How Watson Inspired The Course Of Psychology
John Broadus Watson, also known as the ‘Father of Behavioural Psychology’ was an American psychologist, who propounded and furthered the logical theorization of behaviourism in the discipline of psychology. Watson’s career in psychology spanned for over 20 years, post which he left academia to pursue a career in advertising. However, before stepping down, Watson made some groundbreaking contributions in the field, as a result of which the path of psychology was profoundly moved, especially through his work, which came to be known as ‘The Behaviourist Manifesto,’ in 1913.
Watson was of the opinion that mentalistic conceptions in the province of psychology were not as substantial as external influences. He staunchly affirmed the importance of observable and objective phenomena in determining human behaviour. His ideology was conspicuous and rooted in transcending the premise of the ‘mental state’ that was previously affirmed by psychologists like Sigmund Freud and Carl Gustav Jung.
Since Watson established the behaviourist school of psychology, he contended that his approach followed an objective and purposive route, and deemed behaviourism’s objectivity as foundational in rendering psychology as natural science. His methodology essentially developed on the principles of classical conditioning, and he was heavily influenced by his counterparts, B.F. Skinner and Ivan Pavlov, who were esteemed behaviourists of the time.
Watson held the conviction that behavioural psychology could serve as a mechanism to regulate and predict behaviour in society while proliferating its state. According to him, psychology held the capacity to transform and socially engineer valuable changes, especially in the American context. He upheld pragmatic propositions, and fostered contribution in the growth of applied psychology. Watson also believed that behavioural psychology was proficient in holding the ability to control other fields of thought, discipline and practice, such as law, business and medicine.
A pioneer in the field, Watson was scientifically driven to induce social change through the modes of heredity and environment. He believed that an individual’s environment played a great role in determining their behaviours, actions and choices, and thus, these factors would be modified through conditioning.
Watson is recognised for his experimental demonstration as well; however, in this day and age, his laboratory practices and investigations have been critiqued as unethical and inhuman, as seen in his experiment — The Little Albert. An inference is drawn from scrutinizing a child’s response to a stimulus, proving that conditioning triggers a biological response. As per Watson, this kind of response could be sustained and generalized, and could only be discerned in a reflex or as an outcome of history.
His concern in behavioural psychology was predominantly with the study of action-reaction responses, which he perceived as foundational in making the field objective, and a component of natural science.
Watson held progressive ideas, that became important for social analysis, and were deemed as philosophically relevant. He held the conviction that his behavioural and cognitive approach could provide experimental data to scrutinize the function of environmental conditions while rectifying social illnesses in wider society. He identified two primary hereditary modes of response, the emotional response and the instinctive response. Later, while progressing in the field, he embraced environmentalism and believed that it shaped the structure of hereditary responses. He also asserted that instinct was a product of conditioned behaviours, that were learned through objective practices.
Regardless of his colossal influence in the discipline of psychology, many modern-day psychologists believe that his ostensibly revolutionary ideas were misguided, and exaggerated the scope of his findings. While Watson challenged the mainstream position of mentalistic models in the field with a fair amount of conviction and interest, many scholars and psychologists render them as nonscientific, biased, and incapable of being rationally impressed in asserting influence on other empirical approaches in natural sciences.
