Ben Holmes By the time William James had begun teaching courses at Harvard, the fledgling science of psychology

was in the process of a paradigm shift. Opposed to the goals that Wundt had set out for psychology, James began to articulate what would become the core principles of American functionalism (p. 136). Namely, he advocated that psychology focus on how human beings utilize consciousness to adapt to their environment. On the contrary, John Watson argued that consciousness should have no place in psychological study. He was only interested in studying objectively observable behavior. His interest in making psychology a natural science on par with physics spoke to Watsons ultimate goal: to use psychology to predict and control behavior (p. 220). Harry Harlow was a behaviorist who conducted studies on the social isolation of monkeys. Despite being a behaviorist in practice, Harlow was open to studying such complex concepts as love and he favored mentalistic interpretations to explain why the monkeys behaved as they did. William James produced the work in psychology that came immediately prior to the rise of the functionalist school of thought (p. 131). Despite the fact that James functionalism adhered to experimental standards, he was not an experimentalist in any sense. He did not believe the ends justified the means in terms of the kind of production coming out of experimental psychology. His Principles of Psychology was articulately written, and it is regarded as one of the greatest contributions to psychology today. Unlike Wundt, James was concerned with studying how people use consciousness to adapt to their environment. He proposed that sensations do not exist in consciousness, rather that they are products of subjective analysis and interpretation. Instead of consisting of mental elements, James argued that consciousness is a unity that is constantly in flux. He coined the term stream of consciousness to refer to the nature

Ben Holmes of the mental sphere as something that would be obfuscated by any attempt to reduce it to component parts. In short, James focused on the purpose of consciousness. He proposed that consciousness had helped humans adapt to their environment over time. Its mere existence was evidence for this. Since James psychology put such great emphasis on consciousness, it is not surprising that he championed introspection as a core method. Like Watson and the other behaviorists, he was aware of the problems with introspection and he regarded it as an imperfect method of observation. Despite this, he believed that it could be improved with control and by increasing inter-observer reliability. As well as introspection and experimentation, James advocated the comparative method. He believed that by examining the minds of various populations, psychologists may compare and discover similarities among the consciousness of those studied. Thus, James advocated a variety of methods to study psychology. James ideas regarding emotions were opposite to the contemporary theory on the nature of emotional states. He proposed that the natural way of thinking about emotions was wrong (James, 189). Psychologists supposed that the mental experience of an emotion immediately preceded the bodys reaction to it. On the other hand, James argued that the subjective experience of an emotion came after the bodys reaction (James, 190). He posited that the bodily changes as they occur define the mental presence of an emotion. James proposed evidence for this conclusion in the fact that if humans did not experience subjective physiological changes, they would not experience any emotion. As the founder of the behaviorist school of thought, John Watson held many ideas contrary to William James. However, his early academic career shows that he was interested in

Ben Holmes using animal subjects like James. Watsons coworkers claim that he lacked the temperament for introspective methods. This indictment may have pushed Watson towards founding his brand of objective psychology. After inheriting the department chair at Johns Hopkins University, Watson was thrust into the spotlight of American psychology. Around the turn of the century, Watson began to think more seriously about a behavioral psychology. In 1913, Watson published an article in the Psychological Review which marked the formal launch of behaviorism as a school of thought. Like James, Watson wanted his behaviorism to yield useful insights. A pragmatist, Watson would later use his behaviorism to sell products to American consumers. Behaviorism as Watson envisioned it was a direct assault on older schools of thought. Unlike William James, Watson proclaimed that introspection had no place in psychological science (Watson, 158). Additionally, he asserted that psychology was to be the purely objective science of behavior and that it was not concerned with consciousness (Watson, 158). Watson was insistent on studying only that which could be objectively observed. Despite these facts, Watson allowed verbal reports in his laboratory at the expense of much criticism from scholars. Watson was critical of William James position on emotions. From Watsons behavioristic standpoint, the conscious processes involved would be entirely omitted and the emotions could be described in terms of the observed S-R interaction. On the whole, the goal for Watsons behaviorism was to predict and control behavior as well as reduce it to S-R units. Harry Harlow was a psychologist who, like Watson and James, was interested in conducting animal research. It is clear that he adheres to behaviorist ideas, as Watson did, since he states that the basic motives consist of primary and secondary drives (Harlow, 673). Harlow begins The Nature of Love by stating that the mission of psychologists is to investigate all

Ben Holmes aspects of human and animal behavior by reducing them to their elemental components (Harlow, 673). This assertion would seem to place Harlow on the side of the functionalists, but he was indeed a behaviorist. The components he is referring to are likely analogous to Watsons S-R units distinction. Harlow was indeed a behaviorist, but his chosen topics of study indicate he was a different sort of behaviorist than Watson. In his research on the social isolation of monkeys, Harlow discovered something that a behaviorist would be unlikely to predict. When given a choice, young monkeys were found to be more likely to interact with a soft cloth mother than a wire mother who provided food. Given that the wire mother supplied reinforcement, a behaviorist would undoubtedly conclude that infant monkeys would be more likely to attach to the wire mother. However, since the opposite happened, Harlow had to reconcile this information with commonly held beliefs regarding childrearing. The implication of this study was that a much greater emphasis on physical contact has been and continues to be placed on child rearing.