B.F. Skinner developed the theory of operant conditioning which examines how behaviors are influenced by consequences. Operant conditioners use reinforcement schedules to shape behaviors by rewarding desired responses. They can train animals to perform tasks and detect sensory stimuli. Schedules of intermittent reinforcement produce stable, schedule-controlled behaviors useful for studying mechanisms of action. Skinner argued operant conditioning could improve education by emphasizing positive reinforcement over punishment, though his views on human nature were controversial.

1. Running head: B.F. SKINNER OPERANT CONDITIONING 1
B.F. Skinner Operant Conditioning
YourFirstName YourLastName
University title

2. B.F. SKINNER OPERANT CONDITIONING 2
Abstract
Radical behaviorism is substantially different from customary psychology; hence it is not a
surprise to realize that it has been widely misunderstood. It offers an alternative to the
traditional treatments of mind that avoids some of the mysterious problems raised by those
views. B.F Skinner for several times, tried to describe this option with restricted success,
partly attributable to the dullness of his prose, as well as the excessiveness of his purported
applications (Skinner, 1953). Operant conditioning has contributed much on the development
of behavior in many ways. Operant conditioners succeed at using schedules of alternating
reinforcement to create the type of constant animal performance needed in studying objects
which produce effects only after prolonged experience.
B.F. Skinner Operant Conditioning
Production of Behavior
Operant conditioners rely mostly on the ability they have in producing behavior
to some specifications manipulating the manner in which the response of an animal pays off.
Behavior of a particular form can be modeled by reinforcing instances that are more and
more closely estimated to the behavior one wishes to manufacture. Operant conditioners can,
for instance, teach animals to respond abruptly or slowly, in order to exert great or small
amounts of force, to hold down a lever for a time limit that is specified, to pause before
reacting or to emit a specified number of responses before doing anything else. This implies
that there is a possibility of shaping the intensive as well as the temporal aspects of the
animal’s responding in creative ways to produce a lot of fascinating and helpful types of
behavior. For instance, if the toxicologist has an interest in knowing how a chemical affects

3. B.F. SKINNER OPERANT CONDITIONING 3
the ability of an animal to engage in repetitive, strenuous physical activity. The animal will
either be compelled to make a run in order to escape from being tumbled against the end of
the box or from being shocked or simply use positive reinforcement. Nord (1997), taught
squirrel monkeys to run up and down on a vertical pole three meters high, by pressing pedals
at both terminals in order to earn food capsules. They found that the monkeys would steadily
work on the task for a period of forty five minutes, going up and down at least three times in
a minute. The experiment chose a reinforcement schedule producing a steady rather slow rate
of performance. However, they could only as easily have manufactured a much higher or
much lower rate. The point being addressed here is that they injected work by a small
monkey at a speed called for by the exacting problem facing them without subjecting the
animal to a demanding coercion.
Operant conditioning on the measurement of sensitivity
Operant conditioners can teach animals to react differentially to a variety of physical
dimensions of their surroundings. They practice this by reinforcing one reply in the presence
of one incentive and the other response in its absence. The stimulus thereafter comes to guide
the response. This is the reason behind the occurrence of significant senses, that is, what
animals hear, smell, and see a midst other senses. Stokinger, on the limitations of animal
behavioral toxicology, argues that the fact that animals cannot account for the sensation they
experience, they should not be used as experimental apparatus to draw conclusions on man.
He argues that by changing the stimuli suitably, one can quantify how well they sense their
environment. The absolute threshold, which is, the minimum detectable energy level can
therefore, be established. Through this variance, one can also get a hint on how easily animals
detect little additions and subtractions to their environment (Nord, 1997).

4. B.F. SKINNER OPERANT CONDITIONING 4
An animal’s internal sensation can also be a measure through operant conditioning.
Interceptor events play a crucial role here. However, they in most cases serve as
discriminative stimuli. An animal can again be trained in regards to how they react the drugs
they have just been given. One ought to first of all train the animal to react to agents whose
impacts are known before engaging to the unknown drugs or toxic substances. This will make
it possible for one to understand how the animal reacts on such substances by comparing the
two. The challenge of quantifying the strength of irritating substances can be studied in the
same manner though it may also be done through escape conditioning given that the
substances are adequately aversive.
Schedules of reinforcement
Operant conditioners do well in coming up with the stable animal behavior that is
typically maintained catalysts are made available only from time to time. An emergent of
patterns of responding which are quite specific to the contingencies of reinforcement is
common on such schedules. Research shows that, the operant baselines controlled by the
schedules are stable in all circumstances daily. Performances which are schedule controlled
are said to be useful on issues concerning behavioral mechanisms of action. This is to mean
that one is able to know aspects of behavior that are exactly are more relevant to how a
substance produces its effects (Emilio, 2003).
Research shows that reinforcement schedules has nothing to add on the study of toxic
impacts on the acquisition of new behavior. Scholars argue that there can be as many ways of
studying learning as there are ways of confronting organisms having changed reinforcement
contingencies and then looking at them as they get used to the new contingencies. Schedules
also play a vital role in ensuring that the worker having an interest in the way various rein
forcers reveal toxicity is adequately helped. A study done by Wood (2006) showed that a

5. B.F. SKINNER OPERANT CONDITIONING 5
toxic substance can as well play a role of a reinforcer in itself when delivered in accordance
to a schedule. Work is described by Wood as a solvent that at times serves as the vehicle for
the ingestion of more toxic compounds such as those which emerge in household aerosol
products (Wood, 2006). In addition, the stability of operant performances controlled by
schedules can be precious in dropping the variability of sensory or physiological measures.
This suggests that anybody with an aim of making repeated determinations concerning the
awake animal would be well advised to put into consideration the merits offered by such
direct methods.
Skinner’s idea of human nature
Skinner (1971) remains undecided and blurred on the responsibility that human nature
and environment play in issues concerning learning. Operant behavior operates upon the
environment to produce consequences according to skinner (Emilio, 2003). Nevertheless, the
environment does not remain passive, rather it chooses. He however, agrees that operant
behavior is given a chance to only a function that is ceremonial. A section of his philosophy
on human nature suggests that it is a suitable discovery to which he assigns all sorts of natural
tendencies short of proper explanations. In spite of recognizing natural, human endowments,
which has developed as a result of its survival value in the evolutionary process, Skinner sees
in it only those things that will serve his theory. He does not hesitate to manipulate his views
on human nature to hold up his claims on the capacity and efficiency of operant conditioning.
He holds on a extremely low opinion of human nature (Nord, 1997). He has a preference of
technology of operant conditioning in order to be in charge of men.
Operant conditioning and a paradox of teleology

6. B.F. SKINNER OPERANT CONDITIONING 6
Porpora (1990) figures out an ambiguity in the analysis of goal-directedness and
argues that an evasion on this vagueness led to mistaken conclusion that behavior resulting
from operant conditioning is goal directed in the logic specified by Wright (1972) and by
Taylor (1964). He proposed and endorsed a breakdown of goal directedness that fail to
exhibit the ambiguity he finds in Wright and that his claims captured the true intend of
Taylor. His analysis specifies that operant behavior is not goal directed. Ringen (1976),
iterates the division that exists between responded and operant conditioning. He argues that
the typical case of the responded conditioning is that of the Pavlov’s dogs where salivation as
a response is produced by the sound of a bell. This he goes on to say that has achieved the
status of stimulus that is conditioned by the fact that it is temporarily paired with a meal. He
thereafter observes that, this manner of conditioning is deliberately non teleological. There
exist no link between behavior and its effects on the surroundings. This is based on the fact
that the salivation of the dog cannot in anyway produce food. In this method, behavior is
drawn out, not by a stimulus, but by the history of reinforcement in which such behavior has
produced.
Taylor (1964) gives an explanation teleology as being one that accounts for some
event of cluster of events by laws in terms of which the occurrence of an event is held to be
depended on its requirement at the end. According to this explanation, Taylor argues that
behavior is typically a function of causal attribute of an environment which needs a little bit
of behavior for the production of some constant goal. This shows that as the environment
varies, a corresponding change in behavior is experienced. This argument brings about the
fact that the incidence of a certain behavior could be explained by a teleological account
rather than by a mechanistic account. However, Noble refutes this; he shows that, in any
incidence where behavior is explained by a teleological account, a mechanistic account may
be offered as well (Noble, 1967). Despite that Taylor points out that in contrast to the

7. B.F. SKINNER OPERANT CONDITIONING 7
parsimonious explanation given by a teleological account, what such mechanistic accounts
amounts to is a series of explanations which offers no foundation for predicting in the
particular situation. He however, agrees that it eventually remains to be seen whether a
mechanistic framework can provide a viable general explanation such as that which is offered
through teleological framework.
Application of operant conditioning to education
In regards to Skinners point of view, operant conditioning applied to education is easy
and straight forward. He states that, teaching is the arrangement of the unforeseen events of
reinforcement over which the students acquire knowledge. These events consist of three
stages; an occasion through which there is an occurrence of behavior, the behavior in itself in
addition, to the effects resulting from that behavior. Methods used to arrange those
contingencies of reinforcement results into a more effective control of learning behavior as
well as allow one to form the behavior of an organism almost at will. In his essay, the
technology of teaching, Skinner outlines a thorough and technical summary of operant
conditioning and its use to education (Nord, 1997).
Current educational practices have gotten a considerable number of shortcomings
under which Skinner puts more emphasis. Overreliance on aversion, or punishing,
consequences in controlling learning is one of the failures of the teacher. Unlike long ago
where corporal punishment was a norm, reforms made in the education sector have just
shifted this kind of punishment to a non-corporal one (Williams, 2008). These aversive
controls include scolding, criticism, sarcasm, ridicule, extra home or school work as well as
incarceration. In institutions of higher learning, this pattern of aversive ness stays alive
according to Skinner, in the manner of assigning and testing through which learners are made
to read books, attend lessons, perform experiments, write papers and take tests among others

8. B.F. SKINNER OPERANT CONDITIONING 8
(Lejeune et al., 2006). They are prone to suffer aversive consequences in case they fail to
report accurately on what they have seen, heard or read. The judgment of a teacher is by the
strictness of the threat he inflicts and how firm he makes students work in spite of how much
they have actually learned.
The actual result of this kind of controls come along with a range of forms of escape
among students; counter attacks, and inaction with such emotional accompaniment as fear,
anger, resentment, and anxiety. Skinner argues that most students are well exposed and
seriously need education, yet they cannot force themselves to study. These methods of
reinforcement not only have effects on students but also on teachers (Lejeune et al., 2006). At
the beginning, a teacher may start his career with enthusiasm towards his or her profession
and students only to find himself playing time after time unsociable role as a stock of violent
behaviors is frequently reinforced. This view does not create a center of attention or hold
superb quality teachers. According to Skinner, sometimes the occupation has been endurable
only to weaklings or to those who enjoy treating others aversively.
Skinner states that the initial step in designing instruction is to define terminal
behaviors- the main lessons that a student ought to know at the end of the learning (Skinner,
1953). Thereafter, there should be an organization of events to strengthen behaviors through
reinforcement. In the midst, of the behaviors that can be trained are those required for
composite learning and thinking. Contrary to ordinary belief that programming is helpful
only in schooling on the knowledge height programming can also be applied to teach at extra
complex levels of thinking (Williams, 2008).
Conclusion
B.F Skinner, being the founder of operant conditioning, had a believe that the best
way to get a hint of behavior of one is to take a look at the causes of action and its

9. B.F. SKINNER OPERANT CONDITIONING 9
consequences. He particularly based his theory on the works done by Edward Thorndike ‘law
of effect’ (Thorndike, 1905). The stress on the behavior of psychology is primarily on the
way one learns to behave in a particular manner. Human beings are constantly getting new
behaviors daily and the manner in which the behaviors that already exist can be modified
(Nord, 1997). Skinner’s point of view attempts to expose how negative effects resulting from
reinforcements. He also addresses the role played by engaging punishments to one’s subjects.
He shows that punishments has nothing to perfect behaviors but only weakens the existing
behaviors (Lejeune et al., 2006).
References
Emilio, R. (2003). Behavior & Philosophy: What is Defined in operational Definitions? The
Case of Operant Psychology. London: Longhorn.
Lejeune, H, Richelle, M & Wearden, J. (2006). Journal of the Experimental Analysis of
Behavior. New York: Wiley & Sons.
Noble, D. (1967). “Charles Taylor on Teleological Explanation”. Amsterdam: Munford.
Nord, W. R. (1997). Organizational Behavior & Human Performance. New York: Wiley &
Sons.
Ringen, J. (1976). “Explanation, Teleology, and operant Behaviorism: A study of the
experimental Analysis of Purposive Behavior” Philosophy of Science. Washington: McGraw
Hill.
Skinner, B.F. (1953). Science and Human Behavior. New York: MacMillan.
Thorndike, E. L. (1905). The elements of psychology. New York: A. G. Seiler.
Williams, J. (2008). Times Educational Supplement. Washington: McGraw Hill.

10. B.F. SKINNER OPERANT CONDITIONING 10
Wood, R. W. (2006). Stimulus Properties of Inhaled Substances. London: Oxford University
Press.