B. F. SKINNER
Harvard University
URING the past 2S years the role of reinforcement, in human affairs has received
_ steadily increasing attentionnot through
any changing fashion in learning theory but as the
result of the discovery of facts and practices which
have increased our power to predict and control behavior and in doing so have left no doubt of their
reality and importance. The scope of reinforcement is still not fully grasped, even by those who
have done most to demonstrate it, and elsewhere
among psychologists cultural inertia is evident.
This is understandable because the change has
been little short of revolutionary: scarcely anything in traditional learning theory is left in recognizable form. In this paper I shall try to characterize some of the changes in our conception of
reinforcement which have been forced upon us and
to suggest why it has been so hard to accept them
and to recognize their import.
95
An obvious fact about behavior is that it is almost never invariably reinforced. Not so obvious
is the fact that the pattern of intermittent reinforcement controls the character and level of a
performance. Why this is so can not be explained
in a few words. Charles B. Ferster and I have recently published a fairly exhaustive account of the
subject (1) in which we argue as follows.
A schedule of reinforcement is arranged by a
96
97
98
is a slightly less obvious case. The current nationwide problem of school discipline is frequently,
though possibly erroneously, attributed to progressive education, Whatever its explanation, it is a
serious problem. How can we recapture the orderly conduct once attributed to "discipline," without reinstating all the undesirable by-products of
an inhumane aversive control? The answer is: use
positive reinforcement instead of punishment. But,
how? A first step is to analyze the reinforcing contingencies in the classroom. In particular, what
reinforcers are available to the teacher? The answer to that question is sometimes discouraging,
but even in the worst possible case she can at least
reinforce a class by dismissing it. The point is
that she must understand that dismissal is reinforcing if she is not to throw away the small measure
of power it offers her. The "natural" thing is for a
teacher to dismiss the class when its conduct is
most aversive to her. But this is exactly the wrong
thing to do, for she then differentially reinforces
the very behavior she wants to suppress. A teacher
who understands reinforcement will survey the class
during the final minutes of a period and choose for
dismissal the moment at which things are going as
well as can be expected. The effect will not be
evident the first day, it may not be the second or
third, and it may never be enough to solve all her
problems; but a careful husbanding of small reinforcers and the nurturing of proper contingencies
is a program well worth exploring.
As a final and more technical example of the use
of reinforcement in interpreting human affairs, take
the always interesting form of behavior called gambling. Gamblers appear to violate the law of effect
because they continue to play even though their
net reward is negative. Hence it is often argued
that they must be gambling for other reasons. To
the psychoanalyst the gambler may simply be punishing himself. Others may insist that the attraction is not money but excitement or that people
gamble to get away from a humdrum life. Now, all
gambling devices arrange a variable-ratio schedule
of reinforcement, and our explanation of the performance generated by that schedule embraces the
behavior of the gambler. It happens to be relatively excited behavior, but this, as well as the fact
that there is no net gain, is irrelevant in accounting for the performance. A pigeon, too, can become a pathological gambler, and it is unlikely that
99
again tradition throws up a roadblock. Certain peopleamong them psychologists who should know
betterhave claimed to be able to say how the
scientific mind works. They have set up normative rules of scientific conduct. The first step for
anyone interested in studying reinforcement is to
challenge that claim. Until a great deal more is
known about thinking, scientific or otherwise, a
sensible man will not abandon common sense.
Ferster and I were impressed by the wisdom of
this course of action when, in writing our book, we
reconstructed our own scientific behavior, At one
time we intendedthough, alas, we changed our
mindsto express the point in this dedication:
"To the mathematicians, statisticians, and scientific
methodologists with whose help this book would
never have been written."
The difficulties which have stood in the way of
the advancing study of reinforcement will undoubtedly continue to cause trouble, but they will be
more than offset by the powerful reinforcing consequences of work in this field. Techniques are now
available for a new and highly profitable exploration of the human behavior at issue in education,
commerce and industry, psychotherapy, religion,
and government. A program of cultural design in
the broadest sense is now within reach. Sociologists, anthropologists, political scientists, economists, theologians, psychotherapists, and psychologists have long tried to reach an understanding of
human behavior which would be useful in solving
practical problems. In that technological race a
dark horse is coming up fast. The new principles
and methods of analysis which are emerging from
the study of reinforcement may prove to be among
the most productive social instruments of the twentieth century.
REFERENCES
1. FERSTER, C. B., & SKINNER, B. F. Schedules of reinforcement. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1957,
2. SHEEHAN, J. G. The marital status of psychoanalysis
and learning theory. Amer. Psychologist, 1957, 12,
277-278.
3. SKINNER, B. F. The behavior of organisms. New York:
Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1938.
4. SKINNER, B. F. Are theories of learning necessary?
Psychol. Rev., 19SO, 57, 193-216.
5. SKINNER, B. F. Science and human behavior. New
York: Macmillan, 1953.
6. WORTIS, J. Fragments of an analysis with Freud. New
York: Simon & Schuster, 1954.