B. F. Skinner

Burrhus Frederic Skinner (March 20, 1904 – August 18, 1990) was an influential American psychologist, behaviorist, inventor, and social philosopher. He held the position of Edgar Pierce Professor of Psychology at Harvard University from 1948 until his retirement in 1974.

Burrhus Frederic Skinner (March 20, 1904 – August 18, 1990) was an American psychologist, behaviorist, inventor, and social philosopher. He was the Edgar Pierce Professor of Psychology at Harvard University from 1948 until his retirement in 1974.

Skinner pioneered the field of behavior analysis, particularly advancing the philosophy of radical behaviorism, and established the experimental analysis of behavior as a distinct school of experimental research psychology. He applied operant conditioning principles to reinforce behaviors, positing that the rate of response served as the most accurate indicator of response strength. For the empirical investigation of operant conditioning, he devised the operant conditioning chamber, commonly known as the Skinner box, and developed the cumulative recorder for precise measurement of response rates. These innovative instruments facilitated his most significant experimental contributions, co-authored with Charles Ferster and detailed in their seminal 1957 publication, Schedules of Reinforcement.

A prolific author, Skinner published 21 books and 180 articles. His conceptualization of applying his theories to the structuring of a human community was articulated in his 1948 utopian novel, Walden Two. Furthermore, his comprehensive analysis of human behavior reached its zenith in his 1958 treatise, Verbal Behavior.

Skinner, alongside John B. Watson and Ivan Pavlov, is recognized as a foundational figure in modern behaviorism. Consequently, a June 2002 survey identified Skinner as the most influential psychologist of the 20th century.

Early Life

Born in Susquehanna, Pennsylvania, Skinner was the son of Grace and William Skinner, a lawyer. He adopted atheism after a Christian teacher attempted to alleviate his apprehension regarding the concept of hell, which his grandmother had described. His younger brother, Edward, who was two and a half years his junior, passed away at the age of 16 due to a cerebral hemorrhage.

Skinner's closest childhood friend was Raphael Miller, whom he nicknamed 'Doc' because Miller's father was a physician. Their friendship was fostered by their parents' shared religious devotion and their mutual fascination with mechanical devices and contraptions. They established a telegraph line between their residences for communication, though they often resorted to telephone calls due to the ambiguity of their transmitted messages. One summer, Miller and Skinner initiated an elderberry venture, collecting and selling berries door-to-door. They observed that harvesting ripe berries often dislodged unripe ones, prompting them to construct a separation device. This apparatus consisted of a bent metal trough. Water poured through the trough directed ripe berries into a bucket, while unripe berries were propelled over the edge for disposal.

Education

Skinner enrolled at Hamilton College in Clinton, New York, initially aspiring to a career as a writer. His intellectual disposition, however, led to a perceived social disadvantage within the collegiate environment. He was affiliated with the Lambda Chi Alpha fraternity.

Skinner contributed to the college newspaper, yet, as an atheist, he expressed criticism of the institution's conventional customs. Following the completion of his Bachelor of Arts degree in English literature in 1926, he matriculated at Harvard University, where he would subsequently conduct research and teach. During his time at Harvard, a peer, Fred S. Keller, persuaded Skinner of the feasibility of establishing an experimental science dedicated to the study of behavior. This pivotal interaction motivated Skinner to develop a prototype for the Skinner box and to collaborate with Keller on designing additional instruments for small-scale experiments.

Subsequent to his graduation, Skinner resided with his parents and made an unsuccessful attempt to write a novel, a period he later termed the "Dark Years." Despite encouragement from the poet Robert Frost, he grew disillusioned with his literary capabilities, concluding that he lacked sufficient worldly experience and a distinct personal viewpoint necessary for writing. His subsequent exposure to John B. Watson's behaviorism prompted him to pursue graduate studies in psychology and to formulate his unique interpretation of behaviorism.

Career

Skinner earned his PhD from Harvard in 1931, continuing his affiliation with the university as a researcher for several years. In 1936, he accepted a teaching position at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis. He then transitioned to Indiana University in 1945, serving as chair of the psychology department from 1946 to 1947, prior to his return to Harvard as a tenured professor in 1948. He maintained his tenure at Harvard for the remainder of his career. Notably, in 1973, Skinner was among the signatories of the Humanist Manifesto II.

Personal Life

Skinner married Yvonne "Eve" Blue in 1936. They had two daughters, Julie (later Vargas) and Deborah (later Buzan, who married Barry Buzan). Yvonne died in 1997 and was interred in Mount Auburn Cemetery, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Death

Although Skinner's public profile grew throughout the 1970s, he maintained an active professional life following his 1974 retirement until his death. In 1989, Skinner received a diagnosis of leukemia and subsequently passed away on August 18, 1990, in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Just ten days prior to his passing, the American Psychological Association honored him with a lifetime achievement award, during which he delivered a presentation on his extensive body of work.

Contributions to Psychology

Behaviorism

Skinner designated his methodological framework for studying behavior as radical behaviorism. This approach emerged in the early 20th century, primarily as a counter-response to depth psychology and other conventional psychological paradigms that frequently struggled to generate experimentally verifiable predictions. This philosophical stance within behavioral science posits that an individual's behavior is fundamentally shaped by their historical interactions with environmental reinforcement. As Skinner articulated:

The position can be stated as follows: what is felt or introspectively observed is not some nonphysical world of consciousness, mind, or mental life but the observer's own body. This does not mean, as I shall show later, that introspection is a kind of psychological research, nor does it mean (and this is the heart of the argument) that what are felt or introspectively observed are the causes of the behavior. An organism behaves as it does because of its current structure, but most of this is out of reach of introspection. At the moment we must content ourselves, as the methodological behaviorist insists, with a person's genetic and environment histories. What are introspectively observed are certain collateral products of those histories.... In this way we repair the major damage wrought by mentalism. When what a person does [is] attributed to what is going on inside him, investigation is brought to an end. Why explain the explanation? For twenty-five hundred years people have been preoccupied with feelings and mental life, but only recently has any interest been shown in a more precise analysis of the role of the environment. Ignorance of that role led in the first place to mental fictions, and it has been perpetuated by the explanatory practices to which they gave rise.

B.F. Skinner's research on operant conditioning significantly influenced the field of psychology, particularly in elucidating how reinforcement and punishment modify behavior. Skinner devised the 'Skinner box,' an apparatus that demonstrated the efficacy of meticulously controlled environments for precise observation of learning processes. The principles of operant conditioning extend beyond animal behavior, finding application in human domains such as therapeutic interventions, educational strategies, and workplace dynamics. Contemporary research continues to elaborate on these foundational concepts, with operant conditioning persisting as a core theoretical framework for understanding how consequences influence future actions.

Foundations of Skinner's Behaviorism

Skinner's foundational concepts regarding behaviorism were primarily articulated in his inaugural book, The Behavior of Organisms (1938). In this work, he provided a systematic exposition of how environmental variables exert control over behavior. He delineated two distinct categories of behavior, each subject to different mechanisms of control:

• Respondent behaviors are those elicited by specific stimuli and can be altered through respondent conditioning, frequently termed classical or Pavlovian conditioning. This process involves associating a neutral stimulus with an eliciting stimulus. These behaviors are quantifiable by their latency or intensity.
• In contrast, Operant behaviors are 'emitted,' implying that they are not initially triggered by a specific stimulus. Their strength is enhanced through operant conditioning (also known as instrumental conditioning), a process where a response's occurrence results in a reinforcer. The measurement of such behaviors is typically based on their rate.

Both categories of behavior had previously been subjected to experimental investigation, with Ivan Pavlov notably studying respondents and Edward Thorndike examining operants. Skinner's theoretical framework diverged from earlier interpretations in several aspects and represented one of the initial attempts to integrate these two behavioral types within a unified conceptual structure.

The premise that behavior is either reinforced or attenuated by its subsequent consequences prompts several inquiries. Among the most frequently posed questions are the following:

1. How do operant responses originate, given that reinforcement strengthens them?
2. After an operant response becomes part of an organism's behavioral repertoire, what mechanisms govern its direction or control?
3. What explanations account for the emergence of highly complex and ostensibly novel behaviors?

1. The Genesis of Operant Behavior

Skinner's explanation for the origin of operant behavior paralleled Darwin's theory regarding the emergence of novel bodily structures, emphasizing variation and selection. Analogously, an individual's behavior exhibits moment-to-moment variability; any variation subsequently reinforced is strengthened and becomes a more prominent component of that individual's behavioral repertoire. Skinner termed this progressive behavioral modification, achieved through the reinforcement of desired variations, as shaping. Furthermore, Skinner posited that 'superstitious' behavior could develop when a response is coincidentally followed by reinforcement, despite lacking a causal relationship.

2. The Regulation of Operant Behavior

The inquiry into how operant behavior is controlled stems from its initial characteristic of being "emitted" without immediate reference to a specific stimulus. Skinner addressed this by asserting that a stimulus gains control over an operant if its presence coincides with the reinforcement of the response and its absence with the lack thereof. For instance, if pressing a lever yields food exclusively when a light is illuminated, a subject, such as a rat or a child, will learn to engage in lever-pressing solely under the light's presence. Skinner encapsulated this dynamic by stating that a discriminative stimulus (e.g., a light or sound) establishes the conditions for the reinforcement (food) of an operant (lever-press). This three-term contingency—comprising stimulus, response, and reinforcer—represents a foundational concept in Skinner's work, distinguishing his theoretical framework from those relying solely on pairwise associations.

3. Elucidating Complex Behavioral Patterns

Given that most human behavior is not readily explicable through the reinforcement of individual responses in isolation, Skinner extensively investigated the challenge of behavioral complexity. He proposed that certain complex behaviors could be conceptualized as sequences of simpler responses, introducing the concept of "chaining." Chaining operates on the experimentally verified principle that a discriminative stimulus not only signals the opportunity for subsequent behavior but also functions as a reinforcer for the behavior immediately preceding it, thus acting as a "conditioned reinforcer." For example, the light that cues lever pressing might also reinforce a "turning around" action when a noise is present. This process constructs a behavioral sequence such as "noise – turn-around – light – press lever – food." Significantly longer chains can be constructed by incorporating additional stimuli and responses.

Nevertheless, Skinner acknowledged that a substantial portion of behavior, particularly human behavior, defies explanation solely through gradual shaping or the formation of response sequences. Complex behaviors frequently manifest abruptly in their complete form, exemplified by an individual navigating to an elevator by adhering to instructions provided at a reception desk. To address such phenomena, Skinner proposed the concept of rule-governed behavior. Initially, relatively simple actions become subject to verbal stimuli; for instance, a child learns to "jump" or "open the book." Once numerous responses are established under verbal control, a succession of verbal stimuli can elicit an almost boundless array of intricate responses.

Reinforcement

Reinforcement, a pivotal concept within behaviorism, constitutes the fundamental process that molds and regulates behavior, manifesting in two forms: positive and negative. In his 1938 work, The Behavior of Organisms, Skinner initially equated negative reinforcement with punishment, defining it as the presentation of an aversive stimulus. This definition, however, underwent subsequent revision in his 1953 publication, Science and Human Behavior.

According to the currently accepted definitions, positive reinforcement involves the strengthening of a behavior through the presentation of an event (e.g., receiving praise after performing an action), while negative reinforcement entails the strengthening of a behavior by the removal or avoidance of an aversive event (e.g., opening an umbrella on a rainy day is reinforced by the cessation of rain exposure).

Both positive and negative reinforcement enhance behavior, thereby increasing the likelihood of its recurrence. The distinction lies in whether the reinforcing event involves the presentation of a stimulus (positive reinforcement) or the removal or avoidance of one (negative reinforcement). Conversely, punishment may involve either the application of an aversive stimulus or event (termed positive punishment or punishment by contingent stimulation) or the removal of a desirable stimulus (known as negative punishment or punishment by contingent withdrawal). While punishment is frequently employed to inhibit behavior, Skinner contended that such suppression is transient and often leads to various undesirable outcomes. Furthermore, extinction, characterized by the absence of a reinforcing stimulus, results in the weakening of a behavior.

In 1981, Skinner articulated that Darwinian natural selection operates on the principle of "selection by consequences," a mechanism analogous to reinforced behavior. Despite acknowledging that natural selection had demonstrably established its validity, he expressed regret that the fundamentally similar process of "reinforcement" received less recognition as a foundational mechanism for human behavior.

Schedules of Reinforcement

Skinner observed that behaviors are generally reinforced multiple times. Consequently, in collaboration with Charles Ferster, he undertook a comprehensive analysis of the diverse temporal arrangements of reinforcement, designating these as schedules of reinforcement.

Skinner's most prominent investigations into reinforcement schedules encompassed continuous, interval-based (either fixed or variable), and ratio-based (either fixed or variable) paradigms. These methodologies are fundamental to operant conditioning.

• Continuous reinforcement (CRF) entails the delivery of a reinforcer every time a specific action is executed by the subject. This approach proves highly effective for the acquisition of novel behaviors, as it rapidly forms an association between the desired behavior and the reinforcing stimulus.
• An interval schedule is predicated on the temporal durations separating successive reinforcements. Specifically, a
  • fixed interval schedule (FI) involves the presentation of reinforcements at predetermined, constant time periods, contingent upon the emission of the appropriate response. This schedule typically results in a response rate that is initially low immediately following reinforcement, subsequently accelerating as the time for the next scheduled reinforcement approaches.
  • A variable interval schedule (VI) is a procedure where behavior is reinforced after time durations that are scheduled but unpredictable, following the preceding reinforcement. This particular schedule typically elicits the most consistent rate of responding, where the average frequency of reinforcement directly influences the overall response frequency.
• Ratio schedules are structured according to the proportion of responses required for reinforcement. A
  • fixed ratio schedule (FR) is a procedure where reinforcement is provided only after a predetermined, specific number of responses has been completed.
  • A variable ratio schedule (VR) is a procedure in which reinforcement is delivered after a variable, unpredictable number of responses, which is randomized between successive reinforcements (e.g., the operation of slot machines). Generally, a lower response requirement correlates with a higher rate of responding. Variable ratio schedules typically elicit exceptionally rapid and consistent response rates, contrasting with fixed ratio schedules where a post-reinforcement pause, or a drop in response frequency, is commonly observed.

Token Economy

Principles derived from Skinner's work have been instrumental in establishing token economies within various institutional settings, including psychiatric hospitals. In these systems, participants exhibiting desired behaviors receive tokens, which are exchangeable for various commodities or privileges, such as confectionery, tobacco products, beverages, or exclusive access to entertainment devices like radios or television sets.

Verbal Behavior

Following a challenge from Alfred North Whitehead during an informal discussion at Harvard to explain a randomly presented instance of verbal behavior, Skinner embarked on an endeavor to apply his nascent functional, inductive methodology to the intricate domain of human verbal behavior. The culmination of over two decades of development, his comprehensive work was published as the book Verbal Behavior. Despite Noam Chomsky's significant critique of Verbal Behavior, he acknowledged that Skinner's "S-R psychology" warranted scholarly examination. However, behavior analysts generally refute Chomsky's characterization of Skinner's contributions as solely "stimulus-response psychology," with some contending that this misrepresentation underscores an inadequate comprehension of Skinner's extensive body of work and the broader discipline of behavior analysis.

The publication of Verbal Behavior was met with an uncharacteristically reserved reception, a phenomenon partly attributable to Chomsky's critical review and Skinner's subsequent failure to address or refute any of Chomsky's criticisms. Furthermore, the delayed adoption of the concepts presented in Verbal Behavior by Skinner's peers may have stemmed from the absence of experimental evidence, a significant departure from the empirical rigor that characterized Skinner's other experimental work.

Scientific Inventions

Operant Conditioning Chamber

The operant conditioning chamber, commonly referred to as a "Skinner box," constitutes a specialized laboratory apparatus employed for the empirical analysis of animal behavior. Skinner devised this apparatus during his tenure as a graduate student at Harvard University. In Skinner's application, the chamber incorporated either a lever for rats or a disk embedded in one wall for pigeons. Actuation of this "manipulandum" would dispense food to the animal via an aperture in the wall, thereby increasing the frequency of such reinforced responses. Through the systematic manipulation of reinforcement contingencies, alongside discriminative stimuli like lights and tones, or aversive stimuli such as electric shocks, researchers have utilized the operant box to investigate a diverse array of phenomena, including reinforcement schedules, discriminative control, delayed response (memory), and punishment. This methodological framework, facilitated by the operant conditioning chamber, profoundly influenced the trajectory of research in animal learning and its practical applications. The apparatus significantly advanced the study of problems amenable to quantification through the measurement of the rate, probability, or force of discrete, repeatable responses. Conversely, it inadvertently constrained the investigation of behavioral processes not readily amenable to such conceptualization, notably spatial learning, which is presently explored through alternative methodologies, such as the water maze.

Cumulative Recorder

The cumulative recorder generates a pen-and-ink graphical representation of simple, repetitive responses. Skinner conceived this device for integration with the operant chamber, providing an efficient method for recording and visualizing the rate of responses, such as lever presses or key pecks. Within this apparatus, a continuous sheet of paper progressively advances over a cylindrical drum. Each recorded response incrementally moves a small pen across the paper, commencing from one margin; upon reaching the opposing margin, the pen rapidly resets to its starting position. The gradient of the resultant ink trace graphically illustrates the response rate; for instance, high-frequency responses produce a steeply inclined line, whereas low-frequency responses generate a line with a shallow gradient. This cumulative recorder served as a pivotal instrument in Skinner's behavioral analyses and gained widespread adoption among other researchers, eventually becoming less prevalent with the emergence of laboratory computing and the widespread use of digital line graphs. Skinner's seminal experimental investigation into response rates, detailed in his collaborative work with Charles Ferster, Schedules of Reinforcement, extensively features cumulative records generated by this apparatus.

Air Crib

The air crib is a readily sanitized, climate-controlled enclosure designed as an alternative to the conventional infant crib, regulating both temperature and humidity. Following the experience of raising his own child, Skinner posited that the process of infant care could be streamlined for parents and enhanced for children. His primary motivation for this invention was to alleviate the daily demands of child-rearing for his wife. Skinner harbored particular concerns regarding infant care within the challenging environmental conditions of his Minnesota residence. Ensuring the infant's warmth constituted a paramount objective (Faye, 2010). While thermal regulation was the principal aim, the design also sought to minimize laundry requirements, prevent diaper rash, and mitigate cradle cap, concurrently affording the infant enhanced mobility and comfort. The device reportedly achieved a degree of success in these objectives, having been commercially marketed with an estimated 300 children reportedly raised within air cribs. Psychology Today subsequently located 50 individuals who had used the air crib and published a brief article detailing its effects. The findings indicated positive outcomes, with both children and parents expressing satisfaction with the crib's use (Epstein, 2005). An example of an air crib is currently exhibited in the gallery of the Center for the History of Psychology in Akron, Ohio (Faye, 2010).

The air crib featured three solid walls and a front panel made of safety-glass, which could be lowered to facilitate placing or removing the infant. Its base consisted of stretched canvas. Sheets were designed to cover the canvas and could be readily removed upon becoming soiled. To address Skinner's temperature concerns, a control unit positioned atop the crib maintained regulated temperature and humidity levels. Filtered air circulated through the crib from its underside. This crib's elevated design, surpassing standard models, provided caregivers with improved access to the child, eliminating the necessity of bending (Faye, 2010).

The air crib proved to be a contentious invention. It gained popular notoriety as a "cruel pen" and was frequently likened to Skinner's operant conditioning chamber, commonly known as a "Skinner box." Skinner's publication in Ladies Home Journal, titled "Baby in a Box," garnered significant attention and fueled public skepticism regarding the apparatus (Bjork, 1997). An accompanying photograph depicted the Skinners' daughter, Deborah, looking out from the crib with her hands and face pressed against the glass panel. Furthermore, Skinner's use of the term "experiment" in describing the crib, coupled with its perceived resemblance to laboratory animal experimentation, hindered its commercial viability, despite efforts by several companies to manufacture and market it.

In 2004, therapist Lauren Slater reiterated an assertion suggesting that Skinner might have utilized his infant daughter in some of his experimental studies. His daughter, expressing outrage, publicly criticized Slater for failing to conduct a diligent factual verification prior to publication. Deborah was quoted by The Guardian, stating: "According to Opening Skinner's Box: Great Psychological Experiments of the Twentieth Century, my father, a Harvard-based psychologist from the 1950s to the 1990s, 'used his infant daughter, Deborah, to prove his theories by putting her for a few hours a day in a laboratory box . . . in which all her needs were controlled and shaped.' However, this claim is unfounded. My father engaged in no such actions."

Teaching Machine

The teaching machine functioned as a mechanical apparatus designed to deliver a programmed learning curriculum. This device incorporated fundamental principles of Skinner's learning theory and held significant ramifications for educational practices broadly, and for classroom instruction specifically.

In one iteration, the machine comprised a box containing a sequence of questions, each visible individually through a small display window. Additionally, it featured a mechanism enabling the learner to provide responses to each query. Successful completion of a question resulted in immediate reinforcement for the learner.

Skinner championed the application of teaching machines across a diverse spectrum of learners, ranging from preschool children to adults, and for various instructional objectives, including reading and musical training. For instance, he conceptualized a machine capable of imparting rhythmic skills. He articulated:

A relatively simple device supplies the necessary contingencies. The student taps a rhythmic pattern in unison with the device. "Unison" is specified very loosely at first (the student can be a little early or late at each tap) but the specifications are slowly sharpened. The process is repeated for various speeds and patterns. In another arrangement, the student echoes rhythmic patterns sounded by the machine, though not in unison, and again the specifications for an accurate reproduction are progressively sharpened. Rhythmic patterns can also be brought under the control of a printed score.

The pedagogical efficacy of the teaching machine derived from multiple contributing elements: it offered automated, instantaneous, and consistent reinforcement, obviating the need for aversive control; the instructional content was presented coherently, yet maintained variety and novelty; and the learning tempo could be customized to individual student requirements. Consequently, students exhibited engagement and attentiveness, acquiring knowledge effectively through active participation, a process characterized as "learning by doing."

Despite their potentially rudimentary nature, teaching machines did not function as inflexible instructional tools. Their operation could be modified and refined in response to student performance. For instance, in cases where a student generated numerous incorrect answers, the machine could be reconfigured to present simpler prompts or questions, based on the premise that learners acquire behaviors most effectively when errors are minimized. Conversely, multiple-choice formats were deemed unsuitable for teaching machines, as they often led to an increase in student errors and offered comparatively less control over reinforcement contingencies.

Machines were not only instrumental in imparting explicit skills but also fostered a range of behaviors Skinner termed "self-management." Effective self-management encompasses focusing on task-relevant stimuli, minimizing distractions, and diminishing opportunities for reinforcement of competing behaviors. For instance, these machines prompted students to demonstrate attention prior to receiving a reward. Skinner contrasted this approach with conventional classroom methods, which often involve initially engaging students' attention (e.g., through an engaging video) and providing a reward (e.g., entertainment) before any pertinent behavior has been exhibited. Such conventional practices fail to reinforce appropriate conduct and actively impede the cultivation of self-management.

Skinner was a pioneer in integrating teaching machines into educational settings, particularly within primary education. Contemporary computing systems now execute comparable instructional functions through specialized software, leading to a renewed scholarly interest in this domain, especially concerning the evolution of adaptive learning systems.

Pigeon-Guided Missile

During World War II, the United States Navy sought a weapon capable of effectively engaging surface vessels, such as the German Bismarck-class battleships. Despite the existence of missile and television technologies, the rudimentary nature and bulk of available guidance systems precluded practical automatic control. To address this challenge, Skinner launched Project Pigeon, aiming to develop a straightforward and efficient guidance mechanism. Skinner employed operant conditioning to train pigeons to peck at a camera obscura screen displaying incoming targets on individual monitors (Schultz-Figueroa, 2019). This innovative system incorporated three compartments within the missile's nose cone, each housing a pigeon. Inside the missile, three lenses projected images of distant objects onto a screen positioned before each bird. Consequently, upon missile launch from an aircraft within visual range of an enemy ship, the ship's image would appear on the screen. The hinged screen was linked to the bomb's guidance system via four small rubber pneumatic tubes affixed to each side of the frame. These tubes channeled a continuous airflow to a pneumatic pickup system, which in turn regulated the bomb's thrusters. This mechanism enabled the missile to be steered toward the designated ship solely by the pigeon's pecking behavior (Schultz-Figueroa, 2019).

Despite a successful demonstration, the project was ultimately discontinued as more conventional alternatives, such as radar-based systems, became accessible. Skinner lamented that "our problem was no one would take us seriously." Prior to its complete abandonment, the project underwent extensive laboratory testing. Following its rejection by the United States Army, the United States Naval Research Laboratory adopted Skinner's research, renaming it Project ORCON, an acronym derived from "organic" and "control." Skinner collaborated closely with the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory, persistently evaluating the pigeons' tracking capabilities for missile guidance toward specified targets. Ultimately, the pigeons' efficacy and precision were contingent upon numerous uncontrollable variables, leading to the discontinuation of Project ORCON, mirroring the fate of Project Pigeon. The system was never deployed operationally.

Verbal Summator

Early in his career, Skinner developed an interest in "latent speech" and conducted experiments using a device he named the verbal summator. This apparatus can be conceptualized as an auditory counterpart to the Rorschach inkblots. During its application, human participants were exposed to unintelligible auditory "garbage" yet frequently attributed meaning to the sounds they perceived. Consequently, similar to the Rorschach blots, the device aimed to elicit overt behaviors that reflected subconscious thoughts. Although Skinner's engagement with projective testing was short-lived, he subsequently incorporated observations derived from the summator into the formulation of his theory of verbal behavior. The device also inspired other researchers to devise novel assessments, including the tautophone test, the auditory apperception test, and the Azzageddi test.

Influence on Education

Beyond psychology, Skinner's perspectives have significantly impacted the field of education, articulated comprehensively in his book The Technology of Teaching, and further exemplified by Fred S. Keller's Personalized System of Instruction and Ogden R. Lindsley's Precision Teaching.

Skinner posited that education serves two primary objectives:

1. to instruct students in both verbal and nonverbal behavioral repertoires; and
2. to cultivate student engagement in the learning process.

Skinner advocated for managing student conduct through targeted reinforcement, administered exclusively when stimuli pertinent to the educational objective were present. He posited that even minor consequences could influence human behavior, suggesting that a simple "opportunity to progress after completing a stage of an activity" could serve as a potent reinforcer. Skinner firmly believed that active behavioral engagement, rather than passive information reception, was essential for effective learning.

Skinner contended that pedagogical efficacy relies fundamentally on positive reinforcement, which he asserted was superior to punishment for modifying and establishing behaviors. He proposed that individuals primarily learn to evade punishment when subjected to it. For instance, compelling a child to practice a musical instrument could lead to an association between practice and punitive experiences, fostering feelings of aversion and a desire to circumvent the activity. This perspective significantly challenged the prevalent educational practices of rote memorization and disciplinary punishment. Furthermore, employing academic tasks as punitive measures could provoke defiant behaviors, including vandalism or truancy.

Given that educators bear primary responsibility for shaping student behavior, Skinner maintained that they must acquire proficient instructional methodologies. In his 1968 work, The Technology of Teaching, Skinner dedicates a chapter to analyzing pedagogical shortcomings, attributing teacher failures to an insufficient grasp of the intricacies of teaching and learning. He argued that, lacking a scientific foundation for their practice, teachers often resort to ineffective or counterproductive strategies, including:

• employing aversive techniques, which typically elicit escape and avoidance behaviors alongside detrimental emotional responses;
• over-reliance on didactic instruction and explanation, as Skinner noted, "Unfortunately, a student does not learn simply when he is shown or told";
• an inability to tailor learning assignments to the student's existing proficiency level; and
• insufficient provision of positive reinforcement.

Skinner posited that any skill suitable for a given age group is teachable, outlining the following procedural steps:

1. Precisely define the specific action or performance objective for the student.
2. Deconstruct the task into incremental, attainable stages, progressing from elementary to intricate components.
3. Facilitate student execution of each stage, providing reinforcement for accurate responses.
4. Implement adjustments to ensure consistent student success until the ultimate objective is achieved.
5. Transition to an intermittent reinforcement schedule to sustain the student's acquired performance.

Contributions to Social Theory

Skinner gained widespread recognition primarily through his literary works, Walden Two (1948) and Beyond Freedom and Dignity,, the latter of which earned him a feature on the cover of Time magazine. Walden Two portrays a fictional "experimental community" situated in the United States during the 1940s. Within this community, citizens exhibit significantly enhanced productivity and well-being compared to the external world, attributed to their adherence to scientific social planning and the application of operant conditioning principles in child-rearing.

Walden Two, echoing Thoreau's Walden, advocates for a way of life that eschews warfare, competition, and societal discord. It promotes principles of judicious consumption, robust social connections, individual contentment, fulfilling labor, and ample leisure. In 1967, Kat Kinkade and her associates established the Twin Oaks Community, drawing inspiration from Walden Two as a foundational model. This community remains operational, perpetuating the Planner-Manager system and other organizational elements detailed in Skinner's publication, although explicit behavior modification is not a current communal practice.

In Beyond Freedom and Dignity, Skinner proposes that the application of behavioral technology could facilitate the creation of a more advanced society. This advancement, however, would necessitate acknowledging that human actions are not solely driven by an autonomous agent. Skinner presents alternatives to punitive measures and encourages his readership to leverage scientific principles and contemporary technology for societal improvement.

Political Views

Skinner's political writings articulated his aspiration that an effective and humane science of behavioral control—a technology of human behavior—could address unresolved issues, particularly those exacerbated by technological advancements like the atomic bomb. A primary objective for Skinner was to avert human self-destruction. He conceptualized political engagement as the application of either aversive or non-aversive strategies for population management. Skinner advocated for positive reinforcement as a control mechanism, referencing Jean-Jacques Rousseau's novel Emile: or, On Education as a literary work that "did not fear the power of positive reinforcement."

Skinner's book, Walden Two, delineates a vision of a decentralized, localized society that employs a pragmatic, scientific methodology and behavioral expertise to resolve societal challenges peacefully. His advocacy, for instance, extended to opposing corporal punishment in educational settings, evidenced by a letter to the California Senate that contributed to a ban on spanking. Skinner's utopian concept functions as both a philosophical thought experiment and a rhetorical exposition. Within Walden Two, Skinner addresses a fundamental question prevalent in many utopian narratives: "What constitutes the Good Life?" The text proposes a life characterized by camaraderie, well-being, artistic engagement, an optimal equilibrium between labor and recreation, minimal adversity, and the perception of having made valuable contributions to a society where resource sustainability is partly achieved through consumption minimization.

If the world is to save any part of its resources for the future, it must reduce not only consumption but the number of consumers.

Skinner characterized his novel as "my New Atlantis," drawing a parallel to Bacon's utopian work.

When Milton's Satan falls from heaven, he ends in hell. And what does he say to reassure himself? 'Here, at least, we shall be free.' And that, I think, is the fate of the old-fashioned liberal. He's going to be free, but he's going to find himself in hell.

"'Superstition' in the Pigeon" experiment

Skinner conducted an experiment investigating the development of superstitious behavior in pigeons, a species he frequently utilized in his research. He positioned several hungry pigeons within a cage equipped with an automated feeder that dispensed food "at regular intervals with no reference whatsoever to the bird's behavior." Skinner observed that the pigeons correlated the food delivery with any coincidental actions they were performing at that moment, subsequently persisting in these specific behaviors.

One bird was conditioned to turn counter-clockwise about the cage, making two or three turns between reinforcements. Another repeatedly thrust its head into one of the upper corners of the cage. A third developed a 'tossing' response, as if placing its head beneath an invisible bar and lifting it repeatedly. Two birds developed a pendulum motion of the head and body, in which the head was extended forward and swung from right to left with a sharp movement followed by a somewhat slower return.

Skinner proposed that the pigeons acted as though their "rituals" were influencing the automated feeding mechanism, thereby suggesting that this experiment offered insights into human behavior:

The experiment might be said to demonstrate a sort of superstition. The bird behaves as if there were a causal relation between its behavior and the presentation of food, although such a relation is lacking. There are many analogies in human behavior. Rituals for changing one's fortune at cards are good examples. A few accidental connections between a ritual and favorable consequences suffice to set up and maintain the behavior in spite of many unreinforced instances. The bowler who has released a ball down the alley but continues to behave as if she were controlling it by twisting and turning her arm and shoulder is another case in point. These behaviors have, of course, no real effect upon one's luck or upon a ball half way down an alley, just as in the present case the food would appear as often if the pigeon did nothing—or, more strictly speaking, did something else.

Contemporary behavioral psychologists have contested Skinner's "superstition" explanation for the observed behaviors. Subsequent investigations, such as those by Staddon and Simmelhag (1971), identified similar behavioral patterns but did not substantiate Skinner's "adventitious reinforcement" hypothesis. By analyzing the temporal distribution of behaviors within the interfood interval, Staddon and Simmelhag differentiated two categories: the terminal response, which manifested in anticipation of food, and interim responses, which occurred earlier in the interval and were seldom contiguous with food delivery. Terminal responses appear to reflect classical conditioning, rather than adventitious reinforcement, aligning with processes observed by Brown and Jenkins (1968) in their "autoshaping" procedures. The etiology of interim activities, such as the schedule-induced polydipsia documented in analogous rat studies, also cannot be attributed to adventitious reinforcement, and its underlying mechanisms remain largely undefined (Staddon, 1977).

Criticism

Noam Chomsky

In 1959, American linguist Noam Chomsky published a critique of Skinner's Verbal Behavior in the linguistics journal Language. Chomsky contended that Skinner's application of behaviorism to elucidate human language was superficial, amounting to little more than semantic manipulation. He argued that conditioned responses were insufficient to account for a child's capacity to generate or comprehend an infinite array of novel sentences. Chomsky's review is widely recognized as instrumental in initiating the cognitive revolution across psychology and other academic disciplines. Skinner, who rarely engaged directly with critics, never formally responded to Chomsky's critique but endorsed Kenneth MacCorquodale's 1972 rebuttal.

I read half a dozen pages, saw that it missed the point of my book, and went no further. [...] My reasons, I am afraid, show a lack of character. In the first place I should have had to read the review, and I found its tone distasteful. It was not really a review of my book but of what Chomsky took, erroneously, to be my position.

During the 1960s, many academics interpreted Skinner's silence on the matter as substantiation of Chomsky's criticism. However, MacCorquodale asserted that Chomsky's critique did not precisely target Skinner's Verbal Behavior, but rather attacked a broader conceptual misunderstanding within behavioral psychology. MacCorquodale also expressed regret regarding Chomsky's aggressive tone. Furthermore, Chomsky sought to deliver a definitive refutation of Skinner by citing numerous studies on animal instinct and learning. On one hand, he posited that animal instinct studies demonstrated the innate nature of animal behavior, thereby invalidating Skinner's premises. On the other hand, Chomsky's perspective on learning studies was that analogies from animal research could not be extended to human behavior, or alternatively, that research on animal instinct contradicted research on animal learning.

Chomsky subsequently critiqued Skinner's Beyond Freedom and Dignity, employing similar fundamental arguments as in his Verbal Behavior review. Among Chomsky's criticisms were that Skinner's laboratory findings were unsuitable for extrapolation to humans, that such extensions constituted "scientistic" behavior attempting to emulate science without being genuinely scientific, that Skinner was not a scientist due to his rejection of the hypothetico-deductive model of theory testing, and that Skinner lacked a coherent science of behavior.

Psychodynamic Psychology

Skinner has been frequently censured for his purported antagonism toward Sigmund Freud, psychoanalysis, and psychodynamic psychology. Some scholars have argued, however, that Skinner concurred with several of Freud's foundational assumptions and was influenced by Freudian perspectives in multiple domains, including the analysis of defense mechanisms such as repression. To investigate such phenomena, Skinner even devised his own projective assessment, the "verbal summator," as previously described.

Temple Grandin

In her 2005 publication, Animals in Translation, animal behaviorist Temple Grandin alleged that B.F. Skinner made an unsolicited attempt to touch her legs during a meeting, an advance she verbally rejected. Grandin stated she was approximately 18 years old at the time of the incident. This assertion was reiterated in a 2006 interview with NPR and a 2018 interview with the Center for Autism and Related Disorders; however, the details varied, with Grandin indicating in 2006 that Skinner had touched her before being rebuffed, and in 2018 that he had requested permission to touch her prior to the rebuff. Furthermore, Grandin contended in both the book and the interviews that Skinner initially dismissed her hypothesis regarding the correlation between brain function comprehension and behavioral understanding, a stance he reportedly altered after experiencing a stroke later in his life.

Professional Career

Academic and Leadership Appointments

• 1936–1937: Instructor, University of Minnesota
• 1937–1939: Assistant Professor, University of Minnesota
• 1939–1945: Associate Professor, University of Minnesota
• 1945–1948: Professor and Chair, Indiana University
• 1947–1948: William James Lecturer, Harvard University
• 1948–1958: Professor, Harvard University
• 1958–1974: Professor of Psychology, Harvard University
• 1949–1950: President, Midwestern Psychological Association
• 1954–1955: President, Eastern Psychological Association
• 1966–1967: President, Pavlovian Society of North America
• 1974–1990: Professor of Psychology and Social Relations Emeritus, Harvard University

Honors and Awards

• 1926: Bachelor of Arts (AB), Hamilton College
• 1930: Master of Arts (MA), Harvard University
• 1930–1931: Thayer Fellowship
• 1931: Doctor of Philosophy (PhD), Harvard University
• 1931–1932: Walker Fellowship
• 1931–1933: National Research Council Fellowship
• 1933–1936: Junior Fellowship, Harvard Society of Fellows
• 1942: Guggenheim Fellowship (deferred until 1944–1945)
• 1942: Howard Crosby Warren Medal, Society of Experimental Psychologists
• 1958: Distinguished Scientific Contribution Award, American Psychological Association
• 1958–1974: Edgar Pierce Professor of Psychology, Harvard University
• 1964–1974: Career Award, National Institute of Mental Health
• 1966: Edward Lee Thorndike Award, American Psychological Association
• 1968: National Medal of Science, National Science Foundation
• 1969: Overseas Fellow, Churchill College, Cambridge
• 1971: Gold Medal Award, American Psychological Foundation
• 1971: Joseph P. Kennedy Jr. Foundation International Award for Mental Retardation
• 1972: Humanist of the Year, American Humanist Association
• 1972: Creative Leadership in Education Award, New York University
• 1972: Career Contribution Award, Massachusetts Psychological Association
• 1978: Distinguished Contributions to Educational Research and Development Award, American Educational Research Association
• 1978: National Association for Retarded Citizens Award
• 1985: Award for Excellence in Psychiatry, Albert Einstein School of Medicine
• 1985: President's Award, New York Academy of Science
• 1990: William James Fellow Award, American Psychological Society
• 1990: Lifetime Achievement Award, American Psychological Association
• 1991: Outstanding Member and Distinguished Professional Achievement Award, Society for Performance Improvement
• 1997: Scholar Hall of Fame Award, Academy of Resource and Development
• 2011: Inducted into the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry Pantheon of Skeptics
• 2024: Ig Nobel Peace Prize for his work on the pigeon-guided bomb project.

Honorary Degrees

Skinner was conferred honorary degrees by the following institutions:

• Alfred University
• Ball State University
• Colby College
• Dickinson College
• Hamilton College
• Harvard University
• Hobart and William Smith Colleges
• Johns Hopkins University
• Keio University
• Long Island University C. W. Post Campus
• McGill University
• North Carolina State University
• Ohio Wesleyan University
• Ripon College
• Rockford College
• Tufts University
• University of Chicago
• University of Exeter
• University of Missouri
• University of North Texas
• Western Michigan University
• University of Maryland, Baltimore County

Honorary Societies

Skinner was inducted into the following honorary societies:

• PSI CHI International Honor Society in Psychology
• American Philosophical Society
• American Academy of Arts and Sciences
• United States National Academy of Sciences

Publications

• The 1938 publication, The Behavior of Organisms: An Experimental Analysis, is identified by ISBN 1-58390-007-1 and ISBN 0-87411-487-X.
• The 1948 work, Walden Two, was published with ISBN 0-87220-779-X (revised in 1976).
• In 1953, Science and Human Behavior was released, bearing ISBN 0-02-929040-6.
• The 1957 publication, Schedules of Reinforcement, co-authored with C. B. Ferster, is available under ISBN 0-13-792309-0.
• Also in 1957, Verbal Behavior was published, identified by ISBN 1-58390-021-7.
• The 1961 work, The Analysis of Behavior: A Program for Self Instruction, was written in collaboration with James G. Holland and carries ISBN 0-07-029565-4.
• In 1968, The Technology of Teaching was released by Appleton-Century-Crofts in New York, with LCCN 68--12340 and ISBN 0-13-902163-9.
• The 1969 publication, Contingencies of Reinforcement: A Theoretical Analysis, is associated with ISBN 0-390-81280-3.
• In 1971, Beyond Freedom and Dignity was published, featuring ISBN 0-394-42555-3.
• The 1974 volume, About Behaviorism, bears ISBN 0-394-71618-3.
• In 1976, the first part of an autobiography, Particulars of My Life, was released with ISBN 0-394-40071-2.
• The 1978 work, Reflections on Behaviorism and Society, is identified by ISBN 0-13-770057-1.
• The second autobiographical volume, The Shaping of a Behaviorist: Part Two of an Autobiography, was published in 1979, with ISBN 0-394-50581-6.
• In 1980, Notebooks, edited by Robert Epstein, was published under ISBN 0-13-624106-9.
• The 1982 compilation, Skinner for the Classroom, edited by R. Epstein, features ISBN 0-87822-261-8.
• In 1983, Enjoy Old Age: A Program of Self-Management was co-authored with M. E. Vaughan, identified by ISBN 0-393-01805-9.
• Also in 1983, the third part of the autobiography, A Matter of Consequences: Part Three of an Autobiography, was published with ISBN 0-394-53226-0 and ISBN 0-8147-7845-3.
• The 1987 collection, Upon Further Reflection, bears ISBN 0-13-938986-5.
• In 1989, Recent Issues in the Analysis of Behavior was released, featuring ISBN 0-675-20674-X.
• Cumulative Record: A Selection of Papers was published in 1959, 1961, and 1972, and later as the Cumulative Record: Definitive Edition in 1999, with ISBN 0-87411-969-3 (paperback).
  • This definitive edition includes a reprint of Skinner, B. F.'s 1945 article, "Baby in a Box," from Ladies' Home Journal, which provides his original, personal account of the frequently misrepresented "Baby in a box" device.

Applied behavior analysis

• Applied behavior analysis
• Back to Freedom and Dignity

References

Notes

Citations

Chiesa, M. (2004). Radical Behaviorism: The Philosophy and the Science.

• Chiesa, M. (2004). Radical Behaviorism: The Philosophy and the Science.
• Epstein, Robert (1997). "Skinner as self-manager." Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 30, 545–69.
• Pauly, Philip Joseph (1987). Controlling Life: Jacques Loeb and the Engineering Ideal in Biology. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-504244-3.
• Sundberg, M. L. (2008). The VB-MAPP: The Verbal Behavior Milestones Assessment and Placement Program.
• Basil-Curzon, L. (2004). Teaching in Further Education: An Outline of Principles and Practice.
• Hardin, C.J. (2004). Effective Classroom Management.
• Kaufhold, J. A. (2002). The Psychology of Learning and the Art of Teaching.
• Bjork, D. W. (1993). B. F. Skinner: A Life.
• Dews, P. B., ed. (1970). Festschrift For B. F. Skinner. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
• Evans, R. I. (1968). B. F. Skinner: The Man and His Ideas.
• Nye, Robert D. (1979). What Is B. F. Skinner Really Saying? Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
• Rutherford, A. (2009). Beyond the Box: B. F. Skinner's Technology of Behavior from Laboratory to Life, 1950s–1970s. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
• Sagal, P. T. (1981). Skinner's Philosophy. Washington, DC: University Press of America.
• Smith, D. L. (2002). On Prediction and Control: B. F. Skinner and the Technological Ideal of Science. In W. E. Pickren & D. A. Dewsbury (Eds.), Evolving Perspectives on the History of Psychology. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.
• Swirski, Peter (2011) "How I Stopped Worrying and Loved Behavioural Engineering or Communal Life, Adaptations, and B.F. Skinner's Walden Two." In American Utopia and Social Engineering in Literature, Social Thought, and Political History. New York: Routledge.
• Wiener, D. N. (1996) B. F. Skinner: Benign Anarchist.
• Wolfgang, C. H., and Glickman, Carl D. (1986) Solving Discipline Problems. Allyn and Bacon, Inc.

• B. F. Skinner Foundation homepage
• Works by or about B. F. Skinner at the Internet Archive
• I was not a lab rat, response by Skinner's daughter about the "baby box"
• Skinner and Teaching Machine on YouTube
• Reprint of "The Minotaur of the Behaviorist Maze: Surviving Stanford's Learning House in the 1970s." Journal of Humanistic Psychology, Vol. 51, No. 3, July 2011, pp. 266–272.