The rise and fall of behaviorism: The narrative and the numbers

Michiel Braat, Jan Engelen*, Ties van Gemert, Sander Verhaegh*

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleScientificpeer-review

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

The history of 20th-century American psychology is often depicted as a history of the rise and fall of behaviorism. Although historians disagree about the theoretical and social factors that have contributed to the development of experimental psychology, there is widespread consensus about the growing and (later) declining influence of behaviorism between approximately 1920 and 1970. Because such wide-scope claims about the development of American psychology are typically based on small and unrepresentative samples of historical data, however, the question arises to what extent the received view is justified. This article aims to answer this question in two ways. First, we use advanced scientometric tools (e.g., bibliometric mapping, cocitation analysis, and term co-occurrence analysis) to quantitatively analyze the metadata of 119,278 articles published in American journals between 1920 and 1970. We reconstruct the development and structure of American psychology using cocitation and co-occurrence networks and argue that the standard story needs reappraising. Second, we argue that the question whether behaviorism was the "dominant" school of American psychology is historically misleading to begin with. Using the results of our bibliometric analyses, we argue that questions about the development of American psychology deserve more fine-grained answers.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)252-280
Number of pages29
JournalHistory of Psychology
Volume23
Issue number3
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Aug 2020

Keywords

  • American psychology
  • Behaviorism
  • Bibliometric mapping
  • Co-occurrence analysis
  • Cocitation analysis

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'The rise and fall of behaviorism: The narrative and the numbers'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this