<p><strong>Behaviorism</strong> is the idea that psychology should be limited to what it can directly observe: behavior and the stimuli that drive behavior. A behaviorist approach to studying a psychological phenomenon would be based on studying observable behaviors and the observable things that cause those behaviors. Behaviorist explanations of the phenomenon would not rely on descriptions of internal processes, like thinking, since those are not directly observable.</p>

<p><strong>Biological psychology</strong> takes the perspective that pyschological processes (e.g. thinking) are rooted in biology, and focuses on how biological processes cause and interact with psychological processes. Techniques like measuring neural activity through EEG or fMRI are common, as are (non-human animal) studies that involve more invasive manipulation of neural tissues. A biological psychology approach to studying a psychological phenomenon might identify particular patterns of brain activity that are related to the phenomenon, genetic correlates, or neural mechanisms that give rise to the phenomenon. </p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-01-22T12:29:26.690Z
Thanks for the enlightening answer +1. Could we place Freud and Jung among the behaviorists then? Is there a divide in Psychology? Or do these ideas go hand-in-hand and are they representative of different approaches to the same goal?
AliceD
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-01-22T13:31:27.370Z
Freud and Jung were not behaviorists, since their theories relied almost entirely on hidden constructs. They both emphasized different (elaborate) roles of the unconscious mind in driving behavior, which is exactly what a behaviorist perspective would avoid.
Josh
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-01-22T13:33:30.680Z
It should be pointed out that behaviorism and biopsychology are not an exhaustive list of the approaches in psychological science. For example **cognitive psychology** is interested in internal processes, but not necessarily their neural underpinnings.
Josh
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-01-22T13:34:58.487Z
Thanks Josh. Interesting stuff and excuse me for devouring this (for-you-probably-textbook stuff) like apple pie
AliceD
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-01-22T04:59:26.333Z
2015-01-22T04:59:26.333Z
Josh
<p>I was recently reading through a textbook and was unable to clearly identify the differences between the two  due to a vague definition of both. Can someone provide an in-depth explanation of the two and perhaps provide examples?</p>

<neuroscience><behaviorism>
What is the difference between a biological and behaviorist perspective in psychology?
EMathS
# What is the difference between a biological and behaviorist perspective in psychology?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2015-01-22)

I was recently reading through a textbook and was unable to clearly identify the differences between the two due to a vague definition of both. Can someone provide an in-depth explanation of the two and perhaps provide examples?

**Tags:** neuroscience, behaviorism


---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2015-01-22. Score: 3

**Behaviorism** is the idea that psychology should be limited to what it can directly observe: behavior and the stimuli that drive behavior. A behaviorist approach to studying a psychological phenomenon would be based on studying observable behaviors and the observable things that cause those behaviors. Behaviorist explanations of the phenomenon would not rely on descriptions of internal processes, like thinking, since those are not directly observable.

**Biological psychology** takes the perspective that pyschological processes (e.g. thinking) are rooted in biology, and focuses on how biological processes cause and interact with psychological processes. Techniques like measuring neural activity through EEG or fMRI are common, as are (non-human animal) studies that involve more invasive manipulation of neural tissues. A biological psychology approach to studying a psychological phenomenon might identify particular patterns of brain activity that are related to the phenomenon, genetic correlates, or neural mechanisms that give rise to the phenomenon.

> **Comments:**
> **username_2**: Thanks for the enlightening answer +1. Could we place Freud and Jung among the behaviorists then? Is there a divide in Psychology? Or do these ideas go hand-in-hand and are they representative of different approaches to the same goal?  
> **username_1**: Freud and Jung were not behaviorists, since their theories relied almost entirely on hidden constructs. They both emphasized different (elaborate) roles of the unconscious mind in driving behavior, which is exactly what a behaviorist perspective would avoid.  
> **username_1**: It should be pointed out that behaviorism and biopsychology are not an exhaustive list of the approaches in psychological science. For example **cognitive psychology** is interested in internal processes, but not necessarily their neural underpinnings.  
> **username_2**: Thanks username_1. Interesting stuff and excuse me for devouring this (for-you-probably-textbook stuff) like apple pie  

---

