Operant conditioning

Theory of change

Change occurs when the contingencies, discriminative stimuli and schedules of reinforcement that select the current repertoire are reorganised.

Core ideas

1. Operant behaviour is explained by its historical consequences

   The consequence of a response does not act retrospectively as a magical cause of the act already emitted; it alters the organism in such a way that responses of the same functional class become more or less probable in future. This formulation makes it possible to analyse apparently intentional behaviours without turning purpose, expectation or utility into explanatory entities separate from the learning history. (Skinner, B. F., 1963, Operant Behavior; Skinner, B. F., 1969, Contingencies of Reinforcement).

2. The function of a behaviour matters more than its outward form

   One and the same topography may be maintained by attention, access to objects, reduction of demands, escape from distress or sensory consequences, and formally different behaviours may share a single function. Clinical formulation requires identifying what changes after the behaviour and how that change alters its subsequent probability, because intervening only on the appearance of the symptom may leave the maintaining contingency untouched. (Skinner, B. F., 1953, Science and Human Behavior; Hanley, G. P., Iwata, B. A., & McCord, B. E., 2003, Functional Analysis of Problem Behavior: A Review).

3. Reinforcement is defined by effect, not by intent

   A consequence is reinforcing when it increases a behaviour under comparable conditions, even if it does not look pleasant to an observer, and an apparently desirable consequence may reinforce nothing if it does not produce that increase. This definition requires programmes to be evaluated with data and protects the intervention from moralising assumptions about what a person ought to value. (Skinner, B. F., 1953, Science and Human Behavior).

4. Immediate relief can select highly persistent avoidance repertoires

   Escape and avoidance behaviours are strengthened when they rapidly reduce or prevent an aversive condition. The resulting relief functions as negative reinforcement, so the behaviour can increase even when it reduces opportunities, restricts life or maintains problems in the long term. This logic constitutes a fundamental bridge between operant analysis and many clinical patterns of anxiety, compulsion, procrastination and interpersonal withdrawal. (Skinner, B. F., 1953, Science and Human Behavior).

5. Extinction reduces a contingency but does not by itself build a repertoire

   Discontinuing the reinforcement of a behaviour may reduce it, but extinction does not automatically teach what to do instead, may produce transient increases and may fail if the maintaining consequence remains intermittently available. Sound clinical practice combines careful withdrawal of the problematic reinforcement with explicit reinforcement of alternative, functional and generalisable responses. (Skinner, B. F., 1953, Science and Human Behavior; Lerman, D. C., & Iwata, B. A., 1996, Developing a Technology for the Use of Operant Extinction in Clinical Settings).

6. Learning complex repertoires requires approximations, discriminations and chains

   Many adaptive behaviours do not appear complete from the outset. Shaping reinforces successive approximations, stimulus control teaches when to respond, and chaining organises sequences of skills whose final consequence maintains the individual links. This architecture makes it possible to turn abstract goals into learnable behaviours without mistaking present difficulty for stable incapacity. (Skinner, B. F., 1953, Science and Human Behavior; Skinner, B. F., 1968, The Technology of Teaching).

7. Motivating conditions alter the value of consequences

   Deprivation, satiation, pain, fatigue, stress, availability of resources and social conditions alter both the effectiveness of a reinforcer and the probability of the behaviours that have produced it. Operant analysis avoids interpreting behavioural variation as a fixed trait and directs attention to the conditions that make a repertoire feasible or improbable at a given moment. (Skinner, B. F., 1953, Science and Human Behavior; Michael, J., 1982, Distinguishing Between Discriminative and Motivational Functions of Stimuli).

8. Schedules of reinforcement organise persistence and maintenance

   The temporal distribution of consequences influences the rate, pattern and persistence of responses. A dense schedule facilitates acquisition, while intermittent schedules can sustain the repertoire with less direct support and increase its resistance to extinction; clinical maintenance therefore requires planning transitions towards natural reinforcers rather than merely installing an initial behaviour. (Ferster, C. B., & Skinner, B. F., 1957, Schedules of Reinforcement; Skinner, B. F., 1969, Contingencies of Reinforcement).

9. Private events form part of the analysis without replacing it

   Radical behaviourism does not deny thoughts, emotions or sensations; it places them within the field of events a person can partly observe from their own position. The analysis continues to ask about the conditions that make it probable that someone will describe, avoid, ruminate, feel or act in a particular way, so that private events are integrated without being treated as self-sufficient inner agents. (Skinner, B. F., 1974, About Behaviorism).

10. Self-control is the design of conditions, not isolated willpower

    When a behaviour has immediate consequences that compete with valued but delayed outcomes, a person can increase their practical freedom by organising stimuli, delays, commitments and reinforcers before the critical situation arises. Self-control is thus a second-order behaviour that modifies the conditions under which other behaviours become more probable, and it can be taught, measured and refined. (Skinner, B. F., 1953, Science and Human Behavior; Skinner, B. F., 1974, About Behaviorism).

Influences

• Charles Darwin's natural selection
• Edward L. Thorndike's law of effect
• Ivan Pavlov's physiology of reflexes and conditioning
• John B. Watson's methodological behaviourism
• Pragmatism and functional empiricism

Key references

• Ayllon, T., & Azrin, N. H. (1968). The Token Economy: A Motivational System for Therapy and Rehabilitation. Appleton-Century-Crofts.
• Azrin, N. H., & Holz, W. C. (1966). Punishment. In W. K. Honig (Ed.), Operant Behavior: Areas of Research and Application. Appleton-Century-Crofts.
• Baer, D. M., Wolf, M. M., & Risley, T. R. (1968). Some Current Dimensions of Applied Behavior Analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1(1), 91–97.
• Cooper, J. O., Heron, T. E., & Heward, W. L. (2020). Applied Behavior Analysis (3rd ed.). Pearson.
• Ferster, C. B., & Skinner, B. F. (1957). Schedules of Reinforcement. Appleton-Century-Crofts.
• Hanley, G. P., Iwata, B. A., & McCord, B. E. (2003). Functional Analysis of Problem Behavior: A Review. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 36(2), 147–185.
• Lerman, D. C., & Iwata, B. A. (1996). Developing a Technology for the Use of Operant Extinction in Clinical Settings: An Examination of Basic and Applied Research. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29(3), 345–382.
• Michael, J. (1982). Distinguishing Between Discriminative and Motivational Functions of Stimuli. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 37(1), 149–155.
• Sidman, M. (1960). Tactics of Scientific Research: Evaluating Experimental Data in Psychology. Basic Books.
• Skinner, B. F. (1938). The Behavior of Organisms: An Experimental Analysis. Appleton-Century.
• Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and Human Behavior. Macmillan.
• Skinner, B. F. (1963). Operant Behavior. American Psychologist, 18, 503–515.
• Skinner, B. F. (1968). The Technology of Teaching. Appleton-Century-Crofts.
• Skinner, B. F. (1969). Contingencies of Reinforcement: A Theoretical Analysis. Appleton-Century-Crofts.
• Skinner, B. F. (1974). About Behaviorism. Alfred A. Knopf.
• Stokes, T. F., & Baer, D. M. (1977). An Implicit Technology of Generalization. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 10(2), 349–367.