<p>let's have a look at the social cognitive theory by Bandura:
It says, that behavior can be acquired by simply watching other people act on something. Maybe you have already heard of the famous bobo-doll experiment, if not here is a link:
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=128Ts5r9NRE" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=128Ts5r9NRE</a>
Anyway: behaviorism doesn't care about anything going on inside our mind, like reasoning for example. It simply breaks behavior down to stimulus-response-mechanisms or behavior-response-interactions, that is why behaviorists call the mind a "black box". They simply think in a way of Input-Output mechanisms, the thing in between these two gets neglected.
So, going back to the social cognitive theory: Behaviorists can't explain behavior, that was acquired through observing other people. The person, who is the observer, has never experienced something like a stimulus-response trial, or acted on the behavior on his own. However, we know that it is possible and people need something like a memory, perception, reasoning, to learn in such a way. So, we need cognitive abilities to explain this kind of behavior (we have to look inside the black box), which is incompatible with behaviorism. </p>

<p>In other words: every behavior, that needs or was being activated by something, that is a part of our cognitive abilities, is a behavior, that can't be explained by behaviorism.</p>

<p>Another example is problem solving: To solve a problem, we think about the situation, reassemble the elements and then act. Behaviorism can't account for such a behavior.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-03-01T22:11:57.473Z
i hope, that you can understand my answer :)
bucky
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-03-01T22:11:13.113Z
2017-03-01T22:11:13.113Z
bucky
<p>While reading up on the differences between cognitivism and behaviorism, I came across this:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Cognitive science, however, overcomes Behaviorism’s main faults,
  particularly that reflexes and reinforcements cannot account for all
  human behavior and that animal behavior is not the best predictor of
  human behavior.</p>
</blockquote>

<p><a href="https://woknowing.wordpress.com/2010/10/12/behaviorism-vs-cognitivisim/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://woknowing.wordpress.com/2010/10/12/behaviorism-vs-cognitivisim/</a></p>

<p>Could you give some concrete examples of such behaviors that behaviorism fails to account for and where cognitivism can?</p>

<cognitive-psychology><behaviorism>
Cognitivism over Behaviorism
benji
# Cognitivism over Behaviorism

(Asked by: username_0 on 2017-03-01)

While reading up on the differences between cognitivism and behaviorism, I came across this:

> Cognitive science, however, overcomes Behaviorism’s main faults,
> particularly that reflexes and reinforcements cannot account for all
> human behavior and that animal behavior is not the best predictor of
> human behavior.

<https://woknowing.wordpress.com/2010/10/12/behaviorism-vs-cognitivisim/>

Could you give some concrete examples of such behaviors that behaviorism fails to account for and where cognitivism can?

**Tags:** cognitive-psychology, behaviorism


---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2017-03-01. Score: 2

let's have a look at the social cognitive theory by Bandura:
It says, that behavior can be acquired by simply watching other people act on something. Maybe you have already heard of the famous bobo-doll experiment, if not here is a link:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=128Ts5r9NRE>
Anyway: behaviorism doesn't care about anything going on inside our mind, like reasoning for example. It simply breaks behavior down to stimulus-response-mechanisms or behavior-response-interactions, that is why behaviorists call the mind a "black box". They simply think in a way of Input-Output mechanisms, the thing in between these two gets neglected.
So, going back to the social cognitive theory: Behaviorists can't explain behavior, that was acquired through observing other people. The person, who is the observer, has never experienced something like a stimulus-response trial, or acted on the behavior on his own. However, we know that it is possible and people need something like a memory, perception, reasoning, to learn in such a way. So, we need cognitive abilities to explain this kind of behavior (we have to look inside the black box), which is incompatible with behaviorism.

In other words: every behavior, that needs or was being activated by something, that is a part of our cognitive abilities, is a behavior, that can't be explained by behaviorism.

Another example is problem solving: To solve a problem, we think about the situation, reassemble the elements and then act. Behaviorism can't account for such a behavior.

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: i hope, that you can understand my answer :)  

---

