It is difficult to explain a complex phenomenon such as human behavior. However, if human behavior can be observed carefully from an objective position and understood for what it is, it can be possible to adopt a more sensible explanation. Various theorists have attempted to explain human behavior through scientific approaches, and B. F Skinner is one such theorist. For Skinner, all human behavior, both internal and external, can be explained by the environmental impacts produced. In any given situation, a behavior is followed by a consequence. The behavior is most likely to be repeated in future similar situations if the consequences are positive (reinforcers); however, if the consequences are negative (punishers), the behavior is least likely to be repeated in future similar situations. This argument has attracted various reactions. Highlighted hereunder is a summary of three different journal articles on Skinner’s theory of behavior. The first article explains the origin of behavior while the other two articles analyze Skinner’s work.
Article 1
In this article, Skinner tries to construct the plausible sequences through which behavior could have evolved, and the survival value at each stage. Simple movement, he argues, was the first behavior, followed by sensing.
In examining the behavioral process, Skinner suggests that imitation and modeling are the greatest contributors. He uses an example of grazing animals that are subject to frequent predation. These animals exhibit strong tendency to run, not only because of predators, but also the stimuli correlated with predators (Skinner, 1984). Respondent conditioning is identified as a process that brings the individuals under control of the environments where they are exposed. He examines Pavlov's classical example and concludes that behavior is condition in a similar way.
The author also looks at operant conditioning. He explains it using two examples: why a hand is removed from a painful stimulus, and why there is increased tendency of eating a particular type of food if such a food has survival value. This is the contingency of survival. Skinner argues that people behave in a given way simply because they are members of a given species who live in an environment where certain contingencies of reinforcement prevail (Skinner, 1984). The author also discusses the evolution of cultural practices. He argues that when the behavior of an individual is important, then, modeling is reinforced when someone imitates the behavior. Skinner defines culture as contingencies of social reinforcement that are maintained by a group.
The author has made remarkable efforts in explaining the origin of behavior; however, it should be acknowledged that these are theories. Just like any other theory, the assertions herein are subject to further investigation. The article, however, is of great help to anyone seeking to explain the origin of behavior.
Article 2
Skinner's theory of behavior. An examination of B. F. Skinner's Contingencies of Reinforcement: A Theoretical Analysis, by Stephen Winokur.
In this examination, Winokur argues that the understanding of Skinner's theory of behavior only depends on the knowledge of the reasons Skinner gives, and not cognitive science. For instance, Skinner postulates that behaviorism is psychology and psychology should be about behavior (Winokur, 1971). This, according to Winokur, is old school and outdated. Various behaviorists argue that psychology is about the behavior and the mind. While Skinner believes that the science of behavior must consider the events taking place within the organism as part of the behavior, Winokur argues that behavior may be covert, overt, verbal or nonverbal, and is not restricted to any of the vents taking place within the organism (Winokur, 1971).
About conscious experience, Skinner argues that, whatever happens does not happen in the mind or the nervous system, but in the behavior. The only way a behavior can be observed is by seeing what is seen in it, which is basically being aware of the experience (Winokur, 1971). Humans behave in a certain way when they see certain things. We see because we have been conditioned to see. When the seen object is there, it appears more vivid compared to when it is absent. According to Skinner, objects (both present and absent) are seen in a similar fashion. The author further criticizes Skinner’s argument that a rule is a set of discriminative stimuli. For sure, rules normally exist irrespective of anybody’s knowledge and whether or not they are followed.
Winokur’s judgment is critical and elaborate. He uses examples where necessary and makes reference to other theorists with similar view point. Skinner’s observations are mainly based on animals, and it may not be realistic to apply the findings directly to humans. It’s therefore important to carry out more extensive and conclusive behavioral analysis. The key to the analysis is a proper and open-minded interpretation of the behaviors, what constitutes them, and their consequences.
Article 3
B. F. Skinner’s Science and Human Behavior: Its Antecedents and its Consequences, by A. Charles Catania.
In this article, Catania gives an assessment of Skinner’s theory of human behavior as covered in the book Science and Human Behavior. First, he looks at the background of Skinner’s statements and then gives a critical analysis of the consequences. Catania acknowledges Skinner’s work, but believes that his accounts of thinking and language are largely ignored by cognitive science. In criticizing Skinner’s occasioned behavior, Catania argues that responses are reactions to something, and not emitted as Skinner postulates in operant behavior. More so, stimulus does not elicit the responses; it only occasions them (Catania, 2003).
Catania largely criticizes Skinner’s theory of behavior and believes that it has various inconsistencies. Some of the inconsistencies and difficulties include the interpretations of human phenomena, and the interpretation of the terms without the cautions (Catania, 2003). The author gives an example of self-reinforcement concept which has both logical and empirical difficulties. According to Skinner, the question is whether the consequences have strengthening effect on the behavior which produces it. Just as Winokur, the author argues that in order to understand Skinner's theory, one should have the knowledge of the reasoning and the caution given by Skinner.
While Skinner’s theory of behavior attracts various criticisms, including Catania’s, it is important to note that there are various applications of this theory. In some areas of education, behavioral economics, and behavior therapies, Skinner’s theory is traced. This article is of great importance to anyone seeking to criticize Skinner’s work.
Catania, A.C. (2003). B. F. Skinner’s Science and Human Behavior: Its Antecedents and its Consequences. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 80, 313–320. Retrieved July 29, 2012 from http://seab.envmed.rochester.edu/jeab/articles/2003/jeab-80-03-0313.pdf
Skinner, B. F. (1984). The evolution of behavior. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 41, 217–221. Retrieved July 29, 2012 from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1348035/pdf/jeabehav00059-0102.pdf
Winokur, S. (1971). Skinner's theory of behavior. An examination of B. F. Skinner's Contingencies of Reinforcement: A Theoretical Analysis. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 15(2): 253–259. Retrieved July 29, 2012 from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1333812/pdf/jeabehav00137-0127.pdf
