Moreover, behaviorists who collected objective data aim to follow a scientific tradition and make generalizable claims. Seeking objectivity usually requires a collection of behavioral data, the use of the outsider viewpoint. Behaviorism used the quantitative approach, their data is quantified and the analyses are statistical. Watson, the founder of behaviorism, made excessive claims, by explaining the basic stimulus-response psychology and going far beyond the available empirical evidence,. He believed that conditioned responses could explain learning, thinking and emotion. He entirely denied consciousness, soul and mind and described psychology as a pure science of behavior. The goal of generalization has never been achieved by Watsonian behaviorism, because his prediction of all responses, given the stimulus has never been practically realized. However, Watson’s behaviorism can be described as “a magnificent failure”(Goodwin, 1999,p.317). His contribution to psychology as a study of behavior cannot be questioned. “ By making observable and measurable behavior the dependant variable, Watson ultimately helped place the field of psychology of firmer scientific ground” (Goodwin, 1999, p.318).
In contrast, Freud was strongly criticized for relying on a limited sample of case studies, for falsifying the data and for his theories, which were too subjective and unclear to be adequately tested. Psychoanalysis goal was to explore and understand people subjective experiences and meanings, and therefore generalizations were not possible. Freud used techniques like free association, dream analysis, treating thoughts and actions as symbols, thereby making his ideas difficult to trace and impossible to validate scientifically. He became obsessed with his idea about sexual motivation, by trying to explain the complex human behavior using only one broad motive. The psychoanalytic movement introduced the study of unconscious processes that influence human activity, which was denied by behaviourists. Edward Dolnick wrote in his book:” Though Freud and his followers thought of themselves as scientists, and did a very good job of fooling a good part of the rest of the world on this matter, their main methods of inquiry were not testable. These giants were pseudo-scientists in every sense of the term. They lacked the essential scepticism that marks true scientists.” ( 1998, p. 12)
In defense of psychoanalysis, Habermans suggests that after all psychoanalysis provides a direction for research and practice. Furthermore, he argues that” psychoanalysis is an instance of a particular kind of science, a ‘hermeneutic’ approach that is ‘ the only tangible example of a science incorporating methodological self-reflection ‘ (Habermans, 1972, p.214). The general argument that psychoanalysis is a knowledge from a different order, compare to the one of the experimental science, is a strong one. “The object of psychoanalytic knowledge is subjectivity, the flowing, changing, productive and disjointed experience that each of us has of ourselves and the world, and the pattern of linkages that this subjectivity has with external events. The criteria for evaluation of the correctness of theories in this area cannot be solely empirical or observational, because each approach operate on the wrong level to conceptualize or measure subjective experience”(Frosh, 1987,p.9). The aim of ‘hermeneutic’ approach is not to validate all psychoanalytic theories but to give a stronger voice to the search for a broader view of what constitutes knowledge, different from the one of experimental psychology. Limiting the uniqueness of human nature by using simple observational measurement or laboratory experiments is a way towards complete ignorance of all internal states in human existence. However, psychoanalysis has not followed the commitment to methodology, expressed in the systems generated by academic research and has never formulated systematic criteria against which new interpretations may be compared.
The behaviorism continued to evolve and develop after Watson. Hull and Skinner relied on a more experimental approach and their theories were based on intervening variables. Hull and Tolman’s theories differ significantly from each other. Hull relied on observable operations; Tolman used cognitive maps or expectancies, whereas Skinner simply looked for behavior that can be predicted and controlled. Hull’s experimental observations were guided by his hypothesis- testing strategy. His theory was the most structured and comprehensive and offered the most scientific framework.
Both movements, psychoanalysis and behaviorism, were profoundly influenced by the evolutionary theory. Although, their approaches to scientific method significantly differ, both movements have found a strong support in Darwin’s theory. On one hand, Freud’s believe about the importance of biological instincts in motivating behavior and the fact that behavior is not always rational, found strong support in Darwin’s thinking. The fact that sex and sexual reproduction of the species provides the foundation for evolution supported Freud’s emphasis on the idea of sexual motivation. On the other hand, the evolutionary thinking and the resulted animal research can explain to a certain degree the search of objectivity among behaviorists. Behaviorists believed that continuity between species allowed for general rules of behavior to be gathered from animals. Both approaches strongly emphasis the importance of the environment as a dominant force of shaping human behavior and also believed that research results should have practical applications.
Furthermore, both movements had an application in clinical psychology. Although psychoanalysis is fragmented, due to lack of methodological agreement, it had a strong impact on the medical practice in psychiatry and clinical psychology. The behavioral model of clinical application was called behavioral modification. Although behavioral modification has been controversial and strongly criticized because of its impersonal and mechanical basis, it plays an important role in behavioristic evolution.
The differences between both approaches to scientific method can explain to a certain degree the fact that psychoanalysis has no longer been a movement in psychology for the pats few decades and that contemporary behaviorism, as evolved and widely based system, is still a dominant force in psychology today.
In conclusion, both movements significantly differ from each other. The behavioristic approach to scientific method transformed psychology into empirical science, which has evolved and continued to evolve today as one of the dominant forces in psychology. On the other hand, psychoanalytic approach did not follow the tradition of empirical science and therefore cannot be described as scientific. However, the question about accepting different source of knowledge than the empirical one, still remains open.
Words count: 1465
References
Brennan, J.(2002). History and Systems of Psychology. New Jersey: Pearson Education Ltd.
Comte, A. (1847) cited in Goodwin, J. (1999). A History of Modern Psychology. New York: John Wiley& Sons, Inc.
Dolnick, E. (1998). Madness on the Couch: Blaming the Victim in the Heyday of Psychoanalysis. London: Simon and Schusfer.
Eysenck, H. (1985) cited in Frosh, S. (1987). The Politics of psychoanalysis. London: Macmillan Education Ltd.
Farrell, (1981) cited in Frosh, S. (1987). The Politics of psychoanalysis. London: Macmillan Education Ltd.
Frosh, S. (1987). The Politics of psychoanalysis. London: Macmillan Education Ltd.
Goodwin, J. (1999). A History of Modern Psychology. New York: John Wiley& Sons, Inc.
Habermas (1972) cited in Frosh, S. (1987). The Politics of psychoanalysis. London: Macmillan Education Ltd.
Leslie, J. (1986). Principles of Behavioral Analysis. Amsterdam: OPA
