ABSTRACT
In recent decades, various studies have challenged the traditional view that John Broadus Watson's Behaviorist Manifesto prompted a psychological revolution. However, methodological hindrances underlie all these attempts to evaluate the impact of Watson's study, such as the absence of comparative parameters. This article remedies this problem by conducting a comparative citation analysis involving Watson and eight other representative psychologists of the time: J. R. Angell, H. Carr, J. M. Cattell, J. Dewey, G. S. Hall, W. James, E. L. Thorndike, and E. B. Titchener. Eight important American journals were scrutinized for the period between 1903 and 1923, a decade before and a decade after the publication of Watson's Manifesto. The results suggest that even if Watson's study cannot be taken as revolutionary, it had an impact between 1914 and 1923 that was close to Dewey's, Titchener's, and Thorndike's and higher than Angell's, Carr's, Cattell's, and Hall's, although distant from James's. Finally, some methodological implications of this study are discussed.
Subject(s)
Behaviorism/history , Psychology/history , History, 20th Century , Humans , United StatesABSTRACT
The emergence of novel behavior is a multilayered phenomenon that comprehends distinct processes. One such process is known as insightful problem solving. "Insight" can be explained as the spontaneous interconnection of previously acquired behavioral repertoires. The objective of this study was to investigate: (1) whether capuchin monkeys (Sapajus spp.) do show the interconnection of repertoires, and (2) whether different performances of problem solving could be produced by different training histories. Two repertoires were independently trained: (a) joining two pieces of a tool to manufacture a new tool and (b) raking food with one tool. In the test situation, food was out of reach, and two joinable pieces of a tool, different from the ones used in training, were presented. To solve the problem, the monkeys had to join the two pieces and rake the food with the new manufactured tool. In Experiment 1, one monkey received symmetric training (equal number of sessions) of both repertoires and solved the task, but not in an insightful manner. In Experiment 2, six monkeys were divided into two groups: one group received symmetric training, and the second group had asymmetrical training of the repertoires (unequal number of sessions). Subjects from the symmetric group performed as the monkey in Experiment 1; subjects from the other group showed a sudden insightful solution of the problem. The different performances in the same problem situation can be explained in terms of the behavioral history provided to each group of subjects.