In everyday life, we all try to make sense of the behaviours we see in ourselves and others – but often we violate behaviourist principles by going beyond what is observable. For example, consider...

In everyday life, we all try to make sense of the behaviours we see in ourselves and others – but often we violate behaviourist principles by going beyond what is observable. For example, consider this scenario: you good-naturedly tease a friend about forgetting her wallet at home, and she snaps at you to mind your own business. You may think, ‘She’s feeling upset – she must have had a fight with her boyfriend.’ This explanation, however, violates the basic assumptions of behaviourism: it explains your friend’s behaviour in terms of something you can’t see (her being upset with her boyfriend), while it neglects the role of observable events (her comment immediately followed your teasing). If you look at your friend’s behaviour the way Watson recommended, you might conclude that her remark was in fact a reaction to your teasing. With the first explanation, you might disregard your own behaviour and instead focus on her (presumed) anger at her boyfriend. With the more behaviourist explanation, you might conclude that teasing a friend isn’t always a good idea. The point here is that the behaviourist approach leads you to focus on observable aspects of the situation, and that can change your interpretation. Look at the following situations: are the interpretations you make using behaviourist principles the same or different from what you would normally conclude?

 A toddler hits another child in a school playground.

 A driver ‘tailgates’ your vehicle while driving on a highway.

 A classmate you encounter in the library offers to buy you a coffee.