Problems of Causality in Behaviorism

Umeoka, Yoshitaka

doi:10.4992/jjpsy.21.52

The Japanese Journal of Psychology

1951

DOI: 10.4992/jjpsy.21.52

|View full text |Cite

Problems of Causality in Behaviorism

Yoshitaka Umeoka¹

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...

Citation Types

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Year Published

1960

1963

Publication Types

Select...

Article2

Relationship

Self Cite0

Independent2

Authors

Journals

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The orientation has been American. A symposium concerning behaviorism and neobehaviorism was held at the 1949 convention of the Japanese Psychological Association and it bred a number of theoretical articles on behaviorism and operationism (Takagi, 1950;Ogawa, 1951;Umeoka, 1951). All these papers showed favorable attitudes toward molar behaviorism in contrast to Watsonian molecular behaviorism, and special emphasis * However, Russian conditioning studies (Pavlov, & Bechterev) were introduced to Japanese psychology much earlier (Sakuma, 1915;G.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Behaviorism in Japan

Iwahara¹,

Fujita²

1963

PSYCHOLOGIA -An International Journal of Psychological Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two great pioneers of Japanese scientific psychology are Yujiro Motora (1858Motora ( -1912 and Matataro Matsumoto (1865-1943. Although Motora was first interested in psychophysics, he later turned to speculative and systematic psychology (Kido, 1961). On the other hand, Matsumoto devoted himself to experimental and applied psychology more intensively than to systematic psychology. One of his main contributions was what he called 'psychocinematics' by which he meant an objecti:ve study of purposive bodily movements (Matsumoto, 1914), and it is on this account that he was called the Japanese pioneer of objective psychology (Watanabe, 1953).Matsumoto's objective view was succeeded by his students, among whom Narasaki (1922) directly advanced his master's psychocinematics, and Tanaka (1921) did a systematic study in mental work which he called 'human engineering'. However, both Matsumoto and Narasaki had never tried to substitute psychocinematics or 'mental dynamics' in Narasaki's term for the traditional psychology. On the other hand, they believed that psychocinematics or mental dynamics must be distinguished from the traditional 'pure' psychology which can be approached, according to thcm, only through introspection and not by objective methods.Pre-Watsonian bchavioristic movements as represented by Angell, Pillsbury, and Parmelee, were introduced to Japan by Ueno (1913), Otsuki (1913), and others. After reviewing Pillsbury's The Essentials of Psychology (1911), Ueno, applied psychologist, argued that psychology should be dcfined as a study of behavior in order to avoid ambiguous definitions such as a mental science or a science of consciousness. However, he did not intend to exclude consciousness per se, but instead he stated that both behavior and consciousness are the subject matter of psychology and that consciousness can be fully understood only in relation to behavior. Ueno's emphasis on behavior was weakened in his later criticism of Watsonian behaviorism in that behavioristic methods were considered only as auxiliary means to introspective methods (Ueno & Noda, 1922).Behaviorism formally cstablished by Watson in 1913 was first madc known to Japanese psychologists by Narasaki and Hayami in 1914. According to Narasaki (1914), behavioristic studies may be classified in the same category as psychocinematics mentioned above since the objective method is emphasized in both cases. However, he contended that the objective and behavioristic method is entirely different from the introspective method as things are different from mind, and thus both behavior science and psychocinematics must be distinguished from 'pure' psychology.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Behaviorism in Japan

Iwahara¹,

Fujita²

1963

PSYCHOLOGIA -An International Journal of Psychological Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Tolman's Viewpoint. Imada (4) reviewed the historical development of American behaviorism, and Tolman's point of view in operational behaviorism was discussed in contrast to others by Umeoka (27). As to Tolman's sign-gestalt theory, it was introduced by Yatabe (34) and others (32,34,36).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Japanese Studies Related to Prof. Tolman's Viewpoint

Hirano

1960

PSYCHOLOGIA -An International Journal of Psychological Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.

Contact Info

hi@scite.ai

10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614

Henderson, NV 89052, USA

Blog Terms and Conditions API Terms Privacy Policy Contact Cookie Preferences Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information

Made with 💙 for researchers

Part of the Research Solutions Family.

Problems of Causality in Behaviorism

Cited by 2 publications

References 0 publications

Behaviorism in Japan

Behaviorism in Japan

Japanese Studies Related to Prof. Tolman's Viewpoint

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About