Despite so much criticism on Freud's psychodynamic psychoanalytic approach his influence is still present in other psychology methods. I cannot see clearly its influence on Behaviourism, though.
Normally the differences are stressed between psychoanalysis and behaviorism, not similarities. But was there an influence of psychoanalysis? I am not sure, but I don't know the special literature.
1 Behavioural therapy rejects the speculation of psychoanalysis and is based exclusively on learning theory. The patient's past plays only a marginal role, Freud's psychoanalysis is nothing more than "analysis" of the patient's past biography, in search of childhood trauma. In evaluation studies, behavioural therapy has proven to be much more effective than psychoanalysis.
2 If one compares the basic theoretical assumptions, then they are completely different. Freud presupposed a drive theory and a permanent conflict between ICH and ES, which is the basis of supression. Watson analyses the behaviour and reactions on the basis of a strict S-R theory. Here the subjective statement should not distort the observed result. The well-known joke of psychological diagnostics can be applied well in comparison between psychoanalysis and behaviorism. Behaviorism measures very accurately and obtains values, but one does not know what they mean for the psyche. Psychoanalysis knows a lot about the psyche, but it has no criterion as to whether its diagnosis is true and the therapy (which basically never ends) has efficacy.
3 There are temporal connections between the emergence of both psychological schools: Freud wrote his main work, The Interpretation of Dreams, in 1900 and lectured on psychoanalysis in the USA in 1909, which was immediately enthusiastically received. But Freud's students (Alfred Adler, C.G. Jung and others) separated from him and developed their own therories. Watson published his pragmatic essay in 1913: apart from psychoanalysis and behaviorism, psychological therapy did not have much to offer; it was only after the Second World War that Carl Rogers developed client-centered therapy.
Normally the differences are stressed between psychoanalysis and behaviorism, not similarities. But was there an influence of psychoanalysis? I am not sure, but I don't know the special literature.
1 Behavioural therapy rejects the speculation of psychoanalysis and is based exclusively on learning theory. The patient's past plays only a marginal role, Freud's psychoanalysis is nothing more than "analysis" of the patient's past biography, in search of childhood trauma. In evaluation studies, behavioural therapy has proven to be much more effective than psychoanalysis.
2 If one compares the basic theoretical assumptions, then they are completely different. Freud presupposed a drive theory and a permanent conflict between ICH and ES, which is the basis of supression. Watson analyses the behaviour and reactions on the basis of a strict S-R theory. Here the subjective statement should not distort the observed result. The well-known joke of psychological diagnostics can be applied well in comparison between psychoanalysis and behaviorism. Behaviorism measures very accurately and obtains values, but one does not know what they mean for the psyche. Psychoanalysis knows a lot about the psyche, but it has no criterion as to whether its diagnosis is true and the therapy (which basically never ends) has efficacy.
3 There are temporal connections between the emergence of both psychological schools: Freud wrote his main work, The Interpretation of Dreams, in 1900 and lectured on psychoanalysis in the USA in 1909, which was immediately enthusiastically received. But Freud's students (Alfred Adler, C.G. Jung and others) separated from him and developed their own therories. Watson published his pragmatic essay in 1913: apart from psychoanalysis and behaviorism, psychological therapy did not have much to offer; it was only after the Second World War that Carl Rogers developed client-centered therapy.
Psychoanalysis or psychoanalytical therapy is one of the ways to address deep-rooted psychological problems. It is based on the conviction that behavior consists of motives that may be unknown and unconscious. With this vision, it is possible to think about the meaning and underlying reasons behind this behavior, which we can change.
Dear Carmen,
You rightly say that Freud's psychodynamic approach has been subject to many criticisms, namely in the academic domain. It is often said that Freud's psychodynamic approach is more a philosophical than a scientific approach to human behavior. For example, how can we test the Freudian hypothesis of the existence of an unconscious in each of us? However, we can say that a kind of Freud's clinical interview is present, for example, in Piaget's theory, namely in his famous clinical method,.which aims at grasping, say, the child's spontaneous, not suggested, way of thinking.
Like you, I cannot see clearly Freud's theory influence on behaviorism. In many respects, behaviorism is at complete variance with pschoanalysis. Suffice it to say that behaviorists' emphasis goes to one's overt behavior, not to its underlying processes. By its very nature, psychological processes are inner not outer processes. In contrast to behaviorism, psychoanalysis is much more concerned with inner processes (e.g., defense mechanisms or processes) than with overt behaviors. Needless to say, animal behavior is a dominant topic of research in behaviorism, which has no counterpart in psychoanalysis.
Of course, this is a short answer to your question. Even so, I hope it gives some hints to address your question.
Kind regards.
Orlando
Yes, Orlando, in a wider range seen you are right, surely. I am only observer, not expert for therapies and their basic theories. As far as I know (but you may correct this) there are no or not really relevant objections against the physiological-psychological basis of behaviorism, the fundamental objection is always: You can measure so accurately as you like, but what has this to with my inner expression, feelings, cognitions? The main objections against Freud's psychoanalysis was: It is unprovable speculation. The most criticlal thesis here is, also seen by some followers of Freud, the Oedipus complex. Up to day no strict experimental psychologist is in the situation to confirm psychoanalysis as empirically relevant, I suppose. The critique of Eysenck and others seems to me still valid. That today Freud's psychoanalys is an accepted therapy with own training institutes shows that also speculation can be successful. Yes, Freud's insights had and have influence in so many ways in society, in our self-awareness for instance, in literature and also in some directions of therapy.
Greetings, Hein
Psychoanalysis having "solved" the "problems" of a researcher (regarding the "blocks" due to everyday "obstacles"), broadens his/hers "Weltanschauung", making the researcher better behaviourist or biological psychiatrist.
To my understanding, behaviorism is straight theory like natural law and the law of physics. psychoanalysis deals with bringing out behavior leading to cognitive behaviorism or the next step of behaviorism which is foundation theory on controlling behavior. Psychoanalysis is the ethical aspect of client goals and achievement where behaviorism is more nurse 'Cratchet' like discipline.
Michael S.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Psychology