Classical behaviorism and radical behaviorism are two influential approaches to understanding behavior in psychology, and they differ primarily in their perspectives on internal mental states.
Classical Behaviorism: This approach, associated with figures like John B. Watson, focuses solely on observable behaviors. Classical behaviorists believe that all behaviors are learned through interaction with the environment. They argue that internal states, such as thoughts and feelings, are not necessary to understand behavior. For example, a child who cries when they see a stranger may be seen merely as responding to a stimulus, rather than analyzing any underlying fear or emotional response.
Radical Behaviorism: B.F. Skinner, a key figure in the development of radical behaviorism, expanded on classical behaviorism by emphasizing that while behavior is influenced by the environment, it also acknowledges the role of internal mental states. However, radical behaviorism views these internal states as behaviors in themselves and insists that they, too, can be studied scientifically. For instance, if that same child cries in the presence of a stranger, a radical behaviorist might consider not only the observable crying but also the underlying thought processes, like fear or anxiety, as part of the behavioral analysis.
Example: To illustrate the difference, consider a scenario where a dog is trained to sit on command. A classical behaviorist would focus on the process of reinforcement (such as giving the dog a treat) that shapes the behavior of sitting. They would not delve into what the dog might be ‘thinking’ or feeling during the training. In contrast, a radical behaviorist might not only analyze the reinforcement but would also consider the dog’s internal motivations, such as the desire to please its owner or the anticipation of a reward. Both perspectives offer valuable insights but diverge significantly in their treatment of internal mental states.