It may be a surprise to some, but there are quite a few Latter-day Saint scientists who would describe themselves as "behaviorists." My essay will try to explain why.
Latter-day Saint college students often take introductory psychology, but they too often walk away from the course rejecting B. F. Skinner and his principles of behaviorism. The usual reason is that Skinner's radical behaviorism seems to eliminate any concept of free agency and a role for the "cognitive mind." According to Skinner, learned behavior is strictly a product of the environment.
Actually, behaviorism is just a conservative scientific perspective that restricts itself to observed behavior. This approach to the study of behavior avoids inferences about what is happening inside the head. "Mental" events or private events may exist, but they are merely behaviors (needing their own explanation); they should NOT be viewed as causes of behavior.
Behaviorists are interested in how one can predict and control behavior by manipulating the environment and the organism's history within the environment. Skinner was particularly interested in how behavior is changed by its consequences – such as positive and negative reinforcements.
Behaviorists would simply proclaim that they are interested in cataloging what works in controlling behavior. They are unconcerned about generating fancy theories about what is percolating inside the head.
The concern of behavioral science is what works. Latter-day Saint scientists should NOT be against what works – as long as procedures are performed ethically.
Let me give a simple example:
My mother was (and is) a faithful Latter-day Saint with a career as a 3rd grade teacher. She actively used behavioral principles in controlling her classroom.
For example, she kept a Mason jar prominently placed on her desk, partially full of marbles. When her students were quiet and doing their work, she would announce to the class that she was putting five more marbles into the jar. When the students were noisy, disruptive, and failing to do their work, my mother would threaten to remove five marbles from the jar – and sometimes she did.
Why did this procedure control the classroom? My mother had set up a contingency. The class knew that once the jar was completely full of marbles they could have a short party (consisting of milk, cake, and other simple treats).
Putting marbles in the jar reinforced "good" classroom behavior. When my mother threatened to take marbles out of the jar, the classroom immediately policed itself. Students would shout out, "Quiet down" or "Do your work."
I directly observed these procedures work, as my mother allowed me to watch her on occasion while I was a college student. (I even considered becoming an elementary school teacher).
Again, behaviorists are interested in cataloging such techniques and documenting how well they work. They would be very interested in how the technique improved overall education.
Skinner would have been very proud of my mother. Who could be against that?
Now I suppose there are LDS philosophers who would be upset that such principles neglect agency and the children's individual thoughts and personality. But, if I were a 3rd grade teacher I would be more concerned that my students had an effective environment in which to learn. The "internal" issues raise by the philosophers are just distractions.
Admittedly, there are plenty of Latter-day Saint psychologists who say they reject behaviorism. Interestingly, these individuals often accept behavioral data (such as in my mother's example above). This is strange to me, because behaviorism is in THE data.
Given my respect for behavioral principles that work, I wrote a few verses for my own entertainment. Those who have taken some psychology courses and who have read Ecclesiastes will understand some of the nuances.
By S. Faux
To every thing there is a Skinner, and a schedule to every reinforcement under heaven.
A time to press levers, and a time to rest; a time to peck and a time to eat seed.
A time to reward and a time to punish; a time to build up, and a time to break down.
A time to laugh and a time to cuss. A time to damn the golf club, and a time to dance on the green.
A time to cast away the golf ball, and a time to find it in the rough.
A time to win, and a time to lose. A time to teach Skinner, and a time to teach ...
EVEN more Skinner.
A time to move, and a time to stay still. A time to speak, and a time to be spoken to.
A time to love the RIGHT and a time to hate the WRONG. A time of war and a time of peace.
What profit ye worketh as a Behaviorist wherein ye laboreth!!!!! Whatsoever works in in Skinnerianism .... IS NOT IN VAIN.
Now, I am prepared for readers to make comments to the effect that, "S.Faux, this is just one more area in which you have LOST YOUR MARBLES." No problem. I am pleased to be the lone voice in the wilderness on occasion.
Science ultimately can have no bearing on Church doctrine. Behaviorism is no different. Even so, Latter-day Saints need not fear "marbles in a jar." If science works and does no harm, then there is no rational reason to reject it.
Just as I would urge non-LDS individuals to keep an open "mind" about the Latter-day Saints before jumping to conclusions, … I would urge the same to the LDS about behaviorism. Learning is good (thank you to Wade Carpenter for reminding me). It is best not to avoid it.
Copyright 2009 S.Faux (Email: foxgoku54 [at] gmail [d0t] c0m; URL: http://mormoninsights.blogspot.com). Readers may distribute this post for noncommercial purposes provided such distributing is of the entire post, including author's copyright and contact information. All other rights reserved.
Please feel free to give my blog site a "Blogged.com" rating and review by clicking here.
Support Mormon Insights by making a COMMENT.
17 comments:
I"m thinking about my own children as I read this. I have some children who, even though there was class pressure to behave so that they could receive a reward, still wouldn't comply if they didn't feel like it. I think that's where the free agency comes in. We do try to behaviorally "mold" our children so that they will learn to obey the commandments and live a Christlike life. I"m sure that does influence greatly their mind. But there are plenty of people, who after being taught what is right, still choose to turn away from what they were taught. The free agency is there, it hasn't been removed.
I am surprised to read this sort of article on your website. I thought that only psychologists like myself were aware of the Sinnerian backlash in the community of LDS psychologists. Skinner was the whipping boy in most of my graduate courses at BYU. There were a few devout behaviorists like Paul Robinson and another guy who did not make tenure, but they are all gone now. Behaviorism get's nothing more than lip service nowadays. It has been relegated to the footnote status that Freud has fallen to.
The fall of behaviorism is discipline wide. 20 years ago there were behaviorism graduate programs across the country, now there are pretty much none.
Personally I was always sympathetic to Behaviorism, although I tried not to let those sentiments out in some of my classes. You see, like you I see the utility in the principles of operant conditioning, so let's use them where we can and give Skinner credit where credit is due.
One of my most memorable experiences on the 11th floor of the SWKT building at BYU was building a skinner box and training my baby chick to tap on a red dot using the Fixed Ratio reinforcement schedule.
Good article SFaux, although I am curious about how you learned about this issue.
Dave C:
My speciality is cognitive neuroscience and evolutionary psychology. However, I have presented multiple papers over the years at the Association for Behavior Analysis, which is a growing behavioral organization (by leaps and bounds). My PhD advisor was Harold Miller.
Contrary to your claim, there are many notable graduate programs with a focus on behaviorism, such as Western Michigan, West Virginia, Auburn, and Nevada, Reno, just to name of few.
Applied behavior analysis is a critical field in the treatment of autism. Thus, the field is hardly dying, although I will admit some psychology graduate programs ignore the area, to their own fault.
Thanks for your comment, as I was hoping you would respond. Actually, I am pleased you were not entirely negative.
Re: "Contrary to your claim, there are many notable graduate programs with a focus on behaviorism, such as Western Michigan, West Virginia, Auburn, and Nevada, Reno, just to name of few."
I'll adjust my statement. There are far fewer behavioral programs than 20 years ago, at least in Canada where I came from.
When I arrived at BYU I wanted to do the behavioral program, but it was slashed during my first year in the masters program.
If the behavioral organization you belong to is growing, then would you say that sub disciplines are recyling? Structuralism used to reign supreme; now cognitive sub disciplines are popular, representing a return to the Structuralist paradigm.
Dave C:
To me, the return to structuralism amounts to not much more than a neo-phrenology. I believe in localization of (some) function, but I resist trying to localize "moral judgment," "wisdom," and the "central executive."
So, indeed, some recycling of the fields seems to be happening. Behavior analysis is on its way back!!
I am not an orthodox or radical behaviorist. But, I am sympathetic to many of their causes.
S.Faux,
Oops. I meant to say that cognition is sort of like recycled Functionalism (not Structuralism). Sorry about that.
Anyway, one thing is certain; the chances of phrenology recycling are pretty slim, kind of like the chances of disco recycling.
Hmmm? Suddenly I've got a hankering for some BeeGees.
----Oh no----
Dave C:
Well, I meant what I said. I am preparing a manuscript on the topic. Too many fMRI studies have over interpreted their data, and they have become a form of unconstrained structuralism.
Fun post.
Did you ever read "Love at Goon Park: Harry Harlow and the Science of Affection"?
And tell me what you think about cognitive behavioral therapy (my personal favorite, so go easy if you're opposed).
I am somewhat familiar with Skinner and behaviorism from my studies in psychology, sociology, and social work, but I'm clearly not an expert. As a former social worker and current father of five, I've certainly had ample experience with attempting to modify behavior by altering or manipulating the environment.
My observation is that a changed response to an altered environment occurs (or doesn't occur) based on what the change MEANS to the individual (in the vast majority of cases). I would wager that your mother's threats to remove marbles from the jar resulted in changed behavior not in and of itself, but as a result of the meaning and value her students associated with that threat. Similarly, other students shouting "Quiet down" is effective only if it means something to others. So while I agree that cognition is private, I can't bring myself to ignore or dismiss it.
I raised my children for a time using a token economy system. Part of my inspiration, I confess, was Skinner's "Walden Two." Tokens were earned by doing work and privileges were purchased with tokens. It worked, but often for the wrong reasons.
Revelation occurs in our minds and heart (D&C 8). It hopefully is a cause of - and not simply a correlation with - behavior.
I do not reject behaviorism or Skinner. He is an eminently practical psychologist (remember the guided missile systems using birds?). I just think the behaviorist perspective doesn't incorporate something of critical importance.
For a fascinating view of how LITTLE a role cognition plays in decision making and behavior, see "The Unbearable Automaticity of Being" by John A. Bargh and Tanya L. Chartrand.
Elizabeth:
Thanks for the book recommendation. I am well aware of Harlow and the work done at Wisconsin.
I have no problem with cognitive behavioral therapy. I understand it is quite effective in depression and other disorders. I am NO expert on therapy.
Thanks for reading and commenting. I always enjoy hearing from you.
Dee:
Again, thanks for your astute comments. I found myself agreeing with almost everything.
Sometimes our failures with behavior modification are really failures in application. I tried to potty train Son#3 using candy as a reinforcement. His efficiency in using the potty did not increase, but his frequency of using the potty did. Fortunately, by other means he eventually learned.
Any science is a bad source to obtain theology, as you know. Behaviorism is no exception. Even so, there is much good we can learn from it.
You and I are closer on the same page than I have realized.
I thought about you yesterday when sitting with a patient who was young, and from an evangelical background. He was starting to question the teachings of his youth (Biblical literalism).
It was all I could do to keep my mouth shut about referring him to some of your posts about evolution. I'm sure his parents would not have been pleased (ethics aside), so I kept a neutral stance. :)
Elizabeth,
I am honored that you would even think of such. Yes, you acted ethically by keeping your mouth shut.
Although my university espouses academic freedom, I do not exactly feel free, because I cannot tell my students all I know. Actually, this blog is my means of release.
I was quite fond of Skinner back in my business classes in the 70's. As noted by Delirious, agency is not lost; rather, it is used when choosing to respond to the loss/gain of marbles. If the child chooses to disrupt, knowing marbles will be lost, he exercises his agency. If he chooses to behave, he exercises his agency. Are the Skinner deriders more concerned about not choosing the consequences of actions, such choices never being available, anyways???
I just found this site. I am a PhD student of 'behaviorism' at the Unversity of Kansas, which is one of the early centers of Applied Behavior Analysis.
One comment that I have is that while there are fewer departments that are completely devoted to Skinner's behavior analysis, there are behaviorists in many (~75%) of all psychology and special education departments. Some conceal their true identities by listing their research areas as 'learning and motivation' rather than 'operant behavior'.
There is one other LDS graduate student in my program that I know of. Utah State has a nice ABA program in both special ed. and psychology, and there are some LDS grad students there.
Rather than shrinking, ABA is growing. One can look at the Association for Behavior Analysis - that organization used to be very small - now, the conference is huge. The young behavior analysts (mostly in autism ABA) are by far the greatest population represented there.
Let me list some programs that I know have behaviorists:
Teachers College, Columbia University; University of Florida, Psychology; Ohio State University, Special Education; Western Michigan; Auburn; University of California, San Diego; University of California, Santa Barbara; Louisiana State University, School Psychology; Cal State LA, Psychology; University of Kansas; St. Cloud State University; Utah State University; Vanderbilt, Special Education; University of Oregon, Special Education; University of Nebraska-Lincoln, School Psychology; Sam Houston, School Psychology; West Virginia; University of Vermont, postdocs in drug abuse; Nova Southeastern; University of Nevada-Reno; Western New England College; Southern Illinois University, Behavior Analysis and Therapy.
That is all I can name off the top of my head.
B. Hansen:
Best wishes to your PhD work at Kansas.
You sustained my points. Behaviorism is on the upswing, and psychologists ignore the field at their own peril.
THANKS!!
Here is an interesting quote from the Association of Mormon Counselors and Psychotherapists Journal by Allen Bergin:
"I remember a visit by B. F. Skinner there [Columbia]. Someone in the audience asked him: "What do you think about God, etc." and he said, "Well, I'm an atheist." In a private discussion over lunch on another occasion he told me a very interesting story he had been reading that morning about an account of a carving that had been found in Central America. This carving was of an earring and in the earring was the Star of David. In the New York Times that morning there was an analysis of transmission of culture from the middle east to Central America and the American hemisphere. At lunch, [p.4] before me and three other professors, he asked whether we had read the article and what we thought about it. We discussed it somewhat and he said, "Well, you know the thesis presented in that article is what the Book of Mormon teaches." Everyone sat back and wondered what he was going to say next. All of them knew that I was a Mormon bishop at the time except him. He then said, "Wouldn't it really upset everybody if Joseph Smith actually was right?" No one laughed except him and me. So even though he said he was an atheist and I got nowhere talking to him about religion, he did have a tenderness and an openness to possibilities that he doesn't usually state in public."
B.Hansen:
Skinner was born in 1904 in Susquehanna, Penn., Mormon country. He knew the basic stories about Joseph Smith in that part of the country. See, e.g., Particulars of My Life (p. 111), part 1 of his 3 volume autobiography. I have all 3 volumes sitting on my bookshelf next to this very computer where I post my blogs.
By the way, the scientist in me is VERY skeptical of any claims about a Star of David artifact found in Central America.
Post a Comment