Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Graduate Training at UCLA Havior (Skinner, 1953) When I Was Just Start
Graduate Training at UCLA Havior (Skinner, 1953) When I Was Just Start
B. F. Skinner’s Science and Human Behavior (1953) became the main source of my understanding of
behavior during my first semester as a college professor in 1955 at Kansas University. It has continued
to exert a major influence throughout my career as the basis for a completely deterministic science
of behavior, as a handbook to be consulted as a first step in dealing with any issue in behavior
analysis, and as a tutorial in behavioral interpretive analysis—in the use of a small number of be-
havioral concepts and principles to understand behavior of all degrees of complexity. I describe four
general interpretive orientations or maxims that are of broad significance for behavior analysis, and
also two underappreciated major theoretical contributions.
Key words: Science and Human Behavior, B. F. Skinner, behavioral explanation,genetic determination,
motivation, radical behaviorism
321
322 MICHAEL
been covered in the two courses I had taken subtle controversial issues. For me there had
from him on comparative psychology. That been no implication that a small number of
the text assigned for the course was Skinner’s concepts and principles, without further ex-
Science and Human Behavior (S&HB) did not perimental research, could be the basis for a
clue me that this course was going to be quite comprehensive understanding of human be-
different. I had purchased the text for the havior and of great practical value for im-
course and did not sell it back, I think be- proving the human condition. This was clear-
cause I had nothing in my library by Skinner, ly the message of S&HB, and my teaching
but I do not remember reading it until my efforts with that introductory course for non-
first semester as an assistant professor at Kan- majors had apparently sensitized me to the
sas University in 1955. value of such an approach.
I continued to use S&HB for lecture ma-
Kansas University, 1955–1957 terial for the rest of the semester, and as a
I was hired at KU primarily to teach ad- result, my lectures generated a good deal of
vanced statistics (mainly analysis of variance useful and animated in-class and out-of-class
and experimental design), physiological psy- discussion; considerable praise for my (Skin-
chology, and broader methodological or phil- ner’s) analysis of everyday events and other
osophical issues. In addition to advanced sta- forms of reinforcement for use of S&HB.
tistics and a graduate course titled And the repertoire that was developing from
‘‘Methodology’’ (a sort of philosophy of sci- my study of the book and from my interac-
ence course), my teaching load for the fall tion with the class became increasingly my
semester of 1955 also included a junior level way of interacting with the KU faculty and
introductory course for students who were graduate students. By the end of that first se-
not psychology majors. An eclectic introduc- mester I was beginning to be known for my
tory text had been assigned for the course, Skinnerian approach to everything. I taught
and as we went through the text, I used my the course two more semesters during which
personal library to try to find lecture material the traditional topics became primarily ex-
that would make the text topics more rele- cuses for introducing the important compo-
vant to the students’ everyday activities and nents of a basic and applied science of be-
thus possibly more interesting. One evening havior, as in S&HB.
in the 3rd or 4th week of the semester I was The senior members of the KU Psychology
beginning to look for material to use in my Department at that time were cognitive psy-
lectures that would accompany the upcoming chologists of the Kurt Lewin variety (Fritz and
chapter on learning. I had several texts on Grace Heider, Martin Scheerer, Herbert
learning theory from my UCLA courses, and Wright, Roger Barker, Eric and Beatrice
S&HB was in the same part of the book shelf. Wright). My primary graduate teaching re-
A glance at the table of contents showed that sponsibility (advanced statistics) did not bring
the whole last half of the book was concerned me into any conflict with this orientation. A
with exactly the kind of topics that would be significant portion of cognitive psychology,
of interest to the students in this course—self- however, consisted in criticism of behavior-
control, thinking, social behavior, govern- ism. As my behavioral views became known to
ment and law, religion, psychotherapy, de- the graduate students (who were my age and
signing a culture—and would presumably be with whom I socialized a good deal), they
analyzed in terms of the learning concepts wanted me to address the flaws in behavior-
presented in the first half. This was just what ism that the senior faculty were presenting in
I needed for interesting lecture material. their graduate courses. Fortunately, the first
I started reading that night and could hard- three chapters of S&HB addressed many of
ly stop. I found that S&HB was much more these issues, and as a result, I found myself
than an introductory treatment for students quite fluent in my frequent debates with the
with no psychology background. It was a high- graduate students.
ly consistent and completely behavioral inter- As it turned out, there were almost no fac-
pretation of all aspects of human behavior. ulty1 or graduate students in the Psychology
My graduate training at UCLA had empha-
sized differing theoretical perspectives and 1 Edward Wike, who had come to KU with a Ph.D. from
S&HB: A TUTORIAL 323
Department at KU who knew anything at all S&HB and on Skinner’s analysis of language
about Skinner. Their criticisms of behavior- in the William James Lectures and in Verbal
ism were mostly directed at Watson, Thorn- Behavior (Skinner, 1957).
dike, Hull or, more commonly, their own Interactions with my colleague Lee Meyer-
Lewinian interpretation of those views. I son and informal graduate seminars based on
could often agree with some aspect of the S&HB and Verbal Behavior (VB) resulted in
criticism, but denied that it had any relevance strengthening my dependence on these two
to what I considered the modern descriptive books as a basis for dealing with any aspect
behaviorism of B. F. Skinner. From me, the of behavior. When I had an opportunity to
grad students received the message that their teach a junior level course on learning, how-
objections were either easily answered or ever, I used Keller and Schoenfeld’s (1950)
were based on their own seriously flawed in- Principles of Psychology as the text. I didn’t
terpretation of behaviorism. think S&HB would be what the rest of the
This interaction plus my teaching of a psy- faculty would consider a learning text—no
chology of language course (based largely on figures, no references to basic learning re-
a mimeographed version of Skinner’s William search, and so forth.
James Lectures) in 1956 and again in 1957 Arizona State University, 1960–1967
brought me considerable attention—notori-
ety is a better term—and the departmental By 1959 Arthur Staats at Arizona State Uni-
executive committee eventually decided that versity and Hudson Jost, a physiological psy-
it would be better for all concerned if I ob- chologist who had recently been hired as
tained work at some other university. They chair, were beginning to develop a strongly
were very considerate in urging me to look behavioral department and offered me a po-
for another job but not to take an unsatisfac- sition. (Israel Goldiamond was the other hire
tory one—in fact, to wait until I found a job that year.) I was not dissatisfied with Houston,
that I would consider an improvement over but this was a better opportunity to further
the present one at KU. Several members of the behavioral position within psychology. By
the department then began to contact col- the time I moved to ASU in 1960, I was a
dedicated and orthodox Skinnerian and con-
leagues at other universities as a way of help-
tinued to make intellectual and increasingly
ing me find such a job, and a nice position
practical use of S&HB and VB. My colleagues
at the University of Houston was located,
there during the first several years were also
where I was subsequently hired, starting in
very behavioral (Arthur Staats, Israel Goldia-
summer of 1957.
mond, Thom Verhave, Joel Greenspoon, Ar-
University of Houston, 1957–1960 thur Bachrach, Aaron Brownstein), but my
reliance on the content of those two books
As at KU, my primary teaching responsibil- was somewhat unusual even in that context,
ity was advanced statistics, and although the and I think I was considered a little too nar-
faculty were not in general agreement with row in my theoretical focus. I taught an intro-
Skinner’s views, they welcomed my enthusi- ductory behavior analysis course but, again,
astic promotion of those views as a stimulus did not use S&HB as the text because by that
for intellectual discourse. It was an eclectic time the Holland and Skinner (1961) pro-
department, and several of the faculty (Rich- grammed textbook The Analysis of Behavior
ard Evans, Daniel Sheer, James McCary) en- had become available. At ASU, I became in-
joyed arguing with me and seemed intrigued creasingly involved with Lee Meyerson’s re-
with the practical implications of Skinner’s habilitation psychology program and made
behaviorism as I presented them based on extensive use of the S&HB and VB reper-
toires in interaction with Lee and with the
UCLA a few years before me, was very familiar with all graduate students who were being supported
varieties of behaviorism, especially the works of Hull and on federal training grants that he had ob-
Skinner, but for various reasons kept a low theoretical
profile. When he realized the extent of my interest in
tained.
Skinner (that had not existed when I came to interview Western Michigan University, 1967–2003
for the job) he gave me his copy of Principles of Psychology,
the very effective 1950 introduction to Skinner’s work by In 1966 Roger Ulrich had become chair of
F. S. Keller and W. N. Schoenfeld. the WMU psychology department and was in
324 MICHAEL
the process of strengthening its behavioral tions that are not found elsewhere; some of
orientation. David Lyon, Paul Mountjoy, Neil which have been especially important in my
Kent, Richard Malott, Douglas Anger, and own teaching and writing. I start with four of
Ron Hutchison were already there, and I ac- the general interpretive orientations or max-
cepted a position to begin in 1967. My teach- ims and then consider two theoretical contri-
ing duties at WMU involved elementary sta- butions. These points are still useful to me
tistics, an undergraduate course on verbal over 40 years after I first encountered them.
behavior (I used Skinner’s VB), later an in-
troductory course for psychology majors (us- Maxims
ing the Holland-Skinner programmed text, Any comprehensive account. At the beginning
and various graduate courses, one with VB as of Chapter 15 (‘‘Self Control’’) a common
the required text and others with S&HB as objection is presented:
one of several required texts. While at WMU, In emphasizing the controlling power of ex-
I have written a number of conceptual pa- ternal variables, we have left the organism it-
pers, for example, on positive and negative self in a peculiarly helpless position. Its
reinforcement, the discriminative stimulus, behavior appears to be simply a ‘‘reper-
establishing operations (Michael, 1975, 1982, toire’’—a vocabulary of action, each item of
1993), and what I had absorbed from S&HB which becomes more or less probable as the
has figured prominently in such papers. I am environment changes. (p. 228)
quite confident that much of my writing in As an aside, and omitting ‘‘simply,’’ this is
retirement will continue to have ties to Skin- a conveniently succinct and accurate state-
ner’s analysis in S&HB. ment of the behavioral position. The objec-
R ETROSPECTIVE A PPRECIATION tion continues,
When I look at my own repertoire, I find Yet to a considerable extent an individual does
many elements or components that can be appear to shape his own destiny. He is often
able to do something about the variables af-
easily traced to S&HB, and most of them are fecting him. Some degree of ‘‘self-determina-
things I appreciate. This is not exactly a ret- tion’’ of conduct is usually recognized in the
rospective appreciation because I have trea- creative behavior of the artist and scientist, in
sured my familiarity with and use of S&HB the self-exploratory behavior of the writer, and
often since that first night in 1955. This is a in the self-discipline of the ascetic. . . . The
retrospective appreciation, however, in the individual ‘‘chooses’’ between alternative
sense that when I reread some part of the text courses of action, ‘‘thinks through’’ a problem
I often find an analysis that seems deserving while isolated from the relevant environment,
of new consideration. The book has affected and guards his health or his position in society
me in several ways. It is a comprehensive de- through the exercise of ‘‘self-control.’’ (p.
228)
scription of a completely deterministic sci-
ence of behavior, covering topics from un- The beginning of the next paragraph then
conditioned reflexes to the design of a contains a brief statement of what I consider
culture. In this sense, it has functioned as a one of the most important ‘‘attitudes’’ gen-
handbook that I have often consulted as a erated by S&HB: ‘‘Any comprehensive ac-
first step in dealing with some issue in behav- count of human behavior must, of course,
ior analysis. Somewhat more specifically, it embrace the facts referred to in statements of
has been a tutorial in behavioral interpretive this sort. But we can achieve this without
analysis—in the use of a small number of be- abandoning our program’’ (p. 228).
havioral concepts and principles to under- The last two sentences can be a very useful
stand behavior of all degrees of complexity. guide for considering any statement about
It provides training in how to talk and how behavior irrespective of that statement’s com-
to think consistently about behavior and its patibility with the behavioral position. (The
controlling variables, not only with respect to remainder of the chapter is a detailed analysis
the details of an analysis, but also in terms of of behavior that appears to be evidence for
some more general interpretive orientations self-control, but is ultimately to be under-
or maxims. It also contains a number of im- stood in terms of the current environment
portant theoretical and conceptual contribu- and the environmental history of the individ-
S&HB: A TUTORIAL 325
ual.) A similar point is made in concluding a satisfactory, the operant responses may be dis-
section on generalized reinforcement. placed by other behavior involving the same
‘‘These observable facts must have a place in musculature. If our guest has been offended
any theoretical or practical consideration’’ by undue delay in the preparation of the meal,
for example, he may take revenge by creating
(p. 81); and in a statement about the imper- a further delay—perhaps by asking to wash his
manence of the effects of punishment, ref- hands and remaining out of the room a long
erence is made to Freud’s concept of re- time. (p. 113)
pressed wishes followed by ‘‘as we shall see
later, Freud’s observations can be brought (This is exactly the kind of example that the
into line with the present analysis’’ (p. 184). Kansas cognitive psychologists would cite as
Throughout the book explanations in proof that an understanding of human be-
terms of an inner agent are analyzed and re- havior without internal meanings, etc. was im-
jected, but the observable facts on which they possible.)
are based are seriously considered and ‘‘em- [Such] behavior has been acquired because it
braced’’ or ‘‘brought into line’’ with a behav- has been reinforced by its damaging effect
ioral analysis. Our approach is sometimes crit- upon other persons—because the guest has
icized as unscientific or narrow in terms of ‘‘learned how to annoy people.’’ Before we
our failure to consider alternative viewpoints, can predict that he will come to the table . . .
but a ready willingness to consider the facts we must have information about all relevant
upon which they are based can mitigate this variables—not only those which increase the
probability of the response but also those
criticism to some extent. This maxim can also
which increase the probability of competing
constitute an argument against ‘‘giving away’’ responses. (p. 113)
any topic related to behavior—assigning it to
some other approach—talk therapy, individ- Because this kind of information is usually
ual differences, the perceptual constancies, unavailable it will be easier to assume that
imagery, for examples, all are grist for the be- whether or not the guest comes to the table
havioral mill. will depend upon whether or not he wants
If many variables are important. Current be- to. But this approach ‘‘is of neither theoreti-
havior may depend upon a history of rein- cal nor practical value, for we still have to pre-
forcement and relevant conditions of depri- dict [his wants]. The inner explanation is no
vation that may be unavailable at the time short cut to the information we need’’ (p.
prediction is required. In Chapter 7 (‘‘Op- 113). And this is the punch line: ‘‘If many
erant Discrimination’’), a scenario illustrating variables are important, many variables must
the difficulty and possible solutions is con- be studied’’ (p. 113). This is a difficulty char-
structed around the task of predicting wheth- acteristic of all scientific prediction, certainly
er a guest will come to the table when the not unique to behavior analysis.
host says, ‘‘Won’t you come to dinner?’’ (p. Don’t reverse the direction. ‘‘The control ex-
113). The analysis makes a major point and erted by a discriminative stimulus is tradition-
at the same time illustrates the sophistication ally dealt with under the heading of atten-
that is possible from a behavioral perspective. tion. This concept reverses the direction of
(I recall the comment of one of the senior action by suggesting, not that the stimulus
professors at Kansas University to the effect controls the behavior of an observer, but that
that behaviorism was possibly useful in un- the observer attends to the stimulus and there-
derstanding the behavior of young children by controls it’’ (p. 122). This undesirable ver-
and the developmentally disabled but hardly bal practice also occurs with respect to other
relevant to the normal adult.) terms related to stimulus control. The fact
Coming to the table is the kind of behavior that the control by a stimulus may also be
that has been reinforced with being able to shown to some extent by novel stimuli is re-
eat, and we can probably assume such a his- ferred to as stimulus generalization, but the
tory, but without relevant food deprivation direction is often reversed in saying that the
the guest may decline on the grounds of not organism generalizes from the original to the
being hungry. novel stimulus, or in the case of metaphor,
‘‘transfers a description from one state of af-
But even if the history of . . . deprivation is fairs to another which resembles it’’ (p. 133).
326 MICHAEL
early in the organism’s lifetime and are effec- the other effects of the various environmental
tive on it for prolonged periods. events.
Radical behaviorism. The essence of the phil-
Important Conceptual or Theoretical osophical view known as radical behaviorism
Contributions is contained in the first five pages of Chapter
Not really stimulation. A major conceptual 17 (‘‘Private Events in a Natural Science’’).
and terminological point is made in the first There appears the critical description of the
paragraph of Chapter 9 (‘‘Deprivation and four ways verbal behavior can be brought un-
Satiation’’). der the control of private stimuli and of the
The discovery that part of the behavior of an limitations of the resulting repertoire. This
organism was under the control of the envi- presentation is not much different from the
ronment led, as we have seen, to an unwar- same material found in the Psychological Re-
ranted extension of the notion of the stimulus. view article (Skinner, 1945), or in Verbal Be-
Writers began to infer stimuli where none havior (Skinner, 1957). Because of the func-
could be observed and to include various in- tion of S&HB as an introductory text for
ternal conditions in a ‘total stimulating situa- nonspecialists, however, the topic is set in a
tion.’ The principle of the stimulus was weak-
broader context; one that has always seemed
ened by this extension and often abandoned
in favor of other formulations of a less specific to me of considerable, and possibly over-
nature. It may be restored to usefulness in its looked, importance. The radical-methodolog-
proper sphere by distinguishing, as we have ical distinction is based on the inclusion of
done, between the several functions of stimuli. private events in the first and their exclusion
We have now to note that some effects of the en- from the second, because they are not subject
vironment are not usefully classified as stimulation to public confirmation. Some scholars have,
at all [italics added]. When we deprive an or- in a sense, rejoiced in the broadening of the
ganism of food, for example, we may stimulate behavioral approach so that feelings, con-
it, but this is incidental to the main effect. (p. sciousness, and states of mind could now be
141)
included, ostensibly because of the general
The main effect is to increase the proba- importance of such events for our under-
bility of relevant behavior (p. 142). And al- standing of the individual’s behavior and of
though food deprivation may produce hun- the human condition in general. A quite dif-
ger pangs as a form of stimulation, the ferent perspective, however, is possible from
implication here is that this stimulation is in- the section at the beginning of the chapter.
cidental to the effect of altering the proba- After making the point that events taking
bility of the type of behavior that has been place within the organism seem to have no
reinforced with food. This proposition is special properties because of their limited ac-
clearly in opposition to the general behavior- cessibility, except for rendering a functional
al notion that every response must have been analysis more difficult, the question is asked
produced by a stimulus—not, of course, Skin- how such variables should be treated.
ner’s notion—and is still not widely appreci- These questions may not be of interest to all
ated. readers. The issue is an ancient one, which has
Much of Chapter 9 is concerned with an- occupied the attention of philosophers and
alyzing and eliminating from further consid- others for more than two thousand years. It
eration various alternative concepts that func- has never been satisfactorily resolved, and per-
tion as explanatory fictions, but what remains haps the present inclination on the part of ed-
is a highly consistent theory of motivation. ucated laymen to avoid it represents simple ex-
When combined with the concept of the tinction. Fortunately, the issue is seldom
emotional predisposition in the next chapter crucial in the practical control of human be-
(‘‘Emotion’’) and with the motivational as- havior. The reader whose interests are essen-
tially practical and who may now prefer to
pects of aversive stimuli in the one after that move on to later chapters may do so without
(‘‘Aversion, Avoidance, Anxiety’’), the theory serious trouble. Nevertheless, the issue is im-
becomes comprehensive. From my perspec- portant and must sometime be faced. Modern
tive, the only improvement would consist in science has attempted to put forth an ordered
the existence of a common term for the mo- and integrated conception of nature. Some of
tivational relations, distinguishing them from its most distinguished men have concerned
328 MICHAEL