Editing Behavioralism (section)

==Meaning of the term==
[[David Easton]] was the first to differentiate behavioralism from [[behaviourism|behaviorism]] in the 1950s (behaviorism is the term mostly associated with psychology).<ref>Easton (1953) p 151</ref> In the early 1940s, behaviorism itself was referred to as a behavioral science and later referred to as behaviorism. However, Easton sought to differentiate between the two disciplines:<ref name="Berndtson">{{cite web|url=http://www.valt.helsinki.fi/vol/tutkimus/julkaisut/verkko/behavior.htm|title=Behavioralism: Origins of the Concept|last=Berndtson|access-date=2009-04-20|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090514010256/http://www.valt.helsinki.fi/vol/tutkimus/julkaisut/verkko/behavior.htm|archive-date=14 May 2009|url-status=dead}}</ref>

<blockquote>Behavioralism was not a clearly defined movement for those who were thought to be behavioralists. It was more clearly definable by those who were opposed to it, because they were describing it in terms of the things within the newer trends that they found objectionable. So some would define behavioralism as an attempt to apply the methods of natural sciences to human behavior. Others would define it as an excessive emphasis upon quantification. Others as individualistic reductionism. From the inside, the practitioners were of different minds as what it was that constituted behavioralism. ... And few of us were in agreement.<ref>David Easton in Baer et al. eds, 1991 p 207</ref></blockquote>

With this in mind, behavioralism resisted a single definition. [[Dwight Waldo]] emphasized that behavioralism itself is unclear, calling it "complicated" and "obscure."<ref>Waldo, p 58</ref> Easton agreed, stating, "every man puts his own emphasis and thereby becomes his own behavioralist" and attempts to completely define behavioralism are fruitless.<ref>Easton (1962) p 9</ref> From the beginning, behavioralism was a political, not a scientific concept. Moreover, since behavioralism is not a research tradition, but a political movement, definitions of behavioralism follow what behavioralists wanted.<ref name="Berndtson" /> Therefore, most introductions to the subject emphasize value-free research. This is evidenced by Easton's eight "intellectual foundation stones" of behavioralism:<ref>Riemer, p. 50</ref>
* ''Regularities'' – The generalization and explanation of regularities.
* ''Commitment to Verification'' – The ability to verify ones generalizations.
* ''Techniques'' – An experimental attitude toward techniques.
* ''Quantification'' – Express results as numbers where possible or meaningful.
* ''Values'' – Keeping ethical assessment and empirical explanations distinct.
* ''Systemization'' – Considering the importance of theory in research.
* ''Pure Science'' – Deferring to pure science rather than applied science.
* ''Integration'' – Integrating social sciences and value.