Behavioural and Cognitive Approaches to Learning Comparison

Behavioural and Cognitive Approaches to discipline ComparisonComp are and contrast 2 perspectives in psychology and the ways in which they study breeding.The two perspectives chosen to be compared in this essay were the behavioral address to discipline and the cognitive approach. The behavioural approach to learning involves the observation of identifiable behavioural characteristics and rejects anything to do with thought processes or consciousness as it regards these features unrecognizably (Miell et al, 2002). Contrastingly, the cognitive approach focuses entirely upon thought processes and the faculties associated with the fancyual read/write head to understand the concept learning. In this appellative we will look at the ways in which these two fields hand provided support for the concept of learning, whilst appreciating the similarities and differences of either approach.The behavioural perspective was established by Watson. Concerned with the principles of objective scientific research, Watson rejected the vox populi of internal psychological mechanics as he believed that this could not be empirically measured (Miell et al, 2002). on the whole Watson was interested in was observable external phenomena, which meant behaviour. The emphasis that Watson and behaviourism put on the concept of learning was that of the association made by the organism to its external environment. This places the individual as a learning vas reacting to the environment. However, the end and nature of this relationship has been argued across the field of behaviourist research. A fundamental distinction amid the two approaches to learning within the field of behaviourism is within the notion of condition classical conditioning and operant conditioning. Research into classical conditioning was defined in principle by physiologist Pavlov (Miell et al, 2002). Pavlov observed that in relation to certain stimuli dogs behaviour could be conditioned through association. U sing the dogs biological result to hunger, Pavlov revealed in his tastes the basic principle relationship mingled with an observable stimulus and its learned retort as an outcome. His work indicated that a dogs natural reflex to hunger could be conditioned through the schmalzy association of a manipulated neutral stimulus. Essentially, he showed that pairing the noise of a bell with the introduction of provender the dog would salivate eventually learning through association that the bell signified food. This response was labelled the conditional response and the bell was labelled the conditional stimulus. In classical conditioning, we can see that learning is defined as a modification of behaviour caused by association and manipulation of environmental stimuli. However, the extent of intelligence involved in this general anatomy of learning is very limited.The second distinction in the behavioural approach is operant conditioning. Research conducted by Skinner gave insight i nto the notion of developmental or extended learning in the form of reward and positive regard (Skinner, 1948/1990). This approach assumed that animals were primarily interactional within the role of learning behaviours. Given a variety of different consequences for severally potential behaviour, it was believed that animals could reconcile what behaviour was best to adopt in any particular environment as it had learned and could obligate through relevant schemas. In Skinners experiment, he used rats and manipulated their environment through supporting to see to what extent their behaviour could be shaped through conditioned learning (Skinner, 1948/1990). Essentially, the rats in this experiment changed their behaviours through positive reinforcement, which provided evidence of learning. From these findings the role of discrimination between stimuli was believed to be understood in the form of shaping. What had been established in both forms of behavioural models is that learn ing could be shaped through the manipulation of item stimuli in any environment. However, what underlines these behavioural models of learning is the idea that learning is no more than a response to certain stimuli under manipulative environmental conditioning. This is where we can see a significant difference between that of the behavioural approach and that of the cognitive.The cognitive approach addresses the human capacity to categorise, generalise and conceptualise certain phenomena (Miell, 2002). in the beginning concerned with the functioning of the mind within learning with the mind this approach, concerns itself primarily with notions such as memory, percept and categorisation (Miell, 2002). Interested in the role of perception and memory within the role of category learning, the psychologist Bruner et al, devised a test to see how we constructed categories. dissimilar conditioning, Bruner suggested that this was an engaging intelligent procedure performed by way of hypo thesis interrogatory stages of acceptance and rejection based upon trial (Bruner et al, 1956). A variety of shapes were used in a variety of conditions. approximately of these shared the same number of shapes, some the same colour of shape and others the same number of borders. No two varieties were identical. From the results of this experiment, Bruner et al surmised that there were two forms of learning that had been present. Firstly, successive scanning, which entertained one hypothesis at a time and secondly, conservative scanning, which sought to eliminate classes of hypotheses such as border, number of shapes, colour (Bruner et al, 1956). Unlike the behavioural approach, we can see from these experiments that an attempt is being made to understand the operation of the intelligent mind with regards to learning through categorisation. However, categorisation as a learning process is not accepted by everyone in the field of cognitive psychology. Although much of the research t hat had gone to indicate that attributes revealed that a prior friendship or experience was active and influential in category learning (Kaplan Murphy, 2000), many argue that the categories are innate (Fodor Chomsky, 1980). This argument does strengthen the behavioural notion that the conceptual structure of the mind is open to interpretation, and so cannot be as valuable as the observable findings of the behaviourist approach.In each approach we have seen an emphasis on the nature of learning. We have seen that this emphasis on learning is different in each approach. One approach is essentially concerned with the extent to which behaviour can be shaped by the environment and how this relationship can be observed through association and shaping. Whilst the other approach seems to be only concerned with how the environment is categorised by the organism and how it subsequently applies that to a concept of morphological framework. However, both agree on the fundamental principle t hat learning is done in conjunction with the environment.BibliographyBruner, J, S., Goodnow, J, J., and Austin, G, A., (1956) A Study of Thinking New York John Wiley and Sons.Chomsky, N., and Fodor, J, A., (1980) Statement of the Paradox, in Piatelli Palmarini, M. (ed.).Miell, D., Phoenix, A. and Thomas, K. (2002) Mapping Psychology 1. Milton Keynes, Open University.Kaplan, A, S., and Murphy, G, L., (2000) family Learning with Minimal Prior Knowledge, Journal of Experimental Psychology, 26, 4, 829-846.Skinner, B, F., (1946/1990) Walden Two London Collier Macmillan.