B.

F
SKINNER..WHAT
DIFFERENTIATES
HIM FROM
THORNDIKE
SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES
INTRODUCTION

■ Conditioning human behavior is a topic that has been researched for years.  Two
psychologists that spent much of their lives researching and testing their theories were
Edward Thorndike and B.F. Skinner.  Both psychologists developed their own theories
on how to condition human behaviors; Thorndike’s theory is called the Law of Effect
and Skinner’s theory is the Reinforcing Stimulus/Reinforcing Concepts.  Although both
theories are different, they both share many similarities and can potentially be combined
to help create an effective computer software program to effectively teach students in
the classroom.
E.THORNDIKE’S LAW OF EFFECT

■ Thorndike’s Law of Effect states that a response followed by a pleasant consequence is

more likely to be repeated, whereas a response followed by an unpleasant consequence
is more likely to be diminished.  The Law of Effect is directly a function of the
interactions between positive (pleasant) and negative (unpleasant) reinforcements and
punishments.  A positive consequence is defined as the gaining of something, while a
negative consequence is the removal of something.  A positive reinforcement can be
defined as something that can be perceived as a pleasant consequence, thus increasing
the likelihood that a behavior will occur again.  A negative punishment is defined as
something that provides an unpleasant consequence thus decreases the likelihood that
something will be repeated.  The greater the reinforcements or punishments, the greater
the effects of the law.
B.F SKINNER’S REINFORCING
CONCEPTS
■ Skinner’s Reinforcing Stimulus/Reinforcing Concepts defines a reinforcing stimulus or
reinforcer as a special kind of a stimulus encountered by someone performs a behavior. 
This special stimulus has the effect of increasing the behavior occurring just before the
reinforcer.  Skinner’s concepts state that if a behavior is followed by a consequence, and
the nature of the consequence modifies tendency to repeat the behavior in the future.  A
behavior followed by a reinforcing stimulus may result in an increased probability of
that behavior occurring in the future; while a behavior that lacks a reinforcing stimulus
may result in a decreased probability of that behavior occurring in the future.
SIMILARITIES

■ Both Thorndike’s and Skinner’s theories have many similarities and differences.  Both
theories recognize that consequences due to behaviors have a direct impact on conditioning
human behavior.  However, in Skinner’s theory, a behavior is likely to reoccur based on a
reinforcer rather than whether the stimulus is positive or negative.  Thorndike’s theory on
the other hand is based primarily on the reinforcements and punishments, both which in
theory could be stimulating.  Both theories can cross paths in an attempt to positively
reinforce someone for a good behavior.  The theories are less likely to co-exist in negative
behaviors.  For example, if a child does something they are not supposed to, you are likely
to yell no to them which is a negative punishment, however still very stimulating to a child.
 The one instance when a the theories can cross paths for negative behavior is when the
negative punishment described by Thorndike involves taking attention away from the person
doing the behavior, thus limiting the stimulus described by Skinner.
SIMILARITIES

■ Both Thorndike and Skinner practiced operant conditioning