Psychology after World War II

Cognitive Psychology

The period following World War II marked a pivotal juncture for psychology in the United States, as the field continued its trajectory toward becoming both a prominent academic discipline and a vital applied profession. While certain challenges remained, including the enduring mind-body debate, psychology had embraced British empiricism as its guiding philosophy, resulting in a predominantly behavioristic orientation within the academic realm. Simultaneously, the professional sphere was grappling with the quest for a distinctive identity. This overview will delve into the post-World War II era, focusing on the United States, where psychological studies had already gained significant prominence before the war.

Academic Writing, Editing, Proofreading, And Problem Solving Services

Get 10% OFF with 24START discount code

In the academic sphere, psychology entered the post-war era poised for significant growth and transformation. The adoption of British empiricism as the prevailing philosophical framework influenced the field’s orientation, emphasizing empirical observation and scientific rigor. This approach aligned psychology more closely with natural sciences and solidified behaviorism as a dominant theoretical perspective. Behaviorism, which focuses on observable behavior and environmental factors, became the cornerstone of psychological research and experimentation. This orientation not only marked a shift away from introspection-based approaches but also reinforced psychology’s status as a legitimate scientific discipline.

Concurrently, psychology was experiencing notable advancements in both theory and methodology. The development of cognitive psychology challenged the strict behavioristic stance by recognizing the importance of mental processes in understanding behavior. The cognitive revolution paved the way for investigations into memory, problem-solving, language, and decision-making, ultimately expanding the scope of psychological inquiry.

On the professional front, psychology’s identity and impact were evolving in response to societal demands and needs. The post-war period saw the field increasingly engage with practical applications in areas such as clinical psychology, counseling, and industrial-organizational psychology. The establishment of ethical guidelines, licensure, and standards of practice solidified psychology’s position as a respected profession with responsibilities to both clients and society.

The United States, having already been at the forefront of psychological studies prior to the war, continued to play a leading role in shaping the field’s trajectory. American psychologists contributed significantly to the emergence of new subdisciplines, methodologies, and theoretical frameworks. Additionally, the widespread availability of funding, research opportunities, and academic institutions further fueled the growth and diversification of psychology in the post-war era.

In conclusion, the post-World War II era marked a critical phase in the development of psychology as both an academic discipline and a professional practice. The adoption of British empiricism and the ascendancy of behaviorism reflected the academic orientation, while advancements in cognitive psychology broadened the scope of inquiry. Concurrently, psychology was making strides as an applied profession, engaging with real-world issues and challenges. With the United States at the forefront, psychology continued to evolve, expanding its horizons and solidifying its position as a vital contributor to both academia and society.

Academic Developments

While behaviorism had established its dominance within academic psychology since the 1920s, it’s important to note that significant variations and divergent outlooks emerged within this overarching theoretical framework. These variations contributed to a richer and more nuanced understanding of behaviorism’s impact on the field.

One notable strand within behaviorism was methodological behaviorism, characterized by its emphasis on observable behaviors and the rejection of unobservable mental processes as a legitimate subject of study. This approach, championed by figures like John B. Watson and B.F. Skinner, adhered closely to the principles of experimental science. Methodological behaviorists believed that the science of psychology should focus exclusively on studying behavior that can be directly observed, measured, and manipulated. By doing so, they sought to create a rigorous and objective foundation for psychological research.

Another significant development was neobehaviorism, which emerged as a response to some of the limitations of strict behaviorism. Neobehaviorists, such as Edward Tolman and Clark Hull, acknowledged the importance of mental processes while still emphasizing the role of observable behavior. They introduced concepts like cognitive maps and intervening variables to explain how internal mental processes might mediate between environmental stimuli and behavioral responses. Neobehaviorism allowed for a more nuanced understanding of complex behaviors and paved the way for the eventual rise of cognitive psychology.

Amidst these variations, radical behaviorism, associated with B.F. Skinner, offered a comprehensive and systematic approach to behaviorism. Skinner proposed the concept of operant conditioning, highlighting the role of consequences in shaping behavior. He introduced the Skinner box as a controlled environment to study the relationship between behavior and reinforcement. Skinner’s work emphasized the importance of reinforcement schedules, which led to the development of behavior modification techniques and their applications in various fields, including education and therapy.

However, behaviorism faced criticism for its inability to fully account for cognitive processes, complex human behavior, and the influence of genetics on behavior. These criticisms paved the way for the cognitive revolution, which shifted the focus back to mental processes and paved the way for cognitive psychology’s emergence as a major paradigm.

In summary, behaviorism’s dominance within academic psychology during the mid-20th century was marked by diverse interpretations and variations within the broader framework. Methodological behaviorism, neobehaviorism, and radical behaviorism represented different approaches to studying behavior while addressing the role of mental processes to varying extents. These variations not only enriched behaviorism’s theoretical landscape but also set the stage for psychology’s later cognitive and interdisciplinary turns.

Behaviorism vs. Gestalt Psychology

The mid-20th century marked a period of significant debate and theoretical competition within the field of psychology, with behaviorism and Gestalt psychology emerging as prominent and contrasting paradigms. Led by figures like John B. Watson, behaviorism aimed to establish psychology as a rigorous science based on observable behaviors and stimulus-response relationships. In contrast, Gestalt psychology, represented by thinkers like Max Wertheimer, emphasized the holistic nature of perception and cognition, challenging the reductionist tendencies of behaviorism.

Behaviorism, as championed by Watson and later by figures like Clark L. Hull, E. C. Tolman, and B. F. Skinner, adhered to a mechanistic and deterministic view of psychology. It viewed behavior as a series of responses to external stimuli, and its goal was to predict and control behavior through the manipulation of environmental factors. Behaviorists emphasized the importance of objective measurement, experimentation, and the establishment of laws governing behavior. The stimulus-response (S-R) model, central to behaviorism, conceptualized behavior as a direct result of antecedent stimuli, with little attention paid to internal mental processes.

Gestalt psychology, on the other hand, presented a stark departure from the reductionism of behaviorism. Max Wertheimer and his colleagues proposed that the whole is more than the sum of its parts, focusing on how individuals perceive and experience the world as meaningful wholes. Gestalt psychologists explored phenomena such as perception, problem-solving, and learning by considering how humans organize and interpret sensory information. They rejected the notion that complex mental processes could be fully understood through the analysis of isolated elements.

While behaviorism adhered to a stimulus-response framework grounded in Newtonian science and mechanistic causation, Gestalt psychology embraced holistic and qualitative approaches. Gestalt psychologists argued that human experience could not be reduced to simple stimulus-response patterns and that understanding perception and cognition required an examination of the underlying principles of organization and configuration.

The debate between behaviorism and Gestalt psychology reflected broader philosophical and methodological tensions within psychology. Behaviorism’s emphasis on empiricism and objectivity contributed to the rise of experimental psychology and the development of behavior modification techniques. Gestalt psychology, in contrast, offered a counterpoint by highlighting the importance of context, perception, and subjective experience.

In the end, the clash between behaviorism and Gestalt psychology underscored the diversity of approaches within psychology and contributed to the evolution of the field. While behaviorism continued to influence psychological research and practice, the advent of cognitive psychology in the 1950s led to a renewed emphasis on mental processes, paving the way for a more comprehensive understanding of human behavior and experience. Read more about Behaviorism vs. Gestalt Psychology.

Cognitive Revelation

The 1960s marked a significant turning point in psychology with the emergence of the cognitive revolution, which shifted the field’s focus from solely behavior to encompassing mental processes, internal cognitions, and cognitive structures. This shift had a notable impact on behaviorism, as reflected in the work of Albert Bandura, who introduced cognitive elements into the traditional stimulus-response (S-R) framework.

Albert Bandura, trained in the Hullian tradition of behaviorism, contributed to a more nuanced understanding of behavior by incorporating cognitive factors into the explanation of human actions. His theories emphasized the interplay between internal cognitive processes, external behaviors, and environmental influences, giving rise to the concept of triadic causation.

In Bandura’s triadic causation, behavior is influenced by three interconnected sources of causation:

  1. Internal Cognitions, Affects, and Biology: Bandura recognized the significance of internal cognitive factors, including thoughts, beliefs, emotions, and biological states, in shaping behavior. These cognitive elements mediate the relationship between external stimuli and behavioral responses.
  2. External Overt Behaviors: External behaviors are observable actions and reactions that individuals engage in response to specific situations. These behaviors can be influenced by both cognitive processes and environmental factors.
  3. Environmental Pressures: Environmental influences, including social, situational, and cultural factors, interact with internal cognitions and behaviors to shape human actions. The environment can provide incentives, rewards, or punishments that affect behavior.

Bandura’s most notable contribution to the understanding of behavior was the concept of self-efficacy. Self-efficacy refers to an individual’s belief in their own ability to perform a specific behavior to achieve a desired outcome. This sense of self-efficacy is influenced by a person’s past experiences, accomplishments, and the modeling of behaviors observed in others. Bandura argued that self-efficacy plays a crucial role in determining the actions people take in challenging situations.

Bandura’s perspective extended the traditional S-R model by acknowledging the role of cognitive processes in mediating between external stimuli and observable behaviors. His approach highlighted the dynamic interaction between cognition, behavior, and the environment, with each element influencing and being influenced by the others in a reciprocal manner.

Overall, Albert Bandura’s integration of cognitive elements into behaviorism represented a crucial step in the evolution of psychology. His theories helped bridge the gap between behaviorism and cognitive psychology, leading to a more comprehensive understanding of human behavior that considered both observable actions and the underlying mental processes that drive them. Read more about Cognitive Revelation.

Humanistic Psychology

Humanistic psychology emerged as a distinctive approach in psychology, often referred to as the “Third Force,” following the dominance of behaviorism and psychoanalysis. Led by influential figures such as Carl Rogers and Abraham Maslow, humanistic psychology emphasized a holistic view of human experience, focusing on individual growth, self-actualization, and subjective well-being.

Humanistic psychology was influenced by Kantian philosophy, which emphasized the significance of individual consciousness, personal experiences, and self-determination. Unlike behaviorism and psychoanalysis, which focused on external stimuli and unconscious processes respectively, humanistic psychology emphasized the unique qualities of human beings, including their capacity for self-awareness and self-improvement.

Carl Rogers (1902-1987) is often considered one of the founding figures of humanistic psychology. He developed the client-centered therapy approach, which emphasized the importance of creating a supportive and nonjudgmental therapeutic environment to foster an individual’s self-exploration and personal growth. Rogers believed that people possess an innate drive towards self-actualization, a process through which they strive to reach their fullest potential.

Abraham Maslow introduced the concept of the hierarchy of needs, which is a model that organizes human needs into a pyramid, with basic physiological needs at the bottom and higher-level psychological and self-fulfillment needs at the top. Maslow’s theory highlighted the idea that individuals are motivated to satisfy these needs in a progressive manner, seeking personal growth and self-actualization once their more fundamental needs are met.

Humanistic psychology’s emphasis on positive human qualities, self-expression, and the pursuit of personal fulfillment contrasted with the more deterministic and pathologizing views of psychoanalysis and the strict behaviorist focus on observable behavior. Humanistic psychologists believed in the importance of individual experiences, conscious awareness, and the potential for individuals to make choices and take responsibility for their actions.

The “Third Force” of humanistic psychology provided an alternative perspective that acknowledged the complexities of human nature and the need to study psychological phenomena beyond simple behavior or unconscious drives. It brought attention to the positive aspects of human experience and encouraged a more human-centered approach to psychology, focusing on personal growth, self-actualization, and the promotion of well-being.

While behaviorism and psychoanalysis remained dominant approaches, humanistic psychology introduced a valuable perspective that contributed to the diversification of psychological theories and methods. Over time, it influenced various areas of psychology, including counseling, therapy, education, and personal development. Read more about Humanistic Psychology.

Professional Developments

The development of psychology as a profession involved navigating the tension between its identity as a scientific discipline and its role as a practical service profession within society. This balancing act led to the emergence of organizations and associations that represented the interests of psychologists in both academia and applied settings.

Before World War II, the American Psychological Association (APA) was primarily focused on representing academic psychologists and promoting psychology as a scientific discipline. As a result, it was initially hesitant to grant full membership to applied disciplines like clinical psychology, which were more oriented towards providing practical services to individuals and addressing real-world issues.

In response to this situation, many psychologists from applied fields, particularly clinical psychology, formed the American Association of Applied Psychology (AAAP) in 1938. The AAAP aimed to provide a platform for applied psychologists to address their unique concerns and promote the recognition of applied psychology as a legitimate field.

The split between the APA and the AAAP highlighted the challenges that psychology faced in reconciling its academic and applied dimensions. However, the need for unity and a collective voice for the entire field eventually led to a reconciliation between the two organizations. In 1944, the AAAP merged back into the APA, creating a more unified professional body that could address the diverse needs of both academic and applied psychologists.

This reconciliation marked an important step in the professionalization of psychology. It signaled a recognition that psychology could encompass both scientific research and practical applications to improve individuals’ well-being and address societal challenges. This dual identity allowed psychology to further establish itself as a respected profession that could contribute to various domains, from academic research to clinical practice, education, industry, and more.

Over the years, the APA continued to evolve, representing the interests of psychologists in various subfields and specializations. It played a role in establishing ethical guidelines, setting professional standards, and advocating for the interests of psychologists in public policy and legislation. The profession of psychology continued to grow and diversify, with practitioners contributing to areas such as mental health, education, business, sports, and forensic settings.

The history of the APA and the reconciliation with the AAAP illustrate the complex journey of psychology as it navigated the challenges of maintaining a scientific foundation while also fulfilling its role as a profession dedicated to improving the well-being of individuals and society. Read more about Professional Developments.

Clinical psychology has long been engaged in discussions about the effectiveness of psychotherapy, the training of therapists, and the scope of practice within the field. These debates reflect the evolving nature of psychological practice, the integration of various approaches, and the ongoing search for the most effective ways to help individuals with emotional and mental health issues.

  1. Efficacy of Psychotherapy: The question of whether psychotherapy is effective has been a central concern in clinical psychology. Research suggests that psychotherapy can indeed be beneficial for individuals struggling with emotional and psychological challenges. Studies indicate that psychotherapy helps people improve their psychological well-being, cope with stress, and make positive changes in their lives. The work of Lambert and Bergin (1992) has contributed to the understanding that psychotherapy, in various forms, can lead to positive outcomes.
  2. Training and Therapist Effectiveness: There is ongoing debate about whether advanced training significantly enhances therapists’ effectiveness. While it is commonly believed that advanced degrees, such as Ph.D. programs, provide superior training, research by Dawes (1994) suggests that therapists with master’s degrees can be just as effective as those with Ph.D. degrees. This debate raises important questions about the essential components of therapist training and the practical skills required to facilitate positive client outcomes.
  3. Integration of Biopsychology and Medication: The growing field of biopsychology, which explores the complex interactions between biology and psychology, has led to significant advancements in understanding the biological underpinnings of mental health conditions. Medication, particularly for emotional disorders like depression, has become an increasingly common treatment option. However, debates persist about the appropriateness of psychologists prescribing medication. Some argue that psychologists should have the ability to prescribe medication to provide a more holistic approach to treatment, while others emphasize that medication should remain under the purview of physicians.
  4. Professional Identity and Scope of Practice: As psychology interacts with fields like biopsychology and medicine, questions arise about the unique contributions of psychology as a discipline. The concern of psychology being “engulfed” by other fields reflects broader discussions about the boundaries of the profession. Psychologists may need to define their role clearly within the changing landscape of mental health treatment, emphasizing their expertise in psychological assessment, psychotherapy, and understanding human behavior and cognition.

In navigating these debates, clinical psychology is challenged to strike a balance between evidence-based practices, collaboration with other fields, and maintaining its own distinct identity. The field must continue to evolve in response to scientific advancements while advocating for the importance of psychological understanding and interventions in addressing the complex needs of individuals and society.


  1. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
  2. Breland, K., & Breland, M. (1961). The misbehavior of organisms. American Psychologist, 16, 681-684.
  3. Brewer, W. F. (1974). There is no convincing evidence for operant or classical conditioning in adult humans. In W. B. Weimer & D. S. Palermo (Eds.), Cognition and the symbolic processes (pp. T-42). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  4. Bruner, J. S., Brunswik, E., Festinger, L., Heider, E, Muen-zinger, K. E, Osgood, C. E., & Rapaport, D. (1957). Contemporary approaches to cognition. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
  5. Dawes, R. M. (1994). House of cards: Psychology and psychotherapy built on myth. New York: Free Press.
  6. Fisher, S., & Greenberg, R. (1997). From placebo to panacea: Putting psychiatric drugs to the test (pp. 115-T72). New York: Wiley.
  7. Greenspoon, J. (1955). The reinforcing effect of two spoken sounds on the frequency of two responses. American Journal of Psychology, 68, 409-416.
  8. Griffin, D. R. (1981). The question of animal awareness: Evolutionary continuity of mental experience (Rev. ed.). New York: Rockefeller University Press.
  9. Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  10. Lambert, M. J., & Bergin, A. E. (1992). Achievements and limitations of psychotherapy research. In D. K. Freedheim (Ed.), History of psychotherapy: A century of change (pp. 360-390). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
  11. Lowe, H. (Ed.) (1990). National Conference on Applied Master’s Training in Psychology. Proceedings. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press.
  12. Miller, G. A. (1969). Psychology as a means of promoting human welfare. American Psychologist, 24, 1063-1075.
  13. Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1972). Human problem solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
  14. Page, M. M. (1972). Demand characteristics and the verbal operant conditioning experiment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 23, 372-378.
  15. Raimy, V. (Ed.). (1950). Training in clinical psychology. New York: Prentice Hall.
  16. Rosenblueth, A., Wiener, N., & Bigelow, J. (1943). Behavior, purpose and teleology. Philosophy of Science, 10, 18-24.
  17. Schofield W. (1966). Clinical and counseling psychology: Some perspectives. American Psychologist, 21, 122-1 3 1.
  18. Shakow, D. (1965). Seventeen years later: Clinical psychology in the light of the 1947 committee on training in clinical psychology report. American Psychologist, 20, 353-367.
  19. Shannon, C. E., & Weaver, W. (Eds.). (1962). The mathematical theory of communication. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
  20. Simon, H. A. (1985). The science of the artificial (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  21. Skinner, B. F. (1931). The concept of the reflex in the description of behavior. Journal of General Psychology, 5, 427-458.
  22. Tryon, R. C. (1963). Psychology in flux: The academic-professional bipolarity. American Psychologist, 18, 134143.
  23. Turing, A. (1950). Computing machinery and intelligence. Mind, 59, 433-460.
  24. Urbach, T. (1997). From brain to mind: Event-related potential evidence for sentence comprehension processes. American Behavioral Scientist, 40, 754-781.
  25. Wilson, E. O. (1975). Sociobiology: The new synthesis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.