Tag Archives: Psychology

Psychological Perspectives and ICT

For my final ICT specialist module of the year I was required to research and learn about psychological perspectives and ICT. In order to do convey what I have learnt I have created a series of blogs which represent a range of topics that can be discovered within this module. These topics include insights into the psychological theories that underpin learning, the impact that ICT has in education and these topics have influenced how we teach and educate today.
I began my learning by researching “How the work of Pavlov influenced education” this was the first step into the world of how psychology has influenced education for me and very much an area of research that encouraged me to learn more. My second blog was entitles “Learning through making” and it opened my eyes to the collaborative learning and how learning theories are usually built upon the work conducted by others. As I progressed through the module I began to gain an interest in exploring how technology has become apparent in our lives and education. This encouraged me to explore the world of “Computer dependency” an area of modern life that is often overlooked. Building upon this my learning drove me toward the use of “Technology in the classroom” and how we can use technology to further the development of children and how they learn.

These initial blogs allowed me to not only increase my understanding of a range of topics but also presented me with the opportunity to gain new knowledge surrounding the issues raised in this module. But with my ever increasing desire to learn more I decided to go back and research a few more learning theories for a few reasons. Firstly I wanted to expand my current base of knowledge regarding learning theory and understand why we teach the way we do or why we did at particular times in history. For example “Bandura, the theory of social learning and education” provided me with the opportunity to understand how the behaviour can influence the actions of others along with other things. Another theory that I took a particular interest in was “Situated learning.” After posting my first blog on this topic I was encouraged by feedback that I received to post a second blog on the topic titled “Comparing situated learning,” this allowed me to research the topic further and deepen my understanding of the topic. Another interest that I gained whilst studying this module was how theorists explain how we has people behave and act. I decided to research the work of Maslow but to approach it from a teachers point of view, writing a blog thinking about “How the performance of children in the classroom relate to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.” My final blog looked into the “Presentation of self in a digital life” allowing me to think deeply about how the digital world allows us to alter our persona and how people perceive us in both a personal and professional manner.

I feel that as a learner looking to expand his knowledge approaching this module in this way has been extremely beneficial to me. I have just written an essay surrounding two or three topics but researched and understood a wide range of topics that cover a variety of aspects of this module. In turn by representing my learning in the form of a series of blogs it has provide me with the opportunity to receive feedback that helps me to think about what I have written developing me as a learner.

Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

Presentation of Self in a Digital Life

For the purposes of this blog I wanted to consider the presentation of ones self in a digital life and how some people can be perceived differently online than they would be in person. I hope to combine theory and my own experiences to discuss the implications the digital age have on how we are perceived in a personal/professional manner and how it affects our lives.

If we begin by considering the thoughts of Goffman (1959) who brought to our attention the fact that when someone is forced to interact with another person, that person is putting on a performance. They carefully analyse every move they make in terms of how the other person will react or how the other person’s perception of them might change. As people in this society we are brought up to recognise that there is a correct way to behave and an incorrect way. Goffman (1959) ratified this when he stated that “A society’s cultural norms define the social forces that push humans to interact in a way that is congruent with accepted social rules.” Furthermore Leary and Allen (2011) discussed how they believed that although people’s self-presentation correlates moderately with their own views, these people also tailor their public images to specific targets. In (1959) Goffman described the social world in the form of a metaphor, relating the life of the everyday person to that of a performance on a stage. He argues that we present ourselves in a certain manner in order to make identity claims for ourselves. In making these claims we attempt to secure both material and social resources for ourselves. Goffman describes those that take part in social interaction as actors, with said social interaction taking place on the front stage of life and the subsequent planning occurring on the back stage or behind the scenes. He proceeds to argue that people will go to some trouble to avoid the social situation of embarrassment. Embarrassment stops social interaction dead in its tracks and must be responded to. We say it is problematic. In order to avoid such embarrassment people will engage what is described by Goffman (1959) as “Face work.” Too much loss of face transcends mere embarrassment and becomes a powerful negative social label that radically changes a person’s social identity and self-concept or Stigma. “A person is reduced from a whole and usual one to a tainted and discounted one” (Goffman, 1963).

Goffman developed a series of concepts which are useful in describing and understanding interaction. The development of the digital world has opened up a new range of interactions that build upon the ideas first outlined by Goffman. The digital world provides people with the “backstage” previously mentioned allowing us to create the required front stage persona that everyone will see. From this we can compare face to face interaction with how we are perceived in the digital world. It is fair to say that although both allow us to mould and create a persona the digital world allows us to edit and remove areas of that persona that may cause embarrassment.

Thinking about the construction of our digital identity how does it influence the perception that people have of you? In fact because this world provides us with the chance to create any persona that we want, people may be led to believe that you are someone that you are not. Social media such as Facebook is rife with fake accounts in fact Wasserman (2012) estimates that there are approximately 83 million. Information such as this has led to an increase in awareness regarding e-safety and the drive to educate people on how to use the web properly. But considering the question from a professional point of view, a view that is important to me as a trainee teacher; your digital life is one that is very much in the public eye, anyone can access the aspects of your life once they are made digital unless the correct precautions are taken. As highlighted my Miller (1995) “on the Web you can put yourself up for interaction without being aware of a rebuff, and others can try you out without risking being involved further than they would wish.” In professional terms someone that you want to work for could potentially check you out simply by searching your name on the web. If they find something that could discredit the company, the chances of being hired are reduced significantly. For this reason alone it quintessentially important that we are aware of how we are portrayed in our digital lives. Illustrated in Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs (1954) we are all motivated to fulfil our potential and this could possibly be why some people try to create a new persona online, develop a character that is perfect for reaching that potential.

As explained by Miller (1995) as the culture of electronic communication develops, people will construct expressive resources out of whatever facilities are available. Electronic communication will become more and more human communication to the extent that there is more to it than just efficiently passing information to each other. Considering this the digital world for some may become their only stage, choosing to present themselves just in a digital form. Reasons for this would vary depending on the individual; some may feel that this allows them to create the perfect persona, others may feel more comfortable behind a computer screen but whatever their reasons I think it is important that our digital lives and real lives are linked but are separate. Although our digital lives can be presented in a way that ensures we are not viewed in a negative light they should still be accurate. Inaccuracies can lead to problems in the future in both our personal and professional lives. Leary & Allen (2011) explained that people only present their true self with those that they are close to or trust. Leary & Allen state that this is because people are “compelled to present themselves more accurately to people who know them better.” To a degree it is understandable that people do not want to reveal their entire self to professionals or people they are unfamiliar with. However I think that we should never lie about ourselves but perhaps not fully reveal all aspects of our personas straight away.

References and Further Reading

Goffman, E. (1959) The Presentation of Self in a Everyday Life. New York: Double Day.

Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Miller, H. (1995) The Presentation of Self in Electronic Life: Goffman on the Internet. [Online] Available at: http://www.dourish.com/classes/ics234cw04/miller2.pdf (Accessed: 20th March 2013)

Leary, M & Allen, A. (2011). Self-Presentational Persona: Simultaneous Management of Multiple Impressions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2011, Vol. 101, No. 5, 1033–1049

Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper and Row

Wasserman, T. (2012) [Online] Available at: http://mashable.com/2012/08/02/fake-facebook-accounts/ (Accessed: 21st March 2013)

Tagged , , , , , , , , , ,

Comparing Situated Learning

Following the publishing of my previous blog post “Situated Learning.” I have received a few comments discussing my thoughts and the post. However a comment from one of my lecturers caught my attention in particular, a challenge per say to think deeper about the topic. I have spent some time researching the idea of situated learning and want to consider how it compares to similar well-known learning theories. By placing a focus on situated learning and comparing it to other theories it has forced me to engage more with the idea of situated cognition and as a result expanded my knowledge of the subject.

Firstly what is a theory, so often we hear the word used throughout published works but how is it defined? The colloquial use of the term means a guess or a hunch, but from a psychological or scientific point of view it is much different. As stated by Cherry (2012), “A theory is based upon a hypothesis and backed up by evidence.” However why do we apply psychological theories about learning to education? Doing so enables us to have a “scientific basis for education in how people think, feel, and motivate themselves rather than only to guess what intuitively might make sense, (Sternberg, 2008). Referring back to situated learning, is it the best theory for learning, how does it compare to other theories from the past and those that stand alongside it?

Lave and Wenger (1990) referred to situated learning as the process of “legitimate peripheral participation.” They argued that most learning jumps in and out of context and that any knowledge obtained needs to be presented in settings and situations that relate to that knowledge. McLellan (1996) speaks of learning as a “Lifelong process” resulting from learning in “different situations.” Expanding further upon this the thoughts of McLellan, it could be said that we learn as we grow throughout our lives as we encounter new situations and people. Perhaps the idea of situated learning for our children create a similar environment where the class learn through experience and context. Referring to my previous blog post Collins (1988) highlighted some of the benefits associated with situated learning. Describing it as a theory which applies knowledge, engages children, shows the implications children’s thought processes can have in real life and creates meaning for the learning that is taking place. Thinking deeper about situated learning Brown et al (1989) suggest the idea of cognitive apprenticeship. They state that it “supports learning in a domain by enabling students to acquire, develop and use cognitive tools in learning both outside and inside school.”

Comparing the theory of situated learning to other theories past and present we can see a link between it and constructivist ideas. The theory of constructivism suggests that what children learn arises through the construction of concepts that make sense through their real life experiences and reflections upon these experiences. The cognitive tools mentioned by Brown et al (1989) are advanced through the idea of collaboration, social interaction and the idea of social constructivism. Situated learning has similarities with Vygotsky’s theory of learning through social development, both of these theories emphasise the importance of social learning. Vygotsky (1978) introduced the idea of the zone of proximal development where by a child can extend their knowledge and therefore further their learning through the help of another peer. In continuation of this, Bandura (1977) believed that social learning theory explained human behavior in terms of continuous reciprocal interaction between cognitive, behavioral, and environmental influences.

However in conclusion which specific theory is the correct one, which theory should we promote in our education system? No theory is a pure theory, they are all built upon the ideas presented in other theories. In my own opinion i feel that by educating children in a situated context it highlights the idea of ensuring that their learning has meaning. If I felt that I could not apply something to my own life or experiences that i may encounter, i would deem it a waste of time that i could be investing in understanding something else. By providing a context children understand how they can use what they are being taught in their own lives. This in turn is a method of engagement, capturing the attention of the child that would otherwise take no interest. Situated learning puts a child in a context where the skills they are being taught become transferable. Finally all theories have positives and negative aspects to them but in terms of teaching it is up to use as professionals to decide on what is best for our children’s education.

    Sources, References and Further Reading

Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Brown, J.S., Collins, A. & Duguid, S. (1989). Situated Cognition and the Culture of Learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42

Cherry, K. (2012) What is Theory? [Online] Available at: http://psychology.about.com/od/tindex/f/theory.htm (Accessed: 26 February 2013).
Collins, A. (1988). Cognitive Apprenticeship and Instructional technology. (Technical Report No. 6899). BBN Labs Inc., Cambridge, MA.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1990). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

McLellan, H. (1996) Situated Learning Perspectives. New Jersey: Education Technology Publications.

Sternberg, R. (2008). Applying Psychological Theories to Educational Practice. American Educational Research Journal. March 2008, Vol. 45, No. 1, pp. 150 –165.

Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind and society: The development of higher mental processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Tagged , , , , ,

Situated Learning

Emerging from sociology and cognitive science, situated learning theory represents a major shift in learning. From traditional psychological views of learning as something that is for the individual it moves toward perspectives of learning as a social concept. Greeno (1998) is often credited with the development of the situated cognition or situated learning theory. Collins (1988) defines situated learning as the notion of learning knowledge and skills in contexts that reflect the way they will be used in real life. Therefore, situated learning theory “encourages educators to immerse learners in an environment that approximates as closely as possible context in which their new ideas and behaviours will be applied.” (Schell & Black, 1997).

Collins (1988) described four benefits of situated cognition that he believed were a good theoretical basis for learning. Firstly, it is important that students learn about the conditions for applying knowledge. Secondly, students are more likely to engage in invention and problem-solving when they learn in diverse situations and settings. Thirdly, students can see the implications of knowledge and how their thoughts can be in a real life context. Finally, students are supported in structuring knowledge in ways appropriate for later use by gaining and working with that knowledge in context that is meaningful to them. Classroom practices such as project and problem based learning would qualify as consistent with the situated learning theory. Thinking about the concept of situated learning, Wilson and Myers (2000) commented that situated learning “is positioned to bring the individual and the social together in a coherent theoretical perspective.”
Affordance is an ecological concept about perception. Gibson’s “affordance” (1979) is a term to characterise the “impact of the environment on an organism’s behaviour, or how it lives in its environment.” Any theory of learning must start with the culture in which the learner resides. This is a critical pedagogical approach by Wenyi Ho (No date). “If knowledge is co-produced by the learner and the situation, the position of the learner within the culture can become an important variable.” There are such a wide range of places that learning can commence, accessible areas which will deepen childrens thinking.  I think it very important for teachers to respect where children come from and their own communities. Therefore need to ensure that their learning has a context in their own environment but also to help them to become comfortable in multiple environments.


Collins, A. (1988). Cognitive Apprenticeship and Instructional technology. (Technical Report No. 6899). BBN Labs Inc., Cambridge, MA. 

Gibson, J. (1979). The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin

Greeno, J. G. (1998). The Situativity of Knowing, Learning, and Research. American Psychologist, 53(1), 5-26. 

Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Schell, J. W., & Black, R. S. (1997). Situated learning: An inductive case study of a collaborative learning experience. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 34, 5-28. 


Tagged , , , , , , , ,

Bandura, the Theory of Social Learning and Education

Albert Bandura is a psychologist from Canada who is currently a professor at the Stanford University. He is widely described as the greatest living psychologist and one of the most influential of our time. Bandura has won many awards, received six honorary degrees and a 2002 survey ranked him the fourth most cited psychologist of all time. I want to explore some of his research and understand how it has influenced education today.

Bandura was responsible for conducting the famous “Bobo doll” experiment in (1961), a very controversial experiment however it paved the way for his theory of social learning. Bandura conducted the study with the aim to investigate if social behaviours or aggression can be acquired by imitation. Using children from the Stanford University nursery school he tested 36 children of each gender. The experiment consisted of three stages, the first two stages were used to lay the foundations of the experiment with the children being observed in stage three. It is this final stage that provided the experimenters with the results they required. The children were divided into three groups of 24, one group was exposed to aggressive behaviour towards the Bobo doll, another observed non-aggressive behaviour and the final 24 were used as a control group and did not observe any particular behaviours.

For stage one the children entered the experimental room individually, within this room there was some toys, a mallet and a Bobo doll. The person who the child would observe, better known as a model was invited into the room. Depending on the group that the child was assigned the model would either act in an aggressive or non-aggressive manner towards the Bobo doll. If aggressive actions were to take place the model ensured that they were aggressive in an easy to imitate way. At this point stage one would come to an end and an experimenter would enter and take the child to another room. Stage two was used as a way to stimulate aggression; the child was subjected to mild aggression arousal. To cause this arousal the child was taken to a room with lots of toys, however as soon as he/she began to play with the toys they were quickly removed by the experimenter and told that those toys were not for them. For the final stage of the experiment the child was taken to a room containing a Bobo doll, a mallet, a dart gun and some other non-aggressive toys such as a tea set and teddy bears. The child was placed in the room for a total of twenty minutes and their behaviour was observed and rated though a one-way mirror. Experimenters made observations at 5-second intervals, therefore giving 240 responses for each child. The Bobo doll experiment allowed Bandura to draw several conclusions based on the collective data that the results showed. He found that the children who observed aggressive behaviour towards the Bobo doll were more likely to imitate this aggression when they came face to face with the doll. The girls who witness the aggressive conditions also showed more physical aggressive responses if the model was male but more verbal aggressive responses if the model was female.

Bandura (1977) states “behaviour is learned from the environment through the process of observational learning.” This underpins his theory of social learning and the Bobo doll experiment support this theory. In their lives children observe a variety of people that can influence how they grow, develop and behave. The behaviour of these people can define the child and these influences include parents, siblings, friends and teachers. The people that children observe are referred to by Bandura as models and the influences previously mentioned provide the opportunity for children to view the behaviour of both male and female models. When children observe models they encode some of their behaviours, remembering what they have seen and replicating such behaviours. Bandura found that during the Bobo doll experiment (1961) that children are more likely to replicate models of the same gender but this is not always the case. Despite a desire to copy behaviours that they have observed children can be manipulated to repeat or stop the behaviours. This is done through the use of reinforcement or punishment, if the behaviour that a child is replicating is positive then the model may decide to reinforce such behaviours. They may do this by providing praise or a reward, with the hope that they child repeats the particular behaviour more often. On the other hand the model may punish the child in order to discourage them from repeating the behaviour again. A punishment may entail removing the child from an activity that they enjoy or telling them off. Skinner (1968) argued that learning is a result of the reinforcement or punishment of behaviours within a context that is deliberately manipulated. It is at this point we can begin to evaluate the social learning theory in education.

In our classroom teacher can use the social learning theory as a way of understanding the current behaviour of some of the students, especially in the cases of troublesome children. Teachers can use the influences and people that these children observe as a point of research to begin to understand why children act out. Moreover the social learning theory can be used as a method of modelling good behaviour to children. Observing a teacher behaving in a particular way and their responses in different situations can help to encourage children to behave in the same way. The cause of a problem or success may be accounted to a child’s exposure to another person and their behaviours. All teachers are role models and it is their responsibility to ensure that they behave in a way that meets the expectations of a role model. By doing so teachers can help develop and shape children in a way that is beneficial to their learning and development.

Sources, References and Further Reading

Bandura, A. Ross, D., & Ross, S.A (1961). Transmission of aggression through the imitation of aggressive models. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 63, 575-582

Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Skinner, B.F. (1968). The Technology of Teaching. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Tagged , , , ,

How the Work of Pavlov Influenced Education

Pavlov was born on the 26th September 1849 in Ryazan, Russia. Ivan Pavlov devoted his life to the study of physiology and sciences, providing us with remarkable discoveries which led to him being awarded the Nobel Peace prize in 1904. However, Pavlov began as a man of religion before turning his attention to the sciences for which he is now known.

During his career Pavlov held many scientific/medical positions such as the chair of pharmacology at the Tomsk University and then at the University of Warsaw. However Pavlov was invited to the institute of Experimental Medicine in 1891 to organize and direct the Department of Physiology and, over a 45 year period, he was credited with it becoming one of the most important centres of physiological research.

Pavlov was a physiologist and is famous for his research into “Conditional Reflex,” this research signalled the start of behaviourism. His work referred to his study of how dogs salivate and how he could change their behaviour through reinforcement: he found that when a bell was rung in a particular sequence in relation to the presentation of food he could get the dogs to salivate before the food was consumed. Pavlov built upon this theory and as time went on he was able to get the dogs to salivate upon hearing the bell, even if there was no food present. The bell began as a neutral stimulus as it had no bearing on whether or not the dogs would salivate but once the bell could cause salivation regardless of the presence of food it became a condition stimulus. The dogs had made a connection between the sound of a bell and receiving food, so a new behaviour had been conditioned. Pavlov was the first person to study the laws of conditioning which paved the way for others, such as John Watson, to develop the idea further. Watson, in his paper “Psychology as the behaviourist views it”  (1913), presented the idea of “Classical Conditioning” which was based upon the observations conducted by Pavlov. It explained that the idea of conditioning was to teach the subject to associate an unconditioned stimulus, which causes a particular reflex, with a conditioned stimulus, which will cause the same reflex.

Pavlov carried out a lot of research proving that conditioning applied to animals, however, would such a process affect a human? The Journal of Experimental Psychology Watson & Rayner (1920) proved that conditioning would in fact work on a human by conducting the controversial “Little Albert Experiment.” This experiment involved striking a metal bar with a hammer behind a baby names Albert’s head, this startled him causing him to cry, over a period of seven weeks a white rat was presented to Albert with the bar being struck immediately afterwards and, by the end of this period, showed fear and cried whenever he saw the rat regardless of whether or not the bar was struck. Watson & Rayner had managed to repeat Pavlov’s work on dogs using a human beings; relating a conditioned stimulus with an unconditioned stimulus so that the same reflex. This experiment is often “cited as the first exemplary case of behaviour conditioning,” (Mackenzie, 1977) Watson named the theory “Behaviourism” and it is based upon Pavlov’s theory.

Below is a video showing the “Little Albert Experiment” – watch from one minute.

Another man who built upon the theory of classical conditioning was B.F Skinner who is known for his behaviourist views and his work regarding “Operant Conditioning.” It is best defined as the changing of behaviour through the use of reinforcement; this being positive or negative. Skinner had few people that influenced his work but none more so than Pavlov, in fact he stated, “Russell and Watson had given me no glimpse of experimental method, but Pavlov had: Control the environment and you will see order in behaviour’’ (Skinner, 1967, p. 399). Throughout his writings Skinner openly expresses his affection for Pavlov, whether this is hanging a signed photograph of Pavlov on his office wall or mentioning in his biography that Pavlov ‘‘Is a star which lights the world” (Skinner, 1976). We have no doubt that Pavlov influenced the research conducted by many people such as Skinner and as his ideas have been manipulated and built upon we have seen how they have motivated behaviour management in schools today. Positive and negative reinforcement is a common practice seen in the classroom. Many teachers make their children aware of what is expected of them from the beginning of the year so that there is a clear indication of what good behaviour is; actions that break these expectations are often considered to be bad behaviour. In order to encourage good behaviour, teachers will provide rewards for the children, these may include stickers, games the children like and other nice things. The aim of this is to motivate the children to behave well and work hard in the hope that they will receive a reward. On the other hand teachers will also have punishments that are used in the hope of discouraging negative behaviour. Examples of punishments may be the removal of free time, a telling off or excluding a child from an activity they enjoy. Punishments are used to weaken a particular behaviour whereas rewards are used to strengthen or reinforce a particular behaviour. Skinner (1968) argued that learning is a result of the reinforcement or punishment of behaviours within a context that is deliberately manipulated by the teacher. Therefore a teacher may structure their teaching in order to receive the correct response, or even use punishers to ensure the incorrect response is not given.

As teachers we want to encourage children to generate their own ideas about their learning and learn in a way that suits them best. However, it is important that the style in which they choose to learn does not affect the learning of others. This does not necessarily mean that they must be silent and restricted from discussing their ideas as a group, but it would mean that whilst learning children are behaving appropriately, whether or not their behaviour is deemed appropriate would be at the discretion of the teacher. However the consequences of the behaviour are important as this will determine whether the behaviour will recur. There is so much to think about regarding classroom management and how to get the best out of all our children; behaviourism is one theory to consider as Atherton (2010) stated, it has been “undermined” by the “cognitive revolution.”

As people began to recognise Pavlov and his work became well known, the idea of conditioning branched out to become a key concept in the developing specialism of comparative psychology. Pavlov’s work with classical conditioning had a huge influence on how humans perceive themselves, their behaviour and learning processes. His worked encouraged many others such as Watson and Skinner to delve deeper into his original idea. The result was a theory that was constantly challenged and developed; the idea of behaviourism.

Sources, Referencing and Further Reading.

  • Gray, J. (1979) Pavlov. Glasgow: Fontana Paperbacks
  • Mackenzie, B (1977) Behaviourism and the Limits of Scientific Method. London: Routledge.
  • Pavlov, I. (1927) Conditioned Relfexes: An Investigation of the Physiological Activity of the Cerebral Cortex. [Online] Available at: http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Pavlov/lecture2.htm (Accessed: 11th January 2013)
  • Pavlov, I. P. (1897/1902). The Work Of The Digestive Glands. London: Griffin.
  • Pavlov, I. P. (1928). Lectures On Conditioned Reflexes. (Translated by W.H. Gantt) London: Allen and Unwin.
  • Pavlov, I. P. (1955). Selected Works. Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House.
  • Skinner, B. F. (1967). B. F. Skinner. In E. G. Boring & G. Lindzey (Eds.), A history of psychology in autobiography (Vol. 5, pp. 385–413). New York:  Appleton-Century-Crofts.
  • Skinner, B. F. (1976). Particulars of my life. New York: Knopf
  • Watson, J. B. & Rayner, R. (1920). Conditioned emotional reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 3, 1, pp. 1–14.
  • Watson, J. B. (1924). Behaviorism. New York: People’s Institute Publishing Company.
  • Watson, J.B. (1913). Psychology as the behaviorist views it. Psychological Review, 20, 158–177
Tagged , , , , ,