account the mental processes that underlie cognitive learning theory—cognitivists and behaviorists share similar beliefs. Both believe learning theories should be objective and based upon the results of empirical research. Both observe the responses individuals make to different stimulus conditions. Both theories believe in feedback. Both discuss the impact environment has upon the learner. Finally, both believe experience impacts learning. There are, of course differences within the specifics of each theory. As do modern day cognitivists, behaviorists held the belief that learning theory should be objectively based upon the results of empirical evidence. However, behaviorists could not study the internal cognitive processes that produce the responses they recorded because the technology was non-existent. “Behaviorists chose not to incorporate mental events into their learning theories, arguing that such events were impossible to observe and measure and so could not be studied objectively” (Grau, 1995). The inventor of operant conditioning, Skinner (1950) states, “When we attribute behavior to a neural or mental event, real or conceptual, we are likely to forget that we still have the task of accounting for the neural or mental event” ( para. 5). The behaviorists used paper and pencil t-tests while the cognitive revolution roughly follows advances in computer technology. Most of the great behavioral theorists have died since the advent of major technological advances in the computer age. Though in disagreement over whether mental processes are involved, both learning theories believe environmental feedback is important to learning and that strengthened associations result from repetition. Beginning with Thordike and Watson’s animal studies, classical conditioning emphasizes the roles of environmental conditions (stimuli) and overt behavior (responses) as reinforcement in behavior. Animal behavior in mazes demonstrated that, with repetition, task completion could be attained in decreased time segments. Watson (the father of behavioral psychology) gave no credence to the belief that mental process was involved in these animal behaviors; feedback in the form of punishment, reward or negative and positive enforcement was needed to direct behaviors. Skinner expounded upon the stimulus-response idea in operant conditioning, which included immediate feedback as an integral part of the learning process. Cognitivists agree that reward helps influence learning and behavior. They simply disagree as to the source of that reward. Brain-based studies have proven that the brain has an intrinsic reward system called endorphins. “Students who succeed usually feel good, and that’s reward enough for most of them” (Jensen, 1998, p. 65). Brain-based research also confirms another behaviorist view— repetition and learning efficiency. However, the efficiency does not result from outside influence, rather it results from changes in the brain’s physiology. “If we are repeating an earlier learning, there’s a good chance the neural pathways will become more and more efficient…through myelination” (Jensen, 1998, p.13). Cognitivists look more at how individuals process the stimuli they encounter. Like behaviorists, cognitivists also believe the environment has an impact upon the learner. Piaget held that the teacher should organize and support biologically and cognitively appropriate learning environments that include concrete to more abstract activities. The learner-centered and multiple intelligence theories stress that individuals perceive and process information in different ways and encourage the individualization of learning environments and teaching styles to accommodate these differences (Lucksinger, 2001). A final commonality of the two learning theories is the belief that prior experience has an impact upon learning. Skinner held that “each step in the learning process should be short and should arise from previously learned behavior” (as cited by Semple, 2000, para.10). Constructivist theory is founded on the premise that, by reflecting on our experiences, we construct our own understanding of the world. However, unlike behaviorism, constructivists believe learning is not the result of external stimulus response, but rather the process of adjusting our internal mental models to accommodate new experiences. In short, behaviorism and cognitivism are not such vastly different theories as one might first believe. There is room for application of many theories in the classroom if implemented by a competent, highly trained educator familiar with both the fitness of various techniques for individual students and the application of educational research. References

Grau, I. (1995). Cognitive psychology and its application to education. Clear Lake, TX: University of Houston, Technology and Learning Department. Retrieved April 26, 2001, from the World Wide Web: http://129.7.160.115/inst5931/index.html Jensen, E. (1998). Teaching with the brain in mind. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Lucksinger, L. (2001b). EDUC 5323: Learning theory class notes. Unpublished manuscript, Schreiner University, Kerrville, TX. Semple, A. (2000). Learning theories and their influence on the development and use of educational technologies. Australian Science Teachers Journal, 46(3), 21-27. Retrieved April 26, 2001, from EBSCOhost database (Academic Search Elite, AN: 3793265) Skinner, B. F. (1950). Are theories of learning necessary? Psychological Review, 57, 193-216. Retrieved April 27, 2001, from Classics in the History of Psychology database (York University, Toronto, Ontario) on the World Wide Web: http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/

-- Laura Davenport (rhode@ktc.com), April 28, 2001.

I was reading your article and in fact I think is very interesting for all the people who work in the teaching field,however, the purpose of this note is for asking you a question that in this moment I dont know. I´m student of the University of Chihuahua, Mexico and I have to hand in a paper about the differences between the concept of conservation of piget and Skinner. Could you send me some information about these differences? Or if there is a simmilariry could you let me know? Thank you before hand.

-- miguel angel maldonado olivas (mayke29@yahoo.com), February 13, 2002.

Laura,

I found your explanation very lucid and extremely useful. There's just one point I'd like to add to it. While Behaviorism and Cogntivism accept knowledge as an absolute, Constructivism sees it as a matter of individual perception and understanding.Correct me if I am wrong.

-- Jayashree Anand (jayashree_a@indiatimes.com), April 13, 2004.

It is difficult to generalize over the epistemologies of all cognitivists and all behaviorists. I don't think they would all agree on a single epistemology. I don't even think most of them *have* a considered, well-defended epistemology. They are scientists, not philosophers. That said, it is a common misperception that modern science believes in "absolute knowledge." Certainty was an issue for science in the time of Newton because science was beginning to take on the authority of the church, which claimed certainty itself. Since the middle of the 19th century, however, most scientists have recognizzed that no knowledge (of the world) is certain. To put it into epsitemological terms, scientists are almost all fallibilists. "Constructivism's" critique of traditional science in this respect is, therefore, misguided.

-- Christopher Green (cgreen@chass.utoronto.ca), April 13, 2004.

Hello,

I founnd the above articles extremely useful and interesting.

I think Darwin can be used to think about how he influenced Behaviourism and in turn Organisational management practices such as the reinforcement theory.

Im revising for exams at the moment so don't have time to write any more but i'll be back!

Leon

-- Leon Moosavi (l.moosavi@lancs.ac.uk), May 27, 2004.