Behaviorist Theory Comparison Essay

Structuralism is the study of the parts and elements that make up the mind while; the key difference between structuralisms and functionalism was in the fundamentally different questions that they asked. Structuralisms asked, what are the elementary contents, the structures, of the human mind? Functional psychology was concerned with mind in use, what the mind does for us. Nevertheless; functionalists asked – what do people do; and also why do they do it? Just as the structuralisms were concerned with the structure of mental life, the functionalisms were concerned with the functions of mental processes and structures.

Conversely, the attribution theory deduces the cause of behavior from behavioral consequences. Hence, the attribution is the causal explanation and inference that the observers make to predict and evaluate human behavior. In summary, attribution is seeking causes of results. That is to say, people analyze their own behavior or others by utilizing their perceptions, thoughts, judgments and so on, and then they find out and explain the reasons for those behaviors. Therefore, attribution is an important component of human cognitive process, as well as an important influence on the formation of self-concepts.

Introduction The aim of this paper is to integrate the philosophical and practical assumptions of psychoanalytic/psychodynamic and the person-centered school. Taking the psychodynamic approach as the core theoretical orientation, the propositions of other schools of psychotherapy may be integrated to formulate client problem as well as inform treatment. This paper will begin with outlining the key philosophies of the psychoanalytic/psychodynamic and person-centered approach, followed by their points of contact and opposition as well as their strengths and weakness. Secondly, an integrated framework may be briefly explained. I will continue the discussion with my personal stance relating to the therapies.

However, Paul (1990) criticized these definitions, since he believes that these definitions rely on concepts such as reasonableness or reflectivity that are not defined well. Elder and Paul (1994) assert that critical thinking is the ability of thinkers to take control of their own thinking and develop logical criteria and standards for analyzing and evaluating their own thinking. “These definitions emphasize the metacognitive aspect of critical thinking, independent thinking, and the importance of learning to assess thinking (your own or someone else’s) according to normative standards” (Reed, 1998, p.19). Some researchers believe that the origin of these differences has rested in the various theories and models in two distinct disciplines: philosophy and psychology study. Reed (1998) claims that philosophers have focused on the nature and quality of the products and outcome of critical thinking.

Attempting to make sense of what makes people who they are has been a persisting challenge in the world of personality psychology. Personality can be defined as a pattern of relatively permanent traits and unique characteristics that give both consistency and individuality to a person 's behaviour (Feist and Feist, 2009). Several theories and models have been developed over time to better understand the human personality.Type theories are the early perspective, which suggest that there are a limited number of personality ‘types’ related to biological influences. Psychoanalytic theorists such as Freud and Bowlby emphasise the influence of the unconscious, mental conflict and drive. Behavioural theories suggest that personality is a result of

Why Do We Stereotype? Stereotypes are a set of beliefs and generalisations that someone may hold about a particular group of people however, they are not necessarily truthful or reflect reality. There have been several approaches which attempt to explain why we stereotype. There are both evolutionary and social psychological explanations for why we stereotype, which I will be comparing in this essay. Why is it important that we understand why we stereotype- help us reduce prejudice The first theory I will be discussing is the evolutionary theory.

In this essay, I will discuss the key premises of symbolic interaction as well as consider the ways in which symbolic interaction promotes the view that people have agency. I will then put forth the argument that conflict theorists make with respect to schools reproducing the culture of the dominant class. In relation, I will mention in what ways this perspective promotes the view that people are constrained by social structure. Finally, I will discuss the dialectical relationship between structure and agency "Symbolic interactionism has come into use as a label for a relatively distinctive approach to the study of human group life and human conduct." (Blumer, H (1969) p. 1).

What is behaviorism? Behaviorism is theory of learning that relies on an observable behavior that are based on two different types of conditioning, one is the Classical Condition and the other is Behavioral Conditioning. In Classical Condition, also known as Pavlovian Conditioning, the theory is that the brain forms an automatic response through an association with a stimulus. Whereas in Operant Condition, a positive and negative reinforcement is used to create an association between opposing behaviors and the consequences for those behaviors. Though both are different in terms of conditioning, they each help us understand the way we learn and emotional response to certain subjects.

These components are of particular interest to social psychologists because they have the potential to give insight into what impression one person will form of another (Millon, 2003). 2. Explain how a person would use this theory in order to enhance his or her impression management. An individual can use the implicit theory for both impression management and impression formation

Bandura describes an agent as someone who intentionally influences one’s functioning and life circumstances; “In this view, people are self-organizing, proactive, self-regulating, and self-reflecting. They are contributors to their life circumstances not just products of them” (Bandura, 2005, p. 1). Self-Efficacy was developed by Albert Bandura’s as part of a larger theory, the Social Learning Theory (Ashford & LeCroy, 2010), which has progressed into the Social Cognitive Theory (Levin, Culkin, & Perrotto, 2001). Social Cognitive Theory was presented by Bandura in