operant conditioning experiment examples

13 Examples Of Operant Conditioning in Everyday Life

Have you ever wondered, how did you learn to behave in a specific situation either to act good or bad? Of course, our parents and teachers have a great hand behind our behavioral aspects. But what are the tools that derive the behavior in our life?

Psychologist B.F. Skinner has defined Learning behavior through a called an operant conditioning theory. According to him, “The behavior of an individual is influenced by the consequences. It is the form of conditioning which explains the relationship between behavior and their consequences or rewards (Reinforcements and Punishments)”.

Two principal terms influence operant conditioning :

a. Reinforcements (Positive or Negative): Increase the rate of behavior.

b. Punishments ( Positive or Negative): Decrease the rate of behavior.

Now, let’s understand how operant conditioning operates our daily life activities:

Examples of Positive Reinforcement

In Positive reinforcement, one gets rewarded for a certain kind of behavior; with this, the probability of continuing good behavior increases. Let’s have some relevant examples of positive reinforcement:

1. Homework Completion

A student tends to complete his/her homework daily; because he/she knows that he/she will be rewarded with a candy (action) or praise (behavior).

2. Cleaning Room

A child may learn to clean his/her room regularly; because he/she will be rewarded with extra TV hours every time he/she cleans up.

3. Incentives and Bonuses

Workers are often offered with the incentives and bonus in return of completing their targets in time or for regular attendance. It makes the workers to perform better, so that, they can continuously get those incentives and bonus.

4. Discounts and Benefits

Sales Person often give Discounts and prizes to their customer in return for their assurance to shop with them again in the future. Similarly, most of the gyms also offer certain discounts to their customers, if they work out a certain number of times and use their diet products.

Examples of Negative Reinforcement

Negative reinforcement tends to take away something unpleasant, which is acceptable and helps in strengthening the behavior. Let’s have some relevant examples for Negative reinforcements:

5. Following Rules

Students or children will follow rules strictly to avoid being nagged by the teachers or parents. So, to avoid nagging, the child might end up following the rules strictly. Similarly, army personnel also have to follow the strict routine to avoid disciplinary actions against them; it shapes them into a disciplined individual.

6. Class Presentation

Class presentations are daily parts of student life. If a student is praised or complimented, he/she will be encouraged to do well, but if the student is laughed on or criticized in front of everyone, the presentation will be nothing more than just a formality in future.

7.  Avoiding Tantrums

A  child throws a tantrum because he/she didn’t get the candy bar. So, his/her father gets him one. He/She then stops the tantrum i.e. something unpleasant is avoided, and his/her father’s behavior of getting candy will increase.

8. Unpleasant Noise

A man turns on the TV sound to prevent the irritating sounds coming from outside of his house, maybe of vehicle’s honking or from an under-construction area. Turning on the TV or increasing the volume might decrease that unpleasant sound.

Examples of Positive Punishments

Positive Punishments is presenting something unpleasant after the behavior. It tends to decrease that behavior of the individual. Let’s have some relevant examples of positive punishment:

9. Insult/Shout

A student who always comes late to the class gets insulted every time in front of everyone from the teacher. To prevent the insult or shouting from the teacher, he/she may avoid coming late to the class.

10. Ignorance

After hitting a classmate, a student is made to sit alone in the class, and no one is allowed to talk to him or sit with him. It may ensure that the child will never hit his classmates again in the future.

11. Neglecting Studies or Failing

A student who ignores his/her studies or regularly gets failed in his/her exams and does not care towards his/her studies is often scolded by his/her parents and teachers. Sometimes, his allowances (pocket money) may also be reduced or completely cut off, the student though reluctantly, may be forced to focus on his/her studies to avoid the failures again.

Examples of Negative Punishment

Negative Punishment is removing something pleasant after the behavior. It also tends to decrease that behavior.

12.  Criticism

An employee getting criticized in front of the whole office by his boss and having certain privileges taken away as a consequence to his bad behavior at work may motivate him to stay in line and be more sincere.

13. Fine and legal issues

For instance, a driver is fined to some amount, and his driving license is ceased for not following the traffic rules. Here, money and license are removed as his pleasant affair.

Related Posts

12 Altruism Examples in Real Life

Types of Gaslighting

15 Acts of Altruism Examples

John Bowlby Attachment Theory

10 Real Life Examples Of Gestalt Principles

6 Hypothesis Examples in Psychology

One response.

Citation for this please

Add Comment Cancel Reply

Operant Conditioning: 65 Examples

Operant conditioning is a type of learning in which behaviors are strengthened or weakened by their consequences, called reinforcement or punishment. Operant conditioning works by applying a consequence, that is a reward or punishment, after a behavior.

There are 65 examples of operant conditioning behavior in everyday life, classroom, parenting, child development, animals, therapy, education, relationships, ABA, work, and classic experiments.

The difference between classical and operant conditioning and common misconceptions will be discussed. Other components and concepts of operant conditioning include schedules of reinforcement, extinction, extinction burst, spontaneous recovery, and resistance to extinction.

Table of Contents

What is operant conditioning?

Operant conditioning, or instrumental conditioning, is a type of associative learning in which behaviors are strengthened or weakened by their consequences, called reinforcement or punishment. When a behavior is paired with a consequence repeatedly, an association is formed to create new behavior.

Psychologist B.F. Skinner, the father of operant conditioning, proposed the reinforcement theory, stating that behavior could be shaped through stimuli contingencies or reinforcements.

How does operant conditioning work?

Operant conditioning works by applying a consequence, which is a reward or punishment, after a behavior. Reward, also known as reinforcement, strengthens a behavior by increasing the likelihood that a behavior will repeat in the future. Punishment weakens a behavior by decreasing the likelihood it will repeat.

What are examples of operant conditioning?

Examples of operant conditioning behavior are in everyday life, classroom, parenting, child development, at home, animals, therapy, education, relationships, ABA, work, fear conditioning, and experiments.

What are operant conditioning examples in everyday life?

• Receiving “Likes” for posting intriguing images on social media motivates people to post more.
• Getting a ticket for speeding discourages driving above the speed limit.
• Earning a discount coupon for recycling regularly encourages more recycling.
• Earning a free coffee after purchasing ten drinks motivates continued patronage of the café.
• Incurring a fine for littering discourages careless disposal of trash in public areas.
• Gaining compliments for dressing stylishly encourages maintaining a fashionable wardrobe.

What are operant conditioning examples in the classroom?

• Earning a sticker for every book read motivates a student to read more.
• Forfeiting recess time due to disruptive behavior discourages such actions in the classroom setting.
• Getting a lower grade for submitting homework late discourages procrastination and encourages timely submission.
• Being chosen as class leader for consistently good work motivates continued diligence and responsibility.
• Granting a class party for achieving a collective goal motivates teamwork and collective effort among students.
• Awarding a certificate for perfect attendance encourages consistent school attendance and punctuality.

What are operant conditioning examples in parenting?

• Offering praise for sharing toys encourages generosity and social skills among children.
• Losing television time for fighting with siblings decreases the occurrence of fights.
• Praising a child for tidying their room increases the likelihood they’ll do it again.
• Canceling a playdate for lying discourages dishonesty and promotes truthfulness.
• Providing a movie night as a reward for completing chores encourages diligence and responsibility in household tasks.
• Rewarding a month of good behavior with a special outing like a zoo trip encourages sustained positive conduct.

What are operant conditioning examples in child development?

• Commending a child for correctly identifying colors fosters learning and color recognition.
• Disregarding a child’s attention-seeking screams reduces the frequency of such behavior.
• Cheering for a child’s first steps encourages walking and physical development.
• Awarding a sticker to toddlers for using the potty encourages the development of consistent potty habits.
• Not reacting to a child’s whining for sweets discourages this form of persuasion.
• Providing verbal praise for using “please” and “thank you” promotes polite manners.

What are examples of operant conditioning at home?

• Receiving compliments on a well-kept garden encourages continued gardening efforts.
• Receiving praise for consistently watering plants encourages regular plant care.
• Suffering from a cluttered and disorganized kitchen due to neglecting regular cleaning discourages disorganization.
• Facing an uncomfortable living environment due to not fixing minor household repairs discourages procrastination.
• Enjoying the benefits of a well-stocked pantry and fridge for adhering to a grocery budget encourages fiscal responsibility.
• Thanking a neighbor for collecting mail during a vacation encourages and reinforces neighborly cooperation and kindness.

What are operant conditioning examples in animals?

• A dog getting a treat for sitting on command strengthens the obedience training.
• Giving a parrot its favorite fruit for mimicking words encourages vocal mimicry.
• Overlooking a dog’s attention-seeking barking reduces the frequency of such behavior.
• Using a stern voice to reprimand a dog for jumping on guests discourages inappropriate greeting behavior.
• Providing a dog with a favorite toy for not barking at the mail carrier discourages nuisance barking.
• Using a clicker and verbal praise to train a parrot for stepping onto a hand without nipping reinforces gentle interaction.

What are operant conditioning examples in therapy?

• Praising positive self-talk in cognitive-behavioral therapy enhances healthy coping strategies.
• Recognizing positive progress in phobia therapy boosts confidence in using healthy coping strategies.
• Facilitating social interaction in group therapy improves confidence in social settings.
• Acknowledging the reduction of negative thought patterns in therapy sessions encourages cognitive restructuring.
• Providing positive feedback for expressing feelings in therapy supports emotional openness.
• Praising brave behavior when encountering a scary situation reinforces courage.

What are operant conditioning examples in education?

• Presenting certificates for high exam scores incentivizes academic excellence.
• Providing constructive feedback on wrong answers enhances learning and understanding.
• Establishing a student-led research grant for innovative project proposals fosters a culture of inquiry and exploration beyond the classroom.
• Introducing a ‘Tech Innovator’ award for students who develop novel solutions or apps, encouraging technological creativity and entrepreneurship.
• Launching a student ambassador program for those excelling in leading extracurricular activities to promote leadership.
• Establishing a student-led research grant for innovative project proposals to foster intellectual curiosity.

What are operant conditioning examples in relationships?

• Expressing appreciation when a partner does household chores boosts helpful behaviors.
• Resolving conflicts with positive communication reinforces healthy relationship habits.
• Complimenting a partner for supportive behavior increases thoughtfulness.
• Withdrawing from arguments lessens hostile interactions.
• Giving a cold response to hurtful remarks discourages insensitivity.
• Sharing enjoyable activities rewards mutual support.

What are operant conditioning examples in ABA (Applied Behavior Analysis)?

• Providing praise and high-fives when a child completes a task boosts future cooperation.
• Letting a student take a break after finishing an assignment reinforces staying on-task.
• Maintaining predictable daily routines and structure reduces surprises and chaotic responses.
• Gradually lengthening the time a child must wait for a reward shapes patience.
• Reinforcing successive steps towards complex social skills shapes interactions.
• Using a token system where points are exchanged for rewards teaches new skills.

What are operant conditioning examples at work?

• Receiving a bonus at work for meeting sales targets reinforces diligent sales efforts.
• The chef getting praise for preparing a delicious meal encourages continued culinary efforts and experimentation.
• Awarding “Employee of the Month” for outstanding performance motivates excellence.
• After a day of hard work, enjoying a relaxing bath rewards and motivates continued effort.
• Offering a flexible work-from-home day as a reward for consistently meeting project deadlines motivates timely task completion.
• Issuing warnings for repeated tardiness reduces lateness.

What are the types of operant conditioning?

There are four types of operant conditioning.

• Positive reinforcement
• Negative reinforcement
• Positive punishment
• Negative punishment.

What is the difference between reinforcement and punishment?

The main difference between reinforcement and punishment is their goals. Reinforcement aims to increase a desired behavior, while punishment aims to decrease an undesired behavior.

Positive denotes adding a stimulus as a consequence, while negative denotes removing a stimulus as a consequence.

What is positive reinforcement?

Positive reinforcement adds a rewarding stimulus as a positive reinforcer to strengthen a desired behavior.

A positive reinforcement example is a parent giving their child an extra allowance for completing chores. In this example, extra allowance (positive reinforcer) is added (positive) to encourage (reinforcement) completing chores (desired behavior).

What is negative reinforcement?

Negative reinforcement removes an unpleasant stimulus to strengthen a desired behavior.

A negative reinforcement example is that a child doesn’t have to clean the table after the meal if they eat vegetables. Here, clearing the table is an averse stimulus that is removed (negative) to encourage (reinforcement) vegetable eating (desired behavior).

What is positive punishment?

Positive punishment adds an unpleasant stimulus to weaken or eliminate an undesired behavior.

A positive punishment example is when a teacher gives a student extra homework for making noise in class. In this example, extra homework is an averse stimulus that is added (positive) to discourage (punishment) students from making noise in class (undesirable behavior).

What is negative punishment?

Negative punishment removes a pleasant stimulus to stop undesired behavior.

A negative punishment example is when the police revoke the driver’s driving license (pleasant stimulus) to discourage (punishment) reckless driving (unwanted behavior.)

What are famous operant conditioning experiments?

Here are 5 famous operant conditioning experiments.

• B.F. Skinner’s “Skinner Box” (1900s) : B. F. Skinner conducted a series of operant conditioning experiments at Harvard University in the 1900s. He designed a special chamber, now known as the “Skinner box,” to study operant conditioning in animals, primarily rats and pigeons. The box contained a lever or key that the animal could manipulate to obtain food or water as a reward. Skinner observed how the animals learned to associate pressing the lever with receiving a reward and how they reacted to different reinforcement schedules, demonstrating the principles of reinforcement.
• Thorndike’s “puzzle box” (1898) : Before Skinner, Edward Thorndike conducted experiments using a puzzle box to study the law of effect. Hungry cats were placed in a box that could be opened by pulling a lever or stepping on a platform. Initially, the cats tried various actions to escape, but over time, they learned the specific action needed to get the reward of food. This experiment demonstrated the principle of trial-and-error learning and the law of effect, laying the groundwork for Skinner’s work on operant conditioning.
• Skinner’s “superstitious pigeons” (1948) : Another experiment by Skinner involved feeding pigeons at random intervals regardless of their behavior. In a 1948 study published in the Journal of Experimental Psychology, Skinner described how the pigeons developed superstitious behaviors, performing unnecessary actions associated with food arrival. This experiment illustrated how superstitions could form due to the coincidental timing of rewards.
• Skinner’s Project Pigeon “pigeon-guided missiles” (World War II) : During World War II, Skinner embarked on a secret project to train pigeons to guide missiles. The pigeons were conditioned to peck at a target, and their pecking would control the missile’s path. Although never used in combat, this experiment demonstrated the potential for applying operant conditioning principles to real-world problems.
• Montrose M. Wolf’s “token economy” (1960s) : Wolf’s token economy experiment, conducted in a psychiatric hospital, utilized a system where patients earned tokens for desirable behaviors like maintaining personal hygiene and participating in activities. These tokens, which held no intrinsic value, could be exchanged for rewards such as special privileges or items. Implementing this system significantly improved patient behavior, demonstrating the practical application of operant conditioning principles. The experiment is an important example in Applied Behavior Analysis, showing how well operant conditioning can be applied in real-life situations.

What is the law of effect?

The law of effect was a theory proposed by Edward Thorndike after observing the puzzle box experiment before Skinner discovered operant conditioning. 

The law of effect states that if, in the presence of a stimulus, a response was followed by a satisfying event (reinforcer), the bond between stimulus and response was strengthened. Conversely, if a response-stimulus event was followed by an unsatisfying event (punisher), the bond was weakened.

What is the difference between classical and operant conditioning?

What distinguishes classical conditioning from operant conditioning? Classical conditioning is a form of associative learning where a neutral stimulus becomes a conditioned stimulus through consistent pairing with an unconditioned stimulus. This process establishes an association, allowing the initially neutral stimulus to evoke a conditioned response similar to the unconditioned stimulus. 

Both classical and operant conditioning involve associative learning. However, the key difference between classical and operant conditiong is that classical conditioning associates two stimuli to elicit an automatic, involuntary response, while operant conditioning uses consequences to modify a voluntary action.

How is OCD linked to operant conditioning?

The symptoms of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) are believed to be linked to operant conditioning through negative reinforcement of compulsions. 

People with OCD may experience intrusive, anxiety-provoking thoughts, which lead to an obsession. According to Mowrer’s two-factor theory, the obsession could also be due to neutral stimuli becoming associated with anxiety through classical conditioning.

Negative reinforcement occurs when engaging in repetitive behavior or compulsions temporarily relieves this anxiety. This teaches the brain that the compulsion “works” to reduce distress, making it more likely to repeat in the future.

What are some common misconceptions about operant conditioning?

Several common misconceptions about operant conditioning often arise due to oversimplification or misunderstanding of its principles.

• Negative reinforcement is the same as punishment : This is a common misunderstanding. Negative reinforcement involves the removal of an unpleasant stimulus to increase a behavior, whereas punishment aims to decrease a behavior, either by introducing an unpleasant stimulus (positive punishment) or removing a pleasant one (negative punishment).
• Positive reinforcement or rewards always work : Although reinforcement aims to enhance behavior, its success isn’t guaranteed. The effectiveness of rewards is influenced by several factors, including the timing of the reinforcement, its nature, the specific needs and preferences of the learner, and the surrounding environment. For example, repetitively using the same reward or adding an element that removes an individual’s freedom might reduce motivation.
• Punishment always works : While people often react to positive and negative forms of punishment, there’s no certainty that unwanted behaviors will be eliminated permanently. For instance, children frequently punished by their parents might eventually become desensitized to the punishment and no longer change their behavior in response to it.
• Immediate reinforcement is necessary for learning : While immediate reinforcement can be more effective, especially in the early stages of learning, behaviors can still be learned with delayed reinforcement, though this may take longer and be less efficient.
• Reinforcement is always better than punishment in disciplining children :  Reinforcement encourages the repetition of desirable behaviors, while punishment discourages the occurrence of undesirable behavior. Using reinforcement to discourage an undesired behavior will likely not work. Therefore, the two conditioning types have no inherent good or bad. The good or bad depends on the exact steps used and the context.

What are the types of reinforcement schedules in operant conditioning?

In operant conditioning, schedules of reinforcement are the rules or plans for delivering reinforcement. These schedules can significantly impact the strength and rate of the learned behavior.

Here are the types of reinforcement schedules.

• Continuous Reinforcement : The behavior is reinforced every time it occurs. This schedule is often used during the initial stages of learning to establish a behavior.
• Fixed-Interval Schedule : Reinforcement is provided for the first response after a specific period has passed. For example, receiving a paycheck every two weeks.
• Variable-Interval Schedule : Reinforcement is given for the first response after varying time intervals. This schedule produces a slow, steady rate of response. For example, checking for a message on a smartphone; the message can come at any time, but the person keeps checking.
• Fixed-Ratio Schedule : Reinforcement is provided after a specific number of responses. For example, a reward is given after every fifth response.
• Variable-Ratio Schedule : Reinforcement is provided after an unpredictable number of responses. This schedule is very resistant to extinction. For example, in gambling or fishing, the reward is unpredictable.

What is extinction in operant conditioning?

In operant conditioning, extinction refers to the gradual weakening and eventual disappearance of a learned behavior. This occurs when the reinforcements that maintained the behavior are no longer provided.

For example, an employee who regularly receives bonuses for submitting reports early stops doing so when the bonuses are discontinued.

Here are some concepts connected to extinction.

• Extinct burst : The initial removal of reinforcement can sometimes lead to a temporary increase in the behavior, known as an “extinction burst.” The individual might try the behavior more frequently or intensely to receive the reinforcement again. For example, when a parent stops giving a child candies to stop her tantrum, the child throws more tantrums to try to get the candies again.
• Spontaneous Recovery : Even after a behavior has been extinguished, it can spontaneously reappear after some time has passed. For example, months after John quit smoking cold turkey, seeing someone smoke triggered his extinguished urge to smoke again.
• Resistance to Extinction : Some behaviors are more resistant to extinction, such as those reinforced more frequently or using a variable reinforcement schedule. For example, a gambler continues playing slot machines despite frequent losses, showing high resistance to extinction due to the occasional and unpredictable nature of winning.

References For Operant Conditioning

• 1. Capshew JH. Engineering Behavior: Project Pigeon, World War II, and the Conditioning of B. F. Skinner. Technology and Culture . Published online October 1993:835. doi:https://doi.org/10.2307/3106417
• 2. Risley T. MONTROSE M. WOLF (1935–2004). Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis . Published online June 2005:279-287. doi:https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2005.165-04
• 3. Skinner BF. Operant behavior. American Psychologist . Published online August 1963:503-515. doi:https://doi.org/10.1037/h0045185
• 4. Skinner BF. “Superstition” in the pigeon. Journal of Experimental Psychology . Published online 1948:168-172. doi:https://doi.org/10.1037/h0055873

Disclaimer: The content of this article is intended for informational purposes only and should not be considered medical advice. Always consult your healthcare provider for medical concerns.

13 Operant Conditioning Examples

Dave Cornell (PhD)

Dr. Cornell has worked in education for more than 20 years. His work has involved designing teacher certification for Trinity College in London and in-service training for state governments in the United States. He has trained kindergarten teachers in 8 countries and helped businessmen and women open baby centers and kindergartens in 3 countries.

Learn about our Editorial Process

Chris Drew (PhD)

This article was peer-reviewed and edited by Chris Drew (PhD). The review process on Helpful Professor involves having a PhD level expert fact check, edit, and contribute to articles. Reviewers ensure all content reflects expert academic consensus and is backed up with reference to academic studies. Dr. Drew has published over 20 academic articles in scholarly journals. He is the former editor of the Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education and holds a PhD in Education from ACU.

Operant conditioning is a concept in psychology that explains how people and animals develop learned responses through the repetition of positive reinforcement , negative reinforcement , and punishment.

Examples of operant conditioning in the classroom include providing stickers for good behavior, loss of playtime through bad behavior, and providing positive and negative grades on tests based on test results.

Examples in animals include giving a dog a treat for sitting and giving animals a shock of they run into a barbed wire fence, teaching them to leave it alone.

While operant conditioning is one of the most longstanding methods of teaching, many critics say it is dehumanizing and relies too much on extrinsic rewards rather than intrinsic motivation .

It is also referred to as instrumental conditioning or instrumental learning .

Operant Conditioning Examples

1. animal training.

Desired Behavior: Sit, Lay Down, Fetch Reward or Punishment: Treats

Operant conditioning is commonly used to train animals. Whether it is your dog at home or a domesticated wild animal being used in a movie, operant conditioning is key to getting the animal to do what you want.

For example, if your goal is to train your dog to lay down and roll over, you would employ a technique called shaping. Since the dog is unlikely to lay down and roll over the first time we give that command, we reward closer and closer approximations to rolling over.

First, we reward the dog when it lays down. Then, we reward the dog when it lays down and onto one side of its body. Next, we reward the dog when it lays to one side and rolls to its back. Finally, we reward the dog when it lays down and completes a full roll.

2. Speeding Tickets

Desired Behavior: Driving Slowly Reward or Punishment: Speeding Ticket

No one really knows if speeding tickets were invented based on operant conditioning. However, an expensive ticket for going over the speed limit certainly is a punishment. 

Do speeding tickets deter speeding later? That is an interesting question, but unfortunately it is one that has not be researched fully. At least one year-long study in Maryland revealed some surprising results.

In that study, over three million licensed drivers were studied. Drivers that received a ticket in May 2002 were compared to those that did not. The big question is: were the ticketed drivers less likely to get a second ticket during the subsequent year?

The results showed that ticketed drivers were twice as likely to get a second ticket compared to non-ticketed drivers. Although the results seem clear, it is a complicated issue and we have to take these findings with a grain of salt until more research has been conducted.

3. Temper Tantrums

Desired Behavior: Child stops crying when they get the food Reward or Punishment: Sweets

The “terrible twos” can be very challenging years for parents. If we observe a typical scenario involving dinner time and vegetables, we can see a classic example of how a child uses operant conditioning to shape the parents’ behavior.

Let’s say that the child is a picky eater and throws a serious tantrum whenever mom puts green beans on their plate. So, in order to stop the child from crying, mom takes the beans off the plate and gives them extra pudding instead.

In terms of operant conditioning, the child is using negative reinforcement. When mom gives pudding, the child stops crying. A behavior is strengthened (giving pudding) by removing an unpleasant stimulus (stop crying). Therefore, the likelihood of mom giving pudding in the future has been increased.

Of course, it is unlikely that a two-year old has read the most recent research on negative reinforcement, but kids are a lot more intuitive than we think.

4. Gold Stars and Smiley Faces

Desired Behavior: Rote learning Reward or Punishment: Stickers

Kindergarten and primary school teachers utilize the principles of operant conditioning on a daily basis. When a child is well-behaved, or at least not acting up, the teacher might put a gold star or smiley face sticker by their name on a poster.

A gold star is a big deal to a 5-year-old. The teacher has just used positive reinforcement to reward a behavior they want to see more of. Rewarding behavior increases the likelihood of it happening again.

Lots of things can serve as a positive reinforcer for a 5-year-old: stickers, high-fives, and even just a really nice smile.

5. Shock Collars

Desired Behavior: Stop barking Reward or Punishment: A shock when the dog barks

A shock collar can be used to train a household pet. It is usually used with dogs to stop them from barking or leaving the yard. The collar works by automatically detecting a bark or when the dog has passed a certain boundary. When those events occur, an electrical shock is administered.

This might sound cruel, but the degree of shock can be controlled by the owner and most of the collars have various settings to choose from. Because most dogs learn quickly, they will not have to endure shocks over a long period of time.

Shock collars are a straightforward example of punishment in operant conditioning. By applying an aversive stimulus following a specific behavior, the incidence of that behavior decreases. 

6. Service Upgrade Plans

Desired Behavior: Paying a fee Reward or Punishment: Less commercials

Nowadays, most media companies offer their customers an upgrade plan that eliminates advertising. For a small fee of course. By paying a little extra, a customer can watch programming that is commercial free. This is a very popular technique among today’s biggest media platforms.

It’s also an example of negative reinforcement. By removing an unpleasant stimulus (commercials) the media giant is increasing a desired customer behavior (paying a higher fee). This strategy works extremely well. 

7. Video Game Play

Desired Behavior: Completion of In-Game Task Reward or Punishment: In-Game Points and Rewards

One of the most intensive applications of operant conditioning can be seen in video games. The game designers make excellent use of rewards and punishment to shape a player’s behavior. 

For example, accomplishing certain tasks is rewarded by giving the player something useful that will help them do well in the game. This can include special coins or more energy for the player’s character.

The rewards are strong incentives and drive the player to spend more time playing. Although this is a desirable arrangement from the player’s point of view, it is also part of the equation in game addiction.

Many people become so addicted to video games that they will play all day. Some will avoid bathroom breaks because they don’t want to pause their play for even just a few minutes. Unfortunately, this has become a serious problem for many families and society in general.

8. Time-out

Desired Behavior: Maturity Reward or Punishment: Time-out

Parents and teachers can use time-out when a child is misbehaving. It simply involves removing the child from the situation where they are acting up and having them sit somewhere else.

From the child’s perspective, time-out is punishment. They are being taken away from the play area and made to sit still and quietly, which is very boring to a young child.

In terms of operant conditioning, punishment is occurring after unwanted behavior. This is supposed to decrease the likelihood of that behavior happening again.

Time-out has been a bit misunderstood over the years. A lot of caregivers use it purely as a punishment. However, it is also supposed to be a time for the child to calm down and reflect on their actions. That reflection process should be guided by the caregiver so that the child can fully understand their actions and learn how to avoid time-out in the future.   

Desired Behavior: Do a task Reward or Punishment: Nagging until the task is complete

After dinner when the dishes need to be washed, mom and dad usually have to nag their two teenagers to help-out. They scold them and make numerous comments about being responsible, being a part of a family, growing up and not acting like a spoiled child, etc.

This nagging is quite unpleasant and the kids feel very annoyed when it happens. So, in order to avoid being nagged, they wash the dishes.

This is a classic example of a typical family household with teenagers. It is also a good example of negative reinforcement. By removing an aversive stimulus (mom and dad nagging) a specific behavior is increased (washing dishes).

10. Credit Card Rewards Programs

Desired Behavior: Use the credit card Reward or Punishment: Cashback or rewards points

Credit cards make money in a variety of ways. One of main ways is by charging vendors a small fee for every purchase transaction. So, the credit card companies want people to use their card as much as possible.

They do this by offering a rewards program to customers. This can be in the form of getting cash back on purchases or earning points that can be used for something later. As the name of these programs suggests, they are utilizing operant conditioning.

By rewarding the customer every time they use the card, they will be more likely to use the card again.

11. Salary Bonuses

Desired Behavior: Exceed KPIs Reward or Punishment: Extra Pay

For a lot of people, nothing is more motivating than money. That is exactly why so many companies offer end of the year bonuses. In some professions, like hedge fund managers and stock brokers, this can amount to a significant amount of money. For the CEO of a large corporation, an end of year bonus can be in the tens of millions.

It is easy to see the application of operant conditioning here. It is a straightforward case of providing positive reinforcement for wanted behavior.

From a theoretical perspective, the sooner the reward follows the behavior the better. For this reason, sales people will often work on a commission, which is a way to deliver positive reinforcement more frequently.

12. Applause

Desired Behavior: A good performance Reward or Punishment: Social gratification

Many people have tried their hand at acting or music. It could be a production at school or something with the local community theatre. Either way, whether you are an amateur or a professional, it can be a nerve-racking experience.

There can be nothing more gratifying than receiving a round of applause after a performance. Or, nothing more humiliating than cold silence. It can be a very rewarding experience or a complete disaster.

Operant conditioning tells us that applause can increase the chances that we will perform again. So, if it is a person’s first time in a live production, be it a play or recital, if the audience rewards them with applause, then there will very likely be a second show.

13. Employee of the Month

Desired Behavior: Exceeding expectations at work Reward or Punishment: Award, plaque, or gift card

Everyone likes being recognized for good work and receiving an award. Many companies offer front-line workers various kinds of honors, including Employee of the Month. This often involves a certificate and perhaps the person’s name engraved on a plaque somewhere in public view.

The basic reasoning behind these awards is fairly straightforward: rewards increase behavior. So, if you want your workers to do a good job, offer an award for the person that does the best. This will not only make that employee work harder, but it will also affect the behavior of other workers. 

This is an example of operant conditioning being applied in a work setting. It is just one example of many. HR departments utilize the principles of operant conditioning frequently to motivate personnel to work harder and be more productive.

Definition of Operant Conditioning

Human beings and animals have a lot in common. Even though there are big differences in appearance and intelligence, they both learn the same way.

When an animal does something that results in finding food, they will do that action again. People are the same. If we do something and that action is rewarded, we will do it again.

Likewise, if we do something and that action is punished, we are much less likely to repeat that behavior.

This is called the Law of Effect, and it was first postulated by psychologist Edward Thorndike in the late 1800s.

Thorndike’s Law of Effect theory was later advanced by B.F. Skinner, another psychologist.

Skinner’s version is called operant conditioning and has several components:

• positive reinforcement
• negative reinforcement, and

Positive reinforcement is when something pleasant or rewarding is given after a specific behavior. The goal is to increase the frequency of that behavior, and giving an award is very effective.

Negative reinforcement is when something unpleasant is taken away. The goal is to increase a specific behavior by removing something that is negative. It is also very effective at increasing the likelihood of a specific action happening again.

Punishment is applying something aversive after a specific behavior . The goal is to decrease the frequency of that behavior. It is also considered effective, but has a range of side effects that make its use more complicated.

Operant vs Classical Conditioning

Operant and classical conditioning are the two types of behavioral conditioning in the behaviorism theory of education.

Operant conditioning refers to learning through repetition, reward, and punishment. When you learn through the operant conditioning method, you’re explicitly trying to change your conscious behavior.

By contrast, classical conditioning occurs when you subconsciously or unintentionally associate a stimulus with a response (also known as associative learning or the Pavlovian response ). For example, salivating when there is the smell of tasty food is an example of classical conditioning . It occurred at the subconscious level.

Related terms in classical conditioning include unconditioned response and unconditioned stimulus . We call them ‘unconditioned’ because they are not chosen or explicitly selected as teaching mechanisms. Rather, the response is a natural and subconscious reaction to something in the environment.

Related Concepts

In operant and classical conditioning, we engage in refining behaviors called stimulus generalization and stimulus discrimination. These cause our behaviors to change in reaction to stimuli.

• Response Generalization : In response generalization, we tend to respond to the same stimulus in multiple different ways. For example, a child may respond to a film by jumping up and down, squealing with job, or laughing, but each response generally means the same thing.
• Stimulus Generalization: In stimulus generalization , we tend to respond in the same way to multiple related stimuli. It often occurs to army veterans, for example, who jump at loud sounds. They have generalized the sound of explosions and other loud noises in an urban environment, leading to a strong fight or flight reaction that was necessary in war zones.
• Stimulus Discrimination: In stimulus discrimination , we develop the ability to tell the differences between multiple related stimuli and respond accordingly. For example, a seasoned guitarist starts to tell the minute differences in tones of their strings, enabling them to perfectly tune a guitar by ear.
• Conditioned Stimulus: A stimulus that would be neutral except for the fact someone has learned that the stimulus has meaning. As an example of a conditioned stimulus , a bell has no inherent meaning, but in the context of education, it might signify that it is time for recess, triggering a conditioned response .
• Vicarious Conditioning : This occurs when a person or animal learns not through direct conditioning but by observing the conditioning of others.
• Respondent Conditioning : Another term for the process of conditioning a response to a stimulus.

As we have seen, operant conditioning has a wide range of applications. It is commonly used in the classroom by teachers and in the household by parents. Of course, it is not 100% effective. There are a lot of other factors at play when talking about the actions of young children and teenagers, but generally speaking, it works fairly well.

Operant conditioning is also used extensively in corporations. Sometimes it is used on customers to encourage spending more money, or with employees to increase productivity.

Animals are usually trained with operant conditioning. Most can be taught to obey certain commands and even perform tricks. Even the movie industry uses it to train animals to carry out specific actions for a film.

Applying rewards or punishments, or removing something unpleasant, can shape the behavior of lots of living creatures, including you and me.

DeJoy, D. M. (2005). Behavior change versus culture change: Divergent approaches to managing workplace safety. Safety science , 43 (2), 105-129.

Jablonsky, S. F., & DeVries, D. L. (1972). Operant conditioning principles extrapolated to the theory of management. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance , 7 (2), 340-358.

Lawpoolsri, S., Li, J., & Braver, E. R. (2007). Do speeding tickets reduce the likelihood of receiving subsequent speeding tickets? A longitudinal study of speeding violators in Maryland. Traffic injury prevention , 8 (1), 26–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/15389580601009764

Skinner, B. F. (1965). Science and human behavior . New York: Free Press.

Staddon, J. E., & Cerutti, D. T. (2003). Operant conditioning. Annual review of psychology , 54 (1), 115-144.

Watson, T. L., Skinner, C. H., Skinner, A. L., Cazzell, S., Aspiranti, K. B., Moore, T., & Coleman, M. (2016). Preventing disruptive behavior via classroom management: Validating the color wheel system in kindergarten classrooms. Behavior modification , 40 (4), 518-540. Thorndike, E. L. (1905). The elements of psychology . New York: A. G. Seiler.

• Dave Cornell (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/dave-cornell-phd/ 23 Achieved Status Examples
• Dave Cornell (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/dave-cornell-phd/ 25 Defense Mechanisms Examples
• Dave Cornell (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/dave-cornell-phd/ 15 Theory of Planned Behavior Examples
• Dave Cornell (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/dave-cornell-phd/ 18 Adaptive Behavior Examples

• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 23 Achieved Status Examples
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 15 Ableism Examples
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 25 Defense Mechanisms Examples
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 15 Theory of Planned Behavior Examples

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Operant Conditioning: What It Is, How It Works, and Examples

Saul McLeod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester

Saul McLeod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.

Learn about our Editorial Process

Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc

Associate Editor for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education

Olivia Guy-Evans is a writer and associate editor for Simply Psychology. She has previously worked in healthcare and educational sectors.

On This Page:

Operant conditioning, or instrumental conditioning, is a theory of learning where behavior is influenced by its consequences. Behavior that is reinforced (rewarded) will likely be repeated, and behavior that is punished will occur less frequently.

By the 1920s, John B. Watson had left academic psychology, and other behaviorists were becoming influential, proposing new forms of learning other than classical conditioning . Perhaps the most important of these was Burrhus Frederic Skinner. Although, for obvious reasons, he is more commonly known as B.F. Skinner.

Skinner’s views were slightly less extreme than Watson’s (1913). Skinner believed that we do have such a thing as a mind, but that it is simply more productive to study observable behavior rather than internal mental events.

Skinner’s work was rooted in the view that classical conditioning was far too simplistic to fully explain complex human behavior. He believed that the best way to understand behavior is to examine its causes and consequences. He called this approach operant conditioning.

How It Works

Skinner is regarded as the father of Operant Conditioning, but his work was based on Thorndike’s (1898) Law of Effect . According to this principle, behavior that is followed by pleasant consequences is likely to be repeated, and behavior followed by unpleasant consequences is less likely to be repeated.

Skinner introduced a new term into the Law of Effect – Reinforcement. Behavior that is reinforced tends to be repeated (i.e., strengthened); behavior that is not reinforced tends to die out or be extinguished (i.e., weakened).

Skinner (1948) studied operant conditioning by conducting experiments using animals, which he placed in a “ Skinner Box, ” which was similar to Thorndike’s puzzle box.

A Skinner box, also known as an operant conditioning chamber, is a device used to objectively record an animal’s behavior in a compressed time frame. An animal can be rewarded or punished for engaging in certain behaviors, such as lever pressing (for rats) or key pecking (for pigeons).

Skinner identified three types of responses, or operant, that can follow behavior.

• Neutral operants : Responses from the environment that neither increase nor decrease the probability of a behavior being repeated.
• Reinforcers : Responses from the environment that increase the probability of a behavior being repeated. Reinforcers can be either positive or negative.
• Punishers : Responses from the environment that decrease the likelihood of a behavior being repeated. Punishment weakens behavior.

We can all think of examples of how reinforcers and punishers have affected our behavior. As a child, you probably tried out a number of behaviors and learned from their consequences.

For example, when you were younger, if you tried smoking at school, and the chief consequence was that you got in with the crowd you always wanted to hang out with, you would have been positively reinforced (i.e., rewarded) and would be likely to repeat the behavior.

If, however, the main consequence was that you were caught, caned, suspended from school, and your parents became involved, you would most certainly have been punished, and you would consequently be much less likely to smoke now.

Positive Reinforcement

B. F. Skinner’s theory of operant conditioning describes positive reinforcement. In positive reinforcement, a response or behavior is strengthened by rewards, leading to the repetition of the desired behavior. The reward is a reinforcing stimulus.

Primary reinforcers are stimuli that are naturally reinforcing because they are not learned and directly satisfy a need, such as food or water.

Secondary reinforcers are stimuli that are reinforced through their association with a primary reinforcer, such as money, school grades. They do not directly satisfy an innate need but may be the means.  So a secondary reinforcer can be just as powerful a motivator as a primary reinforcer.

Skinner showed how positive reinforcement worked by placing a hungry rat in his Skinner box. The box contained a lever on the side, and as the rat moved about the box, it would accidentally knock the lever. Immediately, it did so that a food pellet would drop into a container next to the lever.

After being put in the box a few times, the rats quickly learned to go straight to the lever. The consequence of receiving food if they pressed the lever ensured that they would repeat the action again and again.

Positive reinforcement strengthens a behavior by providing a consequence an individual finds rewarding. For example, if your teacher gives you £5 each time you complete your homework (i.e., a reward), you will be more likely to repeat this behavior in the future, thus strengthening the behavior of completing your homework.

The Premack principle is a form of positive reinforcement in operant conditioning. It suggests using a preferred activity (high-probability behavior) as a reward for completing a less preferred one (low-probability behavior).

This method incentivizes the less desirable behavior by associating it with a desirable outcome, thus strengthening the less favored behavior.

Negative Reinforcement

Negative reinforcement is the termination of an unpleasant state following a response.

This is known as negative reinforcement because it is the removal of an adverse stimulus which is ‘rewarding’ to the animal or person. Negative reinforcement strengthens behavior because it stops or removes an unpleasant experience.

For example, if you do not complete your homework, you give your teacher £5. You will complete your homework to avoid paying £5, thus strengthening the behavior of completing your homework.

Skinner showed how negative reinforcement worked by placing a rat in his Skinner box and then subjecting it to an unpleasant electric current which caused it some discomfort. As the rat moved about the box it would accidentally knock the lever.

Immediately, it did so the electric current would be switched off. The rats quickly learned to go straight to the lever after being put in the box a few times. The consequence of escaping the electric current ensured that they would repeat the action again and again.

In fact, Skinner even taught the rats to avoid the electric current by turning on a light just before the electric current came on. The rats soon learned to press the lever when the light came on because they knew that this would stop the electric current from being switched on.

These two learned responses are known as Escape Learning and Avoidance Learning .

Punishment is the opposite of reinforcement since it is designed to weaken or eliminate a response rather than increase it. It is an aversive event that decreases the behavior that it follows.

Like reinforcement, punishment can work either by directly applying an unpleasant stimulus like a shock after a response or by removing a potentially rewarding stimulus, for instance, deducting someone’s pocket money to punish undesirable behavior.

Note : It is not always easy to distinguish between punishment and negative reinforcement.

They are two distinct methods of punishment used to decrease the likelihood of a specific behavior occurring again, but they involve different types of consequences:

Positive Punishment :

• Positive punishment involves adding an aversive stimulus or something unpleasant immediately following a behavior to decrease the likelihood of that behavior happening in the future.
• It aims to weaken the target behavior by associating it with an undesirable consequence.
• Example : A child receives a scolding (an aversive stimulus) from their parent immediately after hitting their sibling. This is intended to decrease the likelihood of the child hitting their sibling again.

Negative Punishment :

• Negative punishment involves removing a desirable stimulus or something rewarding immediately following a behavior to decrease the likelihood of that behavior happening in the future.
• It aims to weaken the target behavior by taking away something the individual values or enjoys.
• Example : A teenager loses their video game privileges (a desirable stimulus) for not completing their chores. This is intended to decrease the likelihood of the teenager neglecting their chores in the future.

There are many problems with using punishment, such as:

• Punished behavior is not forgotten, it’s suppressed – behavior returns when punishment is no longer present.
• Causes increased aggression – shows that aggression is a way to cope with problems.
• Creates fear that can generalize to undesirable behaviors, e.g., fear of school.
• Does not necessarily guide you toward desired behavior – reinforcement tells you what to do, and punishment only tells you what not to do.

Examples of Operant Conditioning

Positive Reinforcement : Suppose you are a coach and want your team to improve their passing accuracy in soccer. When the players execute accurate passes during training, you praise their technique. This positive feedback encourages them to repeat the correct passing behavior.

Negative Reinforcement : If you notice your team working together effectively and exhibiting excellent team spirit during a tough training session, you might end the training session earlier than planned, which the team perceives as a relief. They understand that teamwork leads to positive outcomes, reinforcing team behavior.

Negative Punishment : If an office worker continually arrives late, their manager might revoke the privilege of flexible working hours. This removal of a positive stimulus encourages the employee to be punctual.

Positive Reinforcement : Training a cat to use a litter box can be achieved by giving it a treat each time it uses it correctly. The cat will associate the behavior with the reward and will likely repeat it.

Negative Punishment : If teenagers stay out past their curfew, their parents might take away their gaming console for a week. This makes the teenager more likely to respect their curfew in the future to avoid losing something they value.

Ineffective Punishment : Your child refuses to finish their vegetables at dinner. You punish them by not allowing dessert, but the child still refuses to eat vegetables next time. The punishment seems ineffective.

Premack Principle Application : You could motivate your child to eat vegetables by offering an activity they love after they finish their meal. For instance, for every vegetable eaten, they get an extra five minutes of video game time. They value video game time, which might encourage them to eat vegetables.

Other Premack Principle Examples :

• A student who dislikes history but loves art might earn extra time in the art studio for each history chapter reviewed.
• For every 10 minutes a person spends on household chores, they can spend 5 minutes on a favorite hobby.
• For each successful day of healthy eating, an individual allows themselves a small piece of dark chocolate at the end of the day.
• A child can choose between taking out the trash or washing the dishes. Giving them the choice makes them more likely to complete the chore willingly.

Skinner’s Pigeon Experiment

B.F. Skinner conducted several experiments with pigeons to demonstrate the principles of operant conditioning.

One of the most famous of these experiments is often colloquially referred to as “ Superstition in the Pigeon .”

This experiment was conducted to explore the effects of non-contingent reinforcement on pigeons, leading to some fascinating observations that can be likened to human superstitions.

Non-contingent reinforcement (NCR) refers to a method in which rewards (or reinforcements) are delivered independently of the individual’s behavior. In other words, the reinforcement is given at set times or intervals, regardless of what the individual is doing.

The Experiment:

• Pigeons were brought to a state of hunger, reduced to 75% of their well-fed weight.
• They were placed in a cage with a food hopper that could be presented for five seconds at a time.
• Instead of the food being given as a result of any specific action by the pigeon, it was presented at regular intervals, regardless of the pigeon’s behavior.

Observation:

• Over time, Skinner observed that the pigeons began to associate whatever random action they were doing when food was delivered with the delivery of the food itself.
• This led the pigeons to repeat these actions, believing (in anthropomorphic terms) that their behavior was causing the food to appear.
• In most cases, pigeons developed different “superstitious” behaviors or rituals. For instance, one pigeon would turn counter-clockwise between food presentations, while another would thrust its head into a cage corner.
• These behaviors did not appear until the food hopper was introduced and presented periodically.
• These behaviors were not initially related to the food delivery but became linked in the pigeon’s mind due to the coincidental timing of the food dispensing.
• The behaviors seemed to be associated with the environment, suggesting the pigeons were responding to certain aspects of their surroundings.
• The rate of reinforcement (how often the food was presented) played a significant role. Shorter intervals between food presentations led to more rapid and defined conditioning.
• Once a behavior was established, the interval between reinforcements could be increased without diminishing the behavior.

Superstitious Behavior:

The pigeons began to act as if their behaviors had a direct effect on the presentation of food, even though there was no such connection. This is likened to human superstitions, where rituals are believed to change outcomes, even if they have no real effect.

For example, a card player might have rituals to change their luck, or a bowler might make gestures believing they can influence a ball already in motion.

Conclusion:

This experiment demonstrates that behaviors can be conditioned even without a direct cause-and-effect relationship. Just like humans, pigeons can develop “superstitious” behaviors based on coincidental occurrences.

This study not only illuminates the intricacies of operant conditioning but also draws parallels between animal and human behaviors in the face of random reinforcements.

Schedules of Reinforcement

Imagine a rat in a “Skinner box.” In operant conditioning, if no food pellet is delivered immediately after the lever is pressed, then after several attempts, the rat stops pressing the lever (how long would someone continue to go to work if their employer stopped paying them?). The behavior has been extinguished.

Behaviorists discovered that different patterns (or schedules) of reinforcement had different effects on the speed of learning and extinction. Ferster and Skinner (1957) devised different ways of delivering reinforcement and found that this had effects on

1. The Response Rate – The rate at which the rat pressed the lever (i.e., how hard the rat worked).

2. The Extinction Rate – The rate at which lever pressing dies out (i.e., how soon the rat gave up).

Skinner found that variable-ratio reinforcement produces the slowest rate of extinction (i.e., people will continue repeating the behavior for the longest time without reinforcement). The type of reinforcement with the quickest rate of extinction is continuous reinforcement.

(A) Continuous Reinforcement

An animal or human is positively reinforced every time a specific behavior occurs, e.g., every time a lever is pressed, a pellet is delivered, and then food delivery is shut off.

• Response rate is SLOW
• Extinction rate is FAST

(B) Fixed Ratio Reinforcement

Behavior is reinforced only after the behavior occurs a specified number of times. e.g., one reinforcement is given after every so many correct responses, e.g., after every 5th response. For example, a child receives a star for every five words spelled correctly.

• Response rate is FAST
• Extinction rate is MEDIUM

(C) Fixed Interval Reinforcement

One reinforcement is given after a fixed time interval providing at least one correct response has been made. An example is being paid by the hour. Another example would be every 15 minutes (half hour, hour, etc.) a pellet is delivered (providing at least one lever press has been made) then food delivery is shut off.

• Response rate is MEDIUM

(D) Variable Ratio Reinforcement

behavior is reinforced after an unpredictable number of times. For example, gambling or fishing.

• Extinction rate is SLOW (very hard to extinguish because of unpredictability)

(E) Variable Interval Reinforcement

Providing one correct response has been made, reinforcement is given after an unpredictable amount of time has passed, e.g., on average every 5 minutes. An example is a self-employed person being paid at unpredictable times.

• Extinction rate is SLOW

Applications In Psychology

1. behavior modification therapy.

Behavior modification is a set of therapeutic techniques based on operant conditioning (Skinner, 1938, 1953). The main principle comprises changing environmental events that are related to a person’s behavior. For example, the reinforcement of desired behaviors and ignoring or punishing undesired ones.

This is not as simple as it sounds — always reinforcing desired behavior, for example, is basically bribery.

There are different types of positive reinforcements. Primary reinforcement is when a reward strengths a behavior by itself. Secondary reinforcement is when something strengthens a behavior because it leads to a primary reinforcer.

Examples of behavior modification therapy include token economy and behavior shaping.

Token Economy

Token economy is a system in which targeted behaviors are reinforced with tokens (secondary reinforcers) and later exchanged for rewards (primary reinforcers).

Tokens can be in the form of fake money, buttons, poker chips, stickers, etc. While the rewards can range anywhere from snacks to privileges or activities. For example, teachers use token economy at primary school by giving young children stickers to reward good behavior.

Token economy has been found to be very effective in managing psychiatric patients . However, the patients can become over-reliant on the tokens, making it difficult for them to adjust to society once they leave prison, hospital, etc.

Staff implementing a token economy program have a lot of power. It is important that staff do not favor or ignore certain individuals if the program is to work. Therefore, staff need to be trained to give tokens fairly and consistently even when there are shift changes such as in prisons or in a psychiatric hospital.

Behavior Shaping

A further important contribution made by Skinner (1951) is the notion of behavior shaping through successive approximation.

Skinner argues that the principles of operant conditioning can be used to produce extremely complex behavior if rewards and punishments are delivered in such a way as to encourage move an organism closer and closer to the desired behavior each time.

In shaping, the form of an existing response is gradually changed across successive trials towards a desired target behavior by rewarding exact segments of behavior.

To do this, the conditions (or contingencies) required to receive the reward should shift each time the organism moves a step closer to the desired behavior.

According to Skinner, most animal and human behavior (including language) can be explained as a product of this type of successive approximation.

2. Educational Applications

In the conventional learning situation, operant conditioning applies largely to issues of class and student management, rather than to learning content. It is very relevant to shaping skill performance.

A simple way to shape behavior is to provide feedback on learner performance, e.g., compliments, approval, encouragement, and affirmation.

A variable-ratio produces the highest response rate for students learning a new task, whereby initial reinforcement (e.g., praise) occurs at frequent intervals, and as the performance improves reinforcement occurs less frequently, until eventually only exceptional outcomes are reinforced.

For example, if a teacher wanted to encourage students to answer questions in class they should praise them for every attempt (regardless of whether their answer is correct). Gradually the teacher will only praise the students when their answer is correct, and over time only exceptional answers will be praised.

Unwanted behaviors, such as tardiness and dominating class discussion can be extinguished through being ignored by the teacher (rather than being reinforced by having attention drawn to them). This is not an easy task, as the teacher may appear insincere if he/she thinks too much about the way to behave.

Knowledge of success is also important as it motivates future learning. However, it is important to vary the type of reinforcement given so that the behavior is maintained.

This is not an easy task, as the teacher may appear insincere if he/she thinks too much about the way to behave.

Operant Conditioning vs. Classical Conditioning

Learning type.

While both types of conditioning involve learning, classical conditioning is passive (automatic response to stimuli), while operant conditioning is active (behavior is influenced by consequences).

• Classical conditioning links an involuntary response with a stimulus. It happens passively on the part of the learner, without rewards or punishments. An example is a dog salivating at the sound of a bell associated with food.
• Operant conditioning connects voluntary behavior with a consequence. Operant conditioning requires the learner to actively participate and perform some type of action to be rewarded or punished. It’s active, with the learner’s behavior influenced by rewards or punishments. An example is a dog sitting on command to get a treat.

Learning Process

Classical conditioning involves learning through associating stimuli resulting in involuntary responses, while operant conditioning focuses on learning through consequences, shaping voluntary behaviors.

Over time, the person responds to the neutral stimulus as if it were the unconditioned stimulus, even when presented alone. The response is involuntary and automatic.

An example is a dog salivating (response) at the sound of a bell (neutral stimulus) after it has been repeatedly paired with food (unconditioned stimulus).

Behavior followed by pleasant consequences (rewards) is more likely to be repeated, while behavior followed by unpleasant consequences (punishments) is less likely to be repeated.

For instance, if a child gets praised (pleasant consequence) for cleaning their room (behavior), they’re more likely to clean their room in the future.

Conversely, if they get scolded (unpleasant consequence) for not doing their homework, they’re more likely to complete it next time to avoid the scolding.

Timing of Stimulus & Response

The timing of the response relative to the stimulus differs between classical and operant conditioning:

Classical Conditioning (response after the stimulus) : In this form of conditioning, the response occurs after the stimulus. The behavior (response) is determined by what precedes it (stimulus). 

For example, in Pavlov’s classic experiment, the dogs started to salivate (response) after they heard the bell (stimulus) because they associated it with food.

The anticipated consequence influences the behavior or what follows it. It is a more active form of learning, where behaviors are reinforced or punished, thus influencing their likelihood of repetition.

For example, a child might behave well (behavior) in anticipation of a reward (consequence), or avoid a certain behavior to prevent a potential punishment.

Looking at Skinner’s classic studies on pigeons’  and rats’ behavior, we can identify some of the major assumptions of the behaviorist approach .

• Psychology should be seen as a science , to be studied in a scientific manner. Skinner’s study of behavior in rats was conducted under carefully controlled laboratory conditions . • Behaviorism is primarily concerned with observable behavior, as opposed to internal events like thinking and emotion. Note that Skinner did not say that the rats learned to press a lever because they wanted food. He instead concentrated on describing the easily observed behavior that the rats acquired. • The major influence on human behavior is learning from our environment. In the Skinner study, because food followed a particular behavior the rats learned to repeat that behavior, e.g., operant conditioning. • There is little difference between the learning that takes place in humans and that in other animals. Therefore research (e.g., operant conditioning) can be carried out on animals (Rats / Pigeons) as well as on humans. Skinner proposed that the way humans learn behavior is much the same as the way the rats learned to press a lever.

So, if your layperson’s idea of psychology has always been of people in laboratories wearing white coats and watching hapless rats try to negotiate mazes to get to their dinner, then you are probably thinking of behavioral psychology.

Behaviorism and its offshoots tend to be among the most scientific of the psychological perspectives . The emphasis of behavioral psychology is on how we learn to behave in certain ways.

We are all constantly learning new behaviors and how to modify our existing behavior. Behavioral psychology is the psychological approach that focuses on how this learning takes place.

Critical Evaluation

Operant conditioning can  explain a wide variety of behaviors, from the learning process to addiction and  language acquisition . It also has practical applications (such as token economy) that can be used in classrooms, prisons,  and psychiatric hospitals.

Researchers have found innovative ways to apply operant conditioning principles to promote health and habit change in humans.

In a recent study, operant conditioning using virtual reality (VR) helped stroke patients use their weakened limb more often during rehabilitation. Patients shifted their weight in VR games by maneuvering a virtual object. When they increased weight on their weakened side, they received rewards like stars. This positive reinforcement conditioned greater paretic limb use (Kumar et al., 2019).

Another study utilized operant conditioning to assist smoking cessation. Participants earned vouchers exchangeable for goods and services for reducing smoking. This reward system reinforced decreasing cigarette use. Many participants achieved long-term abstinence (Dallery et al., 2017).

Through repeated reinforcement, operant conditioning can facilitate forming exercise and eating habits. A person trying to exercise more might earn TV time for every 10 minutes spent working out. An individual aiming to eat healthier may allow themselves a daily dark chocolate square for sticking to nutritious meals. Providing consistent rewards for desired actions can instill new habits (Michie et al., 2009).

Apps like Habitica apply operant conditioning by gamifying habit tracking. Users earn points and collect rewards in a fantasy game for completing real-life habits. This virtual reinforcement helps ingrain positive behaviors (Eckerstorfer et al., 2019).

Operant conditioning also shows promise for managing ADHD and OCD. Rewarding concentration and focus in ADHD children, for example, can strengthen their attention skills (Rosén et al., 2018). Similarly, reinforcing OCD patients for resisting compulsions may diminish obsessive behaviors (Twohig et al., 2018).

However, operant conditioning fails to take into account the role of inherited and cognitive factors in learning, and thus is an incomplete explanation of the learning process in humans and animals.

For example, Kohler (1924) found that primates often seem to solve problems in a flash of insight rather than be trial and error learning. Also, social learning theory (Bandura, 1977) suggests that humans can learn automatically through observation rather than through personal experience.

The use of animal research in operant conditioning studies also raises the issue of extrapolation. Some psychologists argue we cannot generalize from studies on animals to humans as their anatomy and physiology are different from humans, and they cannot think about their experiences and invoke reason, patience, memory or self-comfort.

Frequently Asked Questions

Who discovered operant conditioning.

Operant conditioning was discovered by B.F. Skinner, an American psychologist, in the mid-20th century. Skinner is often regarded as the father of operant conditioning, and his work extensively dealt with the mechanism of reward and punishment for behaviors, with the concept being that behaviors followed by positive outcomes are reinforced, while those followed by negative outcomes are discouraged.

How does operant conditioning differ from classical conditioning?

Operant conditioning differs from classical conditioning, focusing on how voluntary behavior is shaped and maintained by consequences, such as rewards and punishments.

In operant conditioning, a behavior is strengthened or weakened based on the consequences that follow it. In contrast, classical conditioning involves the association of a neutral stimulus with a natural response, creating a new learned response.

While both types of conditioning involve learning and behavior modification, operant conditioning emphasizes the role of reinforcement and punishment in shaping voluntary behavior.

How does operant conditioning relate to social learning theory?

Operant conditioning is a core component of social learning theory , which emphasizes the importance of observational learning and modeling in acquiring and modifying behavior.

Social learning theory suggests that individuals can learn new behaviors by observing others and the consequences of their actions, which is similar to the reinforcement and punishment processes in operant conditioning.

By observing and imitating models, individuals can acquire new skills and behaviors and modify their own behavior based on the outcomes they observe in others.

Overall, both operant conditioning and social learning theory highlight the importance of environmental factors in shaping behavior and learning.

What are the downsides of operant conditioning?

The downsides of using operant conditioning on individuals include the potential for unintended negative consequences, particularly with the use of punishment. Punishment may lead to increased aggression or avoidance behaviors.

Additionally, some behaviors may be difficult to shape or modify using operant conditioning techniques, particularly when they are highly ingrained or tied to complex internal states.

Furthermore, individuals may resist changing their behaviors to meet the expectations of others, particularly if they perceive the demands or consequences of the reinforcement or punishment to be undesirable or unjust.

What is an application of bf skinner’s operant conditioning theory?

An application of B.F. Skinner’s operant conditioning theory is seen in education and classroom management. Teachers use positive reinforcement (rewards) to encourage good behavior and academic achievement, and negative reinforcement or punishment to discourage disruptive behavior.

For example, a student may earn extra recess time (positive reinforcement) for completing homework on time, or lose the privilege to use class computers (negative punishment) for misbehavior.

Further Reading

• Ivan Pavlov Classical Conditioning Learning and behavior PowerPoint
• Ayllon, T., & Michael, J. (1959). The psychiatric nurse as a behavioral engineer. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 2(4), 323-334.
• Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
• Dallery, J., Meredith, S., & Glenn, I. M. (2017). A deposit contract method to deliver abstinence reinforcement for cigarette smoking. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 50 (2), 234–248.
• Eckerstorfer, L., Tanzer, N. K., Vogrincic-Haselbacher, C., Kedia, G., Brohmer, H., Dinslaken, I., & Corbasson, R. (2019). Key elements of mHealth interventions to successfully increase physical activity: Meta-regression. JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 7 (11), e12100.
• Ferster, C. B., & Skinner, B. F. (1957). Schedules of reinforcement . New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
• Kohler, W. (1924). The mentality of apes. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
• Kumar, D., Sinha, N., Dutta, A., & Lahiri, U. (2019). Virtual reality-based balance training system augmented with operant conditioning paradigm.  Biomedical Engineering Online ,  18 (1), 1-23.
• Michie, S., Abraham, C., Whittington, C., McAteer, J., & Gupta, S. (2009). Effective techniques in healthy eating and physical activity interventions: A meta-regression. Health Psychology, 28 (6), 690–701.
• Rosén, E., Westerlund, J., Rolseth, V., Johnson R. M., Viken Fusen, A., Årmann, E., Ommundsen, R., Lunde, L.-K., Ulleberg, P., Daae Zachrisson, H., & Jahnsen, H. (2018). Effects of QbTest-guided ADHD treatment: A randomized controlled trial. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 27 (4), 447–459.
• Skinner, B. F. (1948). ‘Superstition’in the pigeon.  Journal of experimental psychology ,  38 (2), 168.
• Schunk, D. (2016).  Learning theories: An educational perspective . Pearson.
• Skinner, B. F. (1938). The behavior of organisms: An experimental analysis . New York: Appleton-Century.
• Skinner, B. F. (1948). Superstition” in the pigeon . Journal of Experimental Psychology, 38 , 168-172.
• Skinner, B. F. (1951). How to teach animals . Freeman.
• Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior . Macmillan.
• Thorndike, E. L. (1898). Animal intelligence: An experimental study of the associative processes in animals. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 2(4), i-109.
• Twohig, M. P., Whittal, M. L., Cox, J. M., & Gunter, R. (2010). An initial investigation into the processes of change in ACT, CT, and ERP for OCD. International Journal of Behavioral Consultation and Therapy, 6 (2), 67–83.
• Watson, J. B. (1913). Psychology as the behaviorist views it . Psychological Review, 20 , 158–177.

What Is Operant Conditioning? Definition and Examples

• Archaeology

• Ph.D., Psychology, Fielding Graduate University
• M.A., Psychology, Fielding Graduate University
• B.A., Film Studies, Cornell University

Operant conditioning occurs when an association is made between a particular behavior and a consequence for that behavior. This association is built upon the use of reinforcement and/or punishment to encourage or discourage behavior. Operant conditioning was first defined and studied by behavioral psychologist B.F. Skinner, who conducted several well-known operant conditioning experiments with animal subjects.

Key Takeaways: Operant Conditioning

• Operant conditioning is the process of learning through reinforcement and punishment.
• In operant conditioning, behaviors are strengthened or weakened based on the consequences of that behavior.
• Operant conditioning was defined and studied by behavioral psychologist B.F. Skinner.

B.F. Skinner was a behaviorist , which means he believed that psychology should be limited to the study of observable behaviors. While other behaviorists, like John B. Watson, focused on classical conditioning, Skinner was more interested in the learning that happened through operant conditioning.

He observed that in classical conditioning responses tend to be triggered by innate reflexes that occur automatically. He called this kind of behavior respondent . He distinguished respondent behavior from operant behavior . Operant behavior was the term Skinner used to describe a behavior that is reinforced by the consequences that follow it. Those consequences play an important role in whether or not a behavior is performed again.

Skinner’s ideas were based on Edward Thorndike’s law of effect, which stated that behavior that elicits positive consequences will probably be repeated, while behavior that elicits negative consequences will probably not be repeated. Skinner introduced the concept of reinforcement into Thorndike’s ideas, specifying that behavior that is reinforced will probably be repeated (or strengthened).

To study operant conditioning, Skinner conducted experiments using a “Skinner Box,” a small box that had a lever at one end that would provide food or water when pressed. An animal, like a pigeon or rat, was placed in the box where it was free to move around. Eventually the animal would press the lever and be rewarded. Skinner found that this process resulted in the animal pressing the lever more frequently. Skinner would measure learning by tracking the rate of the animal’s responses when those responses were reinforced.

Reinforcement and Punishment

Through his experiments, Skinner identified the different kinds of reinforcement and punishment that encourage or discourage behavior.

Reinforcement

Reinforcement that closely follows a behavior will encourage and strengthen that behavior. There are two types of reinforcement:

• Positive reinforcement occurs when a behavior results in a favorable outcome, e.g. a dog receiving a treat after obeying a command, or a student receiving a compliment from the teacher after behaving well in class. These techniques increase the likelihood that the individual will repeat the desired behavior in order to receive the reward again.
• Negative reinforcement occurs when a behavior results in the removal of an unfavorable experience, e.g. an experimenter ceasing to give a monkey electric shocks when the monkey presses a certain lever. In this case, the lever-pressing behavior is reinforced because the monkey will want to remove the unfavorable electric shocks again.

In addition, Skinner identified two different kinds of reinforcers.

• Primary reinforcers naturally reinforce behavior because they are innately desirable, e.g. food.
• Conditioned reinforcers reinforce behavior not because they are innately desirable, but because we learn to associate them with primary reinforcers. For example, Paper money is not innately desirable, but it can be used to acquire innately desirable goods, such as food and shelter.

Punishment is the opposite of reinforcement. When punishment follows a behavior, it discourages and weakens that behavior. There are two kinds of punishment.

• Positive punishment (or punishment by application) occurs when a behavior is followed by an unfavorable outcome, e.g. a parent spanking a child after the child uses a curse word.
• Negative punishment (or punishment by removal) occurs when a behavior leads to the removal of something favorable, e.g. a parent who denies a child their weekly allowance because the child has misbehaved.

Although punishment is still widely used, Skinner and many other researchers found that punishment is not always effective. Punishment can suppress a behavior for a time, but the undesired behavior tends to come back in the long run. Punishment can also have unwanted side effects. For example, a child who is punished by a teacher may become uncertain and fearful because they don’t know exactly what to do to avoid future punishments.

Instead of punishment, Skinner and others suggested reinforcing desired behaviors and ignoring unwanted behaviors. Reinforcement tells an individual what behavior is desired, while punishment only tells the individual what behavior isn’t desired.

Behavior Shaping

Operant conditioning can lead to increasingly complex behaviors through shaping , also referred to as the “method of approximations.” Shaping happens in a step-by-step fashion as each part of a more intricate behavior is reinforced. Shaping starts by reinforcing the first part of the behavior. Once that piece of the behavior is mastered, reinforcement only happens when the second part of the behavior occurs. This pattern of reinforcement is continued until the entire behavior is mastered.

For example, when a child is taught to swim, she may initially be praised just for getting in the water. She is praised again when she learns to kick, and again when she learns specific arm strokes. Finally, she is praised for propelling herself through the water by performing a specific stroke and kicking at the same time. Through this process, an entire behavior has been shaped. 

Schedules of Reinforcement

In the real world, behavior is not constantly reinforced. Skinner found that the frequency of reinforcement can impact how quickly and how successfully one learns a new behavior. He specified several reinforcement schedules, each with different timing and frequencies.

• Continuous reinforcement occurs when a particular response follows each and every performance of a given behavior. Learning happens rapidly with continuous reinforcement. However, if reinforcement is stopped, the behavior will quickly decline and ultimately stop altogether, which is referred to as extinction.
• Fixed-ratio schedules reward behavior after a specified number of responses. For example, a child may get a star after every fifth chore they complete. On this schedule, the response rate slows right after the reward is delivered.
• Variable-ratio schedules vary the number of behaviors required to get a reward. This schedule leads to a high rate of responses and is also hard to extinguish because its variability maintains the behavior. Slot machines use this kind of reinforcement schedule.
• Fixed-interval schedules provide a reward after a specific amount of time passes. Getting paid by the hour is one example of this kind of reinforcement schedule. Much like the fixed-ratio schedule, the response rate increases as the reward approaches but slows down right after the reward is received.
• Variable-interval schedules vary the amount of time between rewards. For example, a child who receives an allowance at various times during the week as long as they’ve exhibited some positive behaviors is on a variable-interval schedule. The child will continue to exhibit positive behavior in anticipation of eventually receiving their allowance.

Examples of Operant Conditioning

If you’ve ever trained a pet or taught a child, you have likely used operant conditioning in your own life. Operant conditioning is still frequently used in various real-world circumstances, including in the classroom and in therapeutic settings.

For example, a teacher might reinforce students doing their homework regularly by periodically giving pop quizzes that ask questions similar to recent homework assignments. Also, if a child throws a temper tantrum to get attention, the parent can ignore the behavior and then acknowledge the child again once the tantrum has ended.

Operant conditioning is also used in behavior modification , an approach to the treatment of numerous issues in adults and children, including phobias, anxiety, bedwetting, and many others. One way behavior modification can be implemented is through a token economy , in which desired behaviors are reinforced by tokens in the form of digital badges, buttons, chips, stickers, or other objects. Eventually these tokens can be exchanged for real rewards.

While operant conditioning can explain many behaviors and is still widely used, there are several criticisms of the process. First, operant conditioning is accused of being an incomplete explanation for learning because it neglects the role of biological and cognitive elements.

In addition, operant conditioning is reliant upon an authority figure to reinforce behavior and ignores the role of curiosity and an individual's ability to make his or her own discoveries. Critics object to operant conditioning's emphasis on controlling and manipulating behavior, arguing that they can lead to authoritarian practices. Skinner believed that environments naturally control behavior, however, and that people can choose to use that knowledge for good or ill.

Finally, because Skinner’s observations about operant conditioning relied on experiments with animals, he is criticized for extrapolating from his animal studies to make predictions about human behavior. Some psychologists believe this kind of generalization is flawed because humans and non-human animals are physically and cognitively different.

• Cherry, Kendra. “What is Operant Conditioning and How Does it Work?” Verywell Mind , 2 October 2018. https://www.verywellmind.com/operant-conditioning-a2-2794863
• Crain, William. Theories of Development: Concepts and Applications. 5th ed., Pearson Prentice Hall. 2005.
• Goldman, Jason G. “What is Operant Conditioning? (And How Does It Explain Driving Dogs?)” Scientific American , 13 December 2012. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/thoughtful-animal/what-is-operant-conditioning-and-how-does-it-explain-driving-dogs/
• McLeod, Saul. “Skinner – Operant Conditioning.” Simply Psychology , 21 January 2018. https://www.simplypsychology.org/operant-conditioning.html#class
• What Is the Law of Effect in Psychology?
• What Is Behaviorism in Psychology?
• What Is the Premack Principle? Definition and Examples
• What Is Classical Conditioning?
• What Is an Unconditioned Response?
• What Is a Conditioned Response?
• What Is Survivor's Guilt? Definition and Examples
• Understanding Social Identity Theory and Its Impact on Behavior
• Biography of Ivan Pavlov, Father of Classical Conditioning
• What Is Deindividuation in Psychology? Definition and Examples
• What Is the Zeigarnik Effect? Definition and Examples
• What Is Cognitive Bias? Definition and Examples
• What Is Social Facilitation? Definition and Examples
• Definition and Examples of a Pathological Liar
• What Is Identity Diffusion? Definition and Examples
• Understanding Self-Efficacy

Operant Conditioning Examples: How it Works

Categories Behavior , Theories

Operant conditioning is a type of associative learning that utilizes reinforcement or punishment to teach or modify a behavior. The consequences of a behavior can be used to either increase or decrease the occurrence of that behavior.

Examples of operant conditioning include a rat pressing a lever to receive a food pellet and a child receiving a sticker for completing chores, both of which demonstrate reinforcement shaping a behavior.

Operant conditioning is a learning process in which the consequences of an action determine the likelihood that the behavior will occur again in the future. This type of learning by association involves using reinforcement or punishment to either increase or decrease the chances that a behavior will occur again. 

In this article, learn more about the history of operant conditioning and how it works. Explore factors that influence the operant conditioning process, look at examples of this type of learning in action, and consider some ways that operant conditioning can be used in real life.

Table of Contents

Examples of Operant Conditioning

It can be helpful to look at some operant conditioning examples in order to better understand how the process works. While Skinner described many examples of how operant conditioning could be used to train behavior in a lab setting under controlled conditions, operant conditioning also happens all the time in real-world learning situations.

Operant Conditioning Examples in Daily Life

You can probably think of a number of different examples of how operant conditioning is used in your everyday life. Some good real-world examples include:

• Rewarding oneself with a favorite treat (positive reinforcement) after completing a workout.
• Setting up a system where money is donated to a charity for every day a goal is missed (negative punishment).
• Giving treats or praise (positive reinforcement) when a dog follows a command.
• Withdrawing attention or treats (negative punishment) when a pet displays unwanted behavior, such as jumping on furniture.
• Receiving compliments from friends when wearing a new outfit.
• Getting a high score in a video game after practicing for hours.
• Feeling relaxed after a warm bath at the end of a long day.
• Feeling satisfied after eating a delicious meal.
• Feeling refreshed after drinking a cup of coffee in the morning.
• Smiling at someone and receiving a smile in return.
• Feeling motivated to exercise after seeing progress in physical fitness.
• Feeling happy when a favorite song comes on the radio.
• Feeling proud after receiving a diploma or certificate for completing a course.
• Feeling excited when receiving a notification of a new message or email.
• Feeling relieved after finding a lost item.
• Feeling confident after receiving positive feedback on a presentation.
• Feeling loved and appreciated when receiving hugs from family members.

Operant Conditioning Examples in School

Operant conditioning can be an effective tool for increasing certain behaviors in the classroom, including encouraging good behavior and increasing achievement. Homework incentives, reward charts, and encouraging behaviors with praise are a few examples.

Some more specific examples of using operant conditioning in education include.

• Giving a child a favorite treat once this homework is done each night would be an example of continuous reinforcement. If the reward or incentive is given every time the behavior is successfully performed, this would be an example of positive reinforcement.
• Rewards charts used in classrooms are an example of operant conditioning on a fixed-ratio schedule. Once a child fills up their chart by performing the desired behavior, they are rewarded. 
• If a teacher wants to encourage students to engage in a behavior, they might utilize praise as positive reinforcement. For example, after a student raises their hand to ask a question, the teacher might praise them for following classroom rules.
• Offering praise or rewards for completing homework assignments on time.
• Allowing extra recess or free time for good behavior in class.
• Giving verbal warnings or detention for disruptive behavior.
• Providing extra credit opportunities for students who excel in class.
• Using a token economy system where students earn points for positive behavior that can be exchanged for rewards.
• Offering opportunities for leadership roles or special privileges to students who demonstrate responsibility and leadership skills.
• Implementing a sticker chart or reward system for meeting academic goals.
• Using peer tutoring or group study sessions as a reward for students who consistently participate and contribute in class.
• Providing positive reinforcement through verbal encouragement or written notes for improvement in academic performance.
• Using a points-based system where students earn points for participation, completing assignments, and demonstrating understanding of the material, which can be exchanged for rewards or privileges.

Operant Conditioning Examples at Work

Operant conditioning can also be useful in the workplace. Work bonuses are an example. Employers also use operant conditioning to encourage employees to be productive. For example, employees might be able to earn monetary rewards in the form of bonuses by meeting specific production targets. 

More examples of operant conditioning in the workplace include:

• Providing bonuses or commissions for achieving sales targets.
• Offering praise or recognition in team meetings for outstanding performance.
• Giving extra vacation days or time off as a reward for completing projects ahead of schedule.
• Issuing verbal warnings or written reprimands for violating company policies.
• Offering professional development opportunities or training programs for employees who consistently meet or exceed expectations.
• Implementing performance-based promotions or advancement opportunities within the company.
• Utilizing peer recognition programs where employees nominate each other for exceptional work.
• Offering flexible work arrangements or remote work options as a reward for consistently meeting productivity goals.
• Implementing a profit-sharing program where employees receive a portion of the company’s profits based on performance.
• Providing constructive feedback and coaching to help employees improve their skills and performance.

Operant Conditioning Examples in Parenting

Parents can also utilize different types of operant conditioning to help encourage good behaviors in their children. A few examples include:

• Giving praise and hugs to a child for completing homework without being reminded.
• Allowing extra screen time for good behavior or completing chores.
• Implementing a time-out for a child who is misbehaving.
• Taking away a privilege, such as dessert or TV time, for not following rules.
• Giving a sticker or small reward for using manners at the dinner table.
• Ignoring tantrums to discourage attention-seeking behavior.
• Allowing a child to choose a fun activity after finishing their chores.
• Setting up a token economy system where children earn points for desired behaviors that can be exchanged for rewards.
• Praising effort and improvement, not just the end result, to encourage persistence.
• Creating a bedtime routine with calming activities to signal when it’s time to sleep.

How Operant Conditioning Was Discovered

The operant conditioning process was first described by an American psychologist named B. F. Skinner , a behaviorist. Behaviorism was a school of thought in psychology that suggested that all human behavior could be understood in terms of conditioning processes rather than taking internal thoughts and feelings into account. 

Ivan Pavlov discovered the classical conditioning process, which had an important impact on behaviorism and was heralded by other behaviorists such as John B. Watson. While Skinner agreed that learning through unconscious associations was an important part of learning, he also noted that this couldn’t account for all types of learning. 

Classical conditioning is primarily concerned with what happens before a behavior. Instead, Skinner was interested in how the consequences that follow a behavior affect the learning process.

As Skinner developed his theory, he developed a number of tools to help him study how consequences affected behavior. One tool he frequently used was a Skinner box, in which an animal subject could press a lever to receive a reward. He would then record the rate of responding (i.e., how often the lever was pressed) to determine how well and how quickly a response was learned.

How Operant Conditioning Works

Skinner’s operant conditioning, also known as Skinnerian conditioning or instrumental conditioning, was based on Edward Thorndike’s law of effect . The law of effect states that behaviors followed by desirable outcomes are more likely to be repeated, while behaviors followed by undesirable outcomes are less likely to be repeated. 

According to Skinner, an “operant” is any active behavior that affects the environment and leads to consequences.

In operant conditioning, reinforced actions become more likely to occur again in the future, while punished become less likely to occur again.

Operant conditioning works by associating voluntary behaviors with consequences, such as rewards or punishments, which subsequently influence the likelihood of those behaviors recurring, as demonstrated by numerous operant conditioning examples

Reinforcement in Operant Conditioning

Reinforcement is any event that increases the likelihood that a response will occur again. Skinner observed that two different forms of reinforcement could be used to increase the chances that behavior would occur in the future.

Reinforcement functions by increasing the probability of a behavior being repeated when a desirable consequence, such as praise or a reward, follows the behavior, as evidenced by operant conditioning examples.

Positive Reinforcement

Positive reinforcement involves the addition of a desirable reward or outcome. For example, offering a treat or praise following an action will make it more likely that the action will occur again.

For example, a rat in a Skinner box might receive a food pellet as a reward every time it presses a lever. The first time the behavior happens, it might be an accident. The rat might bump the lever and receive the reward. After this happens a few times, the rat quickly learns that it would receive a reward every time it pushes the lever.

Negative Reinforcement

Negative reinforcement involves taking away an undesirable outcome after a behavior. Skinner utilized negative reinforcement by adding an unpleasant electrical current to his Skinner box. In order to turn off the current, the rats had to press the lever.

Other real-world examples of negative reinforcement include cleaning your room or putting away your things before your roommate gets home, which means you’ll avoid an argument. Removing the unwanted outcome reinforces the behavior (cleaning up). 

Primary vs. Conditioned Reinforcers

Different kinds of reinforcers may produce differing effects. Primary reinforcers are things that naturally reinforce because they fulfill some need. This can include such things as food and water.

Conditioned reinforcers are things that become associated with primary reinforcers through learning. Money is an example of a conditioned reinforcer. Because we have learned that it can be used to acquire primary reinforcers, it becomes reinforcing on its own.

Punishment in Operant Conditioning

Punishment involves anything that decreases a behavior. Like reinforcement, there are two different types of punishment.

Positive Punishment

Positive punishment involves the addition of an adverse outcome to decrease a behavior. Spanking is an example of positive punishment.

In this context, it’s important to remember that punishment doesn’t mean “good.” Instead, it means that something aversive has been added to the situation.

Negative Punishment

Negative punishment involves taking away a desirable outcome to make a behavior less likely. An example of negative punishment would be taking away a child’s favorite toy because they hit their sibling.

Punishment vs. Reinforcement: Which Is Better?

While punishment can be useful, it is generally less effective than reinforcement when it comes to learning. This is because reinforcement offers information and feedback about which behaviors are desirable.

Punishment can tell someone what they shouldn’t do, but it doesn’t provide any information about what should be done instead. 

Punishment can also lead to undesirable effects. For example, it may lead to increased aggression or fear that might generalize to other situations or stimuli.

Schedules of Reinforcement

Through his research, Skinner also discovered that there were factors that could impact the strength and rate of response. What he found was that the timing and frequency of reinforcement affect how a subject responds.

These are referred to as schedules of reinforcement . Two primary types of schedules can be used; continuous reinforcement and partial reinforcement. 

Continuous Reinforcement in Operant Conditioning

Continuous reinforcement involves rewarding a behavior every single time it occurs. This schedule is often used when a response is first being learned. It produces a steady but slow rate of response. If the reinforcement is withdrawn, extinction tends to occur quite quickly.

Partial Reinforcement in Operant Conditioning

Partial reinforcement involves providing reinforcement periodically. Some of the different types of partial reinforcement schedules include:

Fixed-Ratio Schedule

In this schedule, reinforcement is given after a set number of responses. For example, a reward would be given after every five responses. This leads to a steady response rate that tends to slow slightly immediately after the reward is given. 

Fixed-Interval Schedule

This schedule involves delivering reinforcement after a fixed amount of time has passed. For example, a reward might be given every five minutes. This schedule leads to a steady rate of response that increases right before the reward is given, but slows briefly after the reinforcement is given.

Variable-Ratio Schedule

In this schedule, reinforcement occurs after a variable number of responses. This type of schedule leads to a high response rate that is also resistant to extinction. 

Variable-Interval Schedule

In this schedule, reinforcement is given after a varying amount of time has passed. This schedule also tends to produce a strong response rate resistant to extinction.

Applications for Operant Conditioning

Operant conditioning can have a variety of real-world applications when it comes to teaching or modifying behavior. This includes education, where teachers use positive reinforcement like praise or rewards to encourage desired behaviors, and in therapy, where behavior modification techniques are employed to address maladaptive behaviors and foster positive changes in individuals.

Some practical operant conditioning examples include the following:

Classroom Behavior

Operant conditioning can help manage student behavior in classroom settings. Teachers can utilize reinforcement and consequences to encourage students to engage in positive behaviors such as being on time, turning in assignments, and paying attention in class.

Behavioral Therapy

Operant conditioning is commonly used in behavioral therapies that modify behaviors, either by encouraging desirable behaviors or discouraging undesirable behaviors. Some strategies might include:

Token Economies

A token is a system that utilizes tokens that can be exchanged for a reward. For example, a child might get a sticker every time they engage in the desired behavior, and they can later exchange those stickers to earn a treat.

Behavior Modeling

An observer might watch a model engage in a behavior and note the consequences of those actions. Seeing the model being rewarded will increase the behavior while seeing the model being punished will decrease the behavior.

Contingency Management

This approach rewards people for evidence of positive behavioral change. It is often used in substance use treatment, in which people may be rewarded for showing evidence that they have not been using substances. For example, they might receive vouchers for retail goods or financial compensation if they pass a drug screening.

Examples of Operant Conditioning Study Questions

Who discovered operant conditioning.

B.F. Skinner was the behavioral psychologist who first described the operant conditioning process.

How is operant conditioning different from classical conditioning?

There are a number of key  differences between classical and operant conditioning . Classical conditioning involves involuntary behaviors and creating associations between a stimulus that naturally produces a response and a previously neutral stimulus. Operant conditioning involves voluntary behaviors and utilizes reinforcement and punishment to modify behavior.

How do you distinguish between reinforcement and punishment?

Reinforcement increases the likelihood that a behavior will occur, while punishment decreases the likelihood that it will occur.

Operant conditioning is an important learning process that utilizes reinforcement and punishment to shape or modify behavior. First described by B. F. Skinner, operant conditioning had an important impact on behaviorism and continues to be widely used today.

Read More: Reinforcement vs. Punishment: What Are the Differences?

Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bouton, M. E. (2019). Extinction of instrumental (Operant) learning: Interference, varieties of context, and mechanisms of contextual control .  Psychopharmacology ,  236 (1), 7–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00213-018-5076-4

Overskeid, G. (2018). Do we need the environment to explain operant behavior ?  Frontiers in Psychology ,  9 , 373. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00373

Petry N. M. (2011). Contingency management: what it is and why psychiatrists should want to use it .  The Psychiatrist ,  35 (5), 161–163. https://doi.org/10.1192/pb.bp.110.031831

Skinner, B. F. (1965).  Science and Human Behavior  (First Free Press Paperback edition). The Free Press.

Staddon, J. E. R., & Cerutti, D. T. (2003). Operant conditioning .  Annual Review of Psychology ,  54 (1), 115–144. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.54.101601.145124

Thorndike, E. L. (1898). Animal intelligence: An experimental study of the associative processes in animals .  The Psychological Review: Monograph Supplements ,  2 (4), i–109. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0092987

Skinner’s Box Experiment (Behaviorism Study)

We receive rewards and punishments for many behaviors. More importantly, once we experience that reward or punishment, we are likely to perform (or not perform) that behavior again in anticipation of the result. 

Psychologists in the late 1800s and early 1900s believed that rewards and punishments were crucial to shaping and encouraging voluntary behavior. But they needed a way to test it. And they needed a name for how rewards and punishments shaped voluntary behaviors. Along came Burrhus Frederic Skinner , the creator of Skinner's Box, and the rest is history.

What Is Skinner's Box?

The "Skinner box" is a setup used in animal experiments. An animal is isolated in a box equipped with levers or other devices in this environment. The animal learns that pressing a lever or displaying specific behaviors can lead to rewards or punishments.

This setup was crucial for behavioral psychologist B.F. Skinner developed his theories on operant conditioning. It also aided in understanding the concept of reinforcement schedules.

Here, "schedules" refer to the timing and frequency of rewards or punishments, which play a key role in shaping behavior. Skinner's research showed how different schedules impact how animals learn and respond to stimuli.

Who is B.F. Skinner?

Burrhus Frederic Skinner, also known as B.F. Skinner is considered the “father of Operant Conditioning.” His experiments, conducted in what is known as “Skinner’s box,” are some of the most well-known experiments in psychology. They helped shape the ideas of operant conditioning in behaviorism.

Law of Effect (Thorndike vs. Skinner) 

At the time, classical conditioning was the top theory in behaviorism. However, Skinner knew that research showed that voluntary behaviors could be part of the conditioning process. In the late 1800s, a psychologist named Edward Thorndike wrote about “The Law of Effect.” He said, “Responses that produce a satisfying effect in a particular situation become more likely to occur again in that situation, and responses that produce a discomforting effect become less likely to occur again in that situation.”

Thorndike tested out The Law of Effect with a box of his own. The box contained a maze and a lever. He placed a cat inside the box and a fish outside the box. He then recorded how the cats got out of the box and ate the fish. 

Thorndike noticed that the cats would explore the maze and eventually found the lever. The level would let them out of the box, leading them to the fish faster. Once discovering this, the cats were more likely to use the lever when they wanted to get fish. 

Skinner took this idea and ran with it. We call the box where animal experiments are performed "Skinner's box."

Why Do We Call This Box the "Skinner Box?"

Edward Thorndike used a box to train animals to perform behaviors for rewards. Later, psychologists like Martin Seligman used this apparatus to observe "learned helplessness." So why is this setup called a "Skinner Box?" Skinner not only used Skinner box experiments to show the existence of operant conditioning, but he also showed schedules in which operant conditioning was more or less effective, depending on your goals. And that is why he is called The Father of Operant Conditioning.

How Skinner's Box Worked

Inspired by Thorndike, Skinner created a box to test his theory of Operant Conditioning. (This box is also known as an “operant conditioning chamber.”)

The box was typically very simple. Skinner would place the rats in a Skinner box with neutral stimulants (that produced neither reinforcement nor punishment) and a lever that would dispense food. As the rats started to explore the box, they would stumble upon the level, activate it, and get food. Skinner observed that they were likely to engage in this behavior again, anticipating food. In some boxes, punishments would also be administered. Martin Seligman's learned helplessness experiments are a great example of using punishments to observe or shape an animal's behavior. Skinner usually worked with animals like rats or pigeons. And he took his research beyond what Thorndike did. He looked at how reinforcements and schedules of reinforcement would influence behavior. 

About Reinforcements

Reinforcements are the rewards that satisfy your needs. The fish that cats received outside of Thorndike’s box was positive reinforcement. In Skinner box experiments, pigeons or rats also received food. But positive reinforcements can be anything added after a behavior is performed: money, praise, candy, you name it. Operant conditioning certainly becomes more complicated when it comes to human reinforcements.

Positive vs. Negative Reinforcements 

Skinner also looked at negative reinforcements. Whereas positive reinforcements are given to subjects, negative reinforcements are rewards in the form of things taken away from subjects. In some experiments in the Skinner box, he would send an electric current through the box that would shock the rats. If the rats pushed the lever, the shocks would stop. The removal of that terrible pain was a negative reinforcement. The rats still sought the reinforcement but were not gaining anything when the shocks ended. Skinner saw that the rats quickly learned to turn off the shocks by pushing the lever. 

About Punishments

Skinner's Box also experimented with positive or negative punishments, in which harmful or unsatisfying things were taken away or given due to "bad behavior." For now, let's focus on the schedules of reinforcement.

Schedules of Reinforcement 

We know that not every behavior has the same reinforcement every single time. Think about tipping as a rideshare driver or a barista at a coffee shop. You may have a string of customers who tip you generously after conversing with them. At this point, you’re likely to converse with your next customer. But what happens if they don’t tip you after you have a conversation with them? What happens if you stay silent for one ride and get a big tip? 

Psychologists like Skinner wanted to know how quickly someone makes a behavior a habit after receiving reinforcement. Aka, how many trips will it take for you to converse with passengers every time? They also wanted to know how fast a subject would stop conversing with passengers if you stopped getting tips. If the rat pulls the lever and doesn't get food, will they stop pulling the lever altogether?

Skinner attempted to answer these questions by looking at different schedules of reinforcement. He would offer positive reinforcements on different schedules, like offering it every time the behavior was performed (continuous reinforcement) or at random (variable ratio reinforcement.) Based on his experiments, he would measure the following:

• Response rate (how quickly the behavior was performed)
• Extinction rate (how quickly the behavior would stop) 

He found that there are multiple schedules of reinforcement, and they all yield different results. These schedules explain why your dog may not be responding to the treats you sometimes give him or why gambling can be so addictive. Not all of these schedules are possible, and that's okay, too.

Continuous Reinforcement

If you reinforce a behavior repeatedly, the response rate is medium, and the extinction rate is fast. The behavior will be performed only when reinforcement is needed. As soon as you stop reinforcing a behavior on this schedule, the behavior will not be performed.

Fixed-Ratio Reinforcement

Let’s say you reinforce the behavior every fourth or fifth time. The response rate is fast, and the extinction rate is medium. The behavior will be performed quickly to reach the reinforcement. 

Fixed-Interval Reinforcement

In the above cases, the reinforcement was given immediately after the behavior was performed. But what if the reinforcement was given at a fixed interval, provided that the behavior was performed at some point? Skinner found that the response rate is medium, and the extinction rate is medium. 

Variable-Ratio Reinforcement

Here's how gambling becomes so unpredictable and addictive. In gambling, you experience occasional wins, but you often face losses. This uncertainty keeps you hooked, not knowing when the next big win, or dopamine hit, will come. The behavior gets reinforced randomly. When gambling, your response is quick, but it takes a long time to stop wanting to gamble. This randomness is a key reason why gambling is highly addictive.

Variable-Interval Reinforcement

Last, the reinforcement is given out at random intervals, provided that the behavior is performed. Health inspectors or secret shoppers are commonly used examples of variable-interval reinforcement. The reinforcement could be administered five minutes after the behavior is performed or seven hours after the behavior is performed. Skinner found that the response rate for this schedule is fast, and the extinction rate is slow. 

Skinner's Box and Pigeon Pilots in World War II

Yes, you read that right. Skinner's work with pigeons and other animals in Skinner's box had real-life effects. After some time training pigeons in his boxes, B.F. Skinner got an idea. Pigeons were easy to train. They can see very well as they fly through the sky. They're also quite calm creatures and don't panic in intense situations. Their skills could be applied to the war that was raging on around him.

B.F. Skinner decided to create a missile that pigeons would operate. That's right. The U.S. military was having trouble accurately targeting missiles, and B.F. Skinner believed pigeons could help. He believed he could train the pigeons to recognize a target and peck when they saw it. As the pigeons pecked, Skinner's specially designed cockpit would navigate appropriately. Pigeons could be pilots in World War II missions, fighting Nazi Germany.

When Skinner proposed this idea to the military, he was met with skepticism. Yet, he received $25,000 to start his work on "Project Pigeon." The device worked! Operant conditioning trained pigeons to navigate missiles appropriately and hit their targets. Unfortunately, there was one problem. The mission killed the pigeons once the missiles were dropped. It would require a lot of pigeons! The military eventually passed on the project, but cockpit prototypes are on display at the American History Museum. Pretty cool, huh?

Examples of Operant Conditioning in Everyday Life

Not every example of operant conditioning has to end in dropping missiles. Nor does it have to happen in a box in a laboratory! You might find that you have used operant conditioning on yourself, a pet, or a child whose behavior changes with rewards and punishments. These operant conditioning examples will look into what this process can do for behavior and personality.

Hot Stove: If you put your hand on a hot stove, you will get burned. More importantly, you are very unlikely to put your hand on that hot stove again. Even though no one has made that stove hot as a punishment, the process still works.

Tips: If you converse with a passenger while driving for Uber, you might get an extra tip at the end of your ride. That's certainly a great reward! You will likely keep conversing with passengers as you drive for Uber. The same type of behavior applies to any service worker who gets tips!

Training a Dog: If your dog sits when you say “sit,” you might treat him. More importantly, they are likely to sit when you say, “sit.” (This is a form of variable-ratio reinforcement. Likely, you only treat your dog 50-90% of the time they sit. If you gave a dog a treat every time they sat, they probably wouldn't have room for breakfast or dinner!)

Operant Conditioning Is Everywhere!

We see operant conditioning training us everywhere, intentionally or unintentionally! Game makers and app developers design their products based on the "rewards" our brains feel when seeing notifications or checking into the app. Schoolteachers use rewards to control their unruly classes. Dog training doesn't always look different from training your child to do chores. We know why this happens, thanks to experiments like the ones performed in Skinner's box. 

Related posts:

• Operant Conditioning (Examples + Research)
• Edward Thorndike (Psychologist Biography)
• Schedules of Reinforcement (Examples)
• B.F. Skinner (Psychologist Biography)
• Fixed Ratio Reinforcement Schedule (Examples)

Reference this article:

About The Author

Free Personality Test

Free Memory Test

Free IQ Test

PracticalPie.com is a participant in the Amazon Associates Program. As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

Follow Us On:

Youtube Facebook Instagram X/Twitter

Psychology Resources

Developmental

Personality

Relationships

Psychologists

Serial Killers

Psychology Tests

Personality Quiz

Memory Test

Depression test

Type A/B Personality Test

© PracticalPsychology. All rights reserved

Privacy Policy | Terms of Use

6.3 Operant Conditioning

Learning objectives.

By the end of this section, you will be able to:

• Define operant conditioning
• Explain the difference between reinforcement and punishment
• Distinguish between reinforcement schedules

The previous section of this chapter focused on the type of associative learning known as classical conditioning. Remember that in classical conditioning, something in the environment triggers a reflex automatically, and researchers train the organism to react to a different stimulus. Now we turn to the second type of associative learning, operant conditioning . In operant conditioning, organisms learn to associate a behavior and its consequence ( Table 6.1 ). A pleasant consequence makes that behavior more likely to be repeated in the future. For example, Spirit, a dolphin at the National Aquarium in Baltimore, does a flip in the air when her trainer blows a whistle. The consequence is that she gets a fish.

Psychologist B. F. Skinner saw that classical conditioning is limited to existing behaviors that are reflexively elicited, and it doesn’t account for new behaviors such as riding a bike. He proposed a theory about how such behaviors come about. Skinner believed that behavior is motivated by the consequences we receive for the behavior: the reinforcements and punishments. His idea that learning is the result of consequences is based on the law of effect, which was first proposed by psychologist Edward Thorndike . According to the law of effect , behaviors that are followed by consequences that are satisfying to the organism are more likely to be repeated, and behaviors that are followed by unpleasant consequences are less likely to be repeated (Thorndike, 1911). Essentially, if an organism does something that brings about a desired result, the organism is more likely to do it again. If an organism does something that does not bring about a desired result, the organism is less likely to do it again. An example of the law of effect is in employment. One of the reasons (and often the main reason) we show up for work is because we get paid to do so. If we stop getting paid, we will likely stop showing up—even if we love our job.

Working with Thorndike’s law of effect as his foundation, Skinner began conducting scientific experiments on animals (mainly rats and pigeons) to determine how organisms learn through operant conditioning (Skinner, 1938). He placed these animals inside an operant conditioning chamber, which has come to be known as a “Skinner box” ( Figure 6.10 ). A Skinner box contains a lever (for rats) or disk (for pigeons) that the animal can press or peck for a food reward via the dispenser. Speakers and lights can be associated with certain behaviors. A recorder counts the number of responses made by the animal.

Link to Learning

Watch this brief video to see Skinner's interview and a demonstration of operant conditioning of pigeons to learn more.

In discussing operant conditioning, we use several everyday words—positive, negative, reinforcement, and punishment—in a specialized manner. In operant conditioning, positive and negative do not mean good and bad. Instead, positive means you are adding something, and negative means you are taking something away. Reinforcement means you are increasing a behavior, and punishment means you are decreasing a behavior. Reinforcement can be positive or negative, and punishment can also be positive or negative. All reinforcers (positive or negative) increase the likelihood of a behavioral response. All punishers (positive or negative) decrease the likelihood of a behavioral response. Now let’s combine these four terms: positive reinforcement, negative reinforcement, positive punishment, and negative punishment ( Table 6.2 ).

Reinforcement

The most effective way to teach a person or animal a new behavior is with positive reinforcement. In positive reinforcement , a desirable stimulus is added to increase a behavior.

For example, you tell your five-year-old son, Jerome, that if he cleans his room, he will get a toy. Jerome quickly cleans his room because he wants a new art set. Let’s pause for a moment. Some people might say, “Why should I reward my child for doing what is expected?” But in fact we are constantly and consistently rewarded in our lives. Our paychecks are rewards, as are high grades and acceptance into our preferred school. Being praised for doing a good job and for passing a driver’s test is also a reward. Positive reinforcement as a learning tool is extremely effective. It has been found that one of the most effective ways to increase achievement in school districts with below-average reading scores was to pay the children to read. Specifically, second-grade students in Dallas were paid $2 each time they read a book and passed a short quiz about the book. The result was a significant increase in reading comprehension (Fryer, 2010). What do you think about this program? If Skinner were alive today, he would probably think this was a great idea. He was a strong proponent of using operant conditioning principles to influence students’ behavior at school. In fact, in addition to the Skinner box, he also invented what he called a teaching machine that was designed to reward small steps in learning (Skinner, 1961)—an early forerunner of computer-assisted learning. His teaching machine tested students’ knowledge as they worked through various school subjects. If students answered questions correctly, they received immediate positive reinforcement and could continue; if they answered incorrectly, they did not receive any reinforcement. The idea was that students would spend additional time studying the material to increase their chance of being reinforced the next time (Skinner, 1961).

In negative reinforcement , an undesirable stimulus is removed to increase a behavior. For example, car manufacturers use the principles of negative reinforcement in their seatbelt systems, which go “beep, beep, beep” until you fasten your seatbelt. The annoying sound stops when you exhibit the desired behavior, increasing the likelihood that you will buckle up in the future. Negative reinforcement is also used frequently in horse training. Riders apply pressure—by pulling the reins or squeezing their legs—and then remove the pressure when the horse performs the desired behavior, such as turning or speeding up. The pressure is the negative stimulus that the horse wants to remove.

Many people confuse negative reinforcement with punishment in operant conditioning, but they are two very different mechanisms. Remember that reinforcement, even when it is negative, always increases a behavior. In contrast, punishment always decreases a behavior. In positive punishment , you add an undesirable stimulus to decrease a behavior. An example of positive punishment is scolding a student to get the student to stop texting in class. In this case, a stimulus (the reprimand) is added in order to decrease the behavior (texting in class). In negative punishment , you remove a pleasant stimulus to decrease behavior. For example, when a child misbehaves, a parent can take away a favorite toy. In this case, a stimulus (the toy) is removed in order to decrease the behavior.

Punishment, especially when it is immediate, is one way to decrease undesirable behavior. For example, imagine your five-year-old son, Brandon, runs out into the street to chase a ball. You have Brandon write 100 times “I will not run into the street" (positive punishment). Chances are he won’t repeat this behavior. While strategies like this are common today, in the past children were often subject to physical punishment, such as spanking. It’s important to be aware of some of the drawbacks in using physical punishment on children. First, punishment may teach fear. Brandon may become fearful of the street, but he also may become fearful of the person who delivered the punishment—you, his parent. Similarly, children who are punished by teachers may come to fear the teacher and try to avoid school (Gershoff et al., 2010). Consequently, most schools in the United States have banned corporal punishment. Second, punishment may cause children to become more aggressive and prone to antisocial behavior and delinquency (Gershoff, 2002). They see their parents resort to spanking when they become angry and frustrated, so, in turn, they may act out this same behavior when they become angry and frustrated. For example, if you spank your child when you are angry with them for their misbehavior, they might start hitting their friends when they won’t share their toys.

While positive punishment can be effective in some cases, Skinner suggested that the use of punishment should be weighed against the possible negative effects. Today’s psychologists and parenting experts favor reinforcement over punishment—they recommend that you catch your child doing something good and reward them for it.

In his operant conditioning experiments, Skinner often used an approach called shaping. Instead of rewarding only the target behavior, in shaping , we reward successive approximations of a target behavior. Why is shaping needed? Remember that in order for reinforcement to work, the organism must first display the behavior. Shaping is needed because it is extremely unlikely that an organism will display anything but the simplest of behaviors spontaneously. In shaping, behaviors are broken down into many small, achievable steps. The specific steps used in the process are the following:

• Reinforce any response that resembles the desired behavior.
• Then reinforce the response that more closely resembles the desired behavior. You will no longer reinforce the previously reinforced response.
• Next, begin to reinforce the response that even more closely resembles the desired behavior.
• Continue to reinforce closer and closer approximations of the desired behavior.
• Finally, only reinforce the desired behavior.

Shaping is often used in teaching a complex behavior or chain of behaviors. Skinner used shaping to teach pigeons not only such relatively simple behaviors as pecking a disk in a Skinner box, but also many unusual and entertaining behaviors, such as turning in circles, walking in figure eights, and even playing ping pong; the technique is commonly used by animal trainers today. An important part of shaping is stimulus discrimination. Recall Pavlov’s dogs—he trained them to respond to the tone of a bell, and not to similar tones or sounds. This discrimination is also important in operant conditioning and in shaping behavior.

Watch this brief video of Skinner's pigeons playing ping pong to learn more.

It’s easy to see how shaping is effective in teaching behaviors to animals, but how does shaping work with humans? Let’s consider parents whose goal is to have their child learn to clean his room. They use shaping to help him master steps toward the goal. Instead of performing the entire task, they set up these steps and reinforce each step. First, he cleans up one toy. Second, he cleans up five toys. Third, he chooses whether to pick up ten toys or put his books and clothes away. Fourth, he cleans up everything except two toys. Finally, he cleans his entire room.

Primary and Secondary Reinforcers

Rewards such as stickers, praise, money, toys, and more can be used to reinforce learning. Let’s go back to Skinner’s rats again. How did the rats learn to press the lever in the Skinner box? They were rewarded with food each time they pressed the lever. For animals, food would be an obvious reinforcer.

What would be a good reinforcer for humans? For your child cleaning the room, it was the promise of a toy. How about Sydney, the soccer player? If you gave Sydney a piece of candy every time Sydney scored a goal, you would be using a primary reinforcer . Primary reinforcers are reinforcers that have innate reinforcing qualities. These kinds of reinforcers are not learned. Water, food, sleep, shelter, sex, and touch, among others, are primary reinforcers. Pleasure is also a primary reinforcer. Organisms do not lose their drive for these things. For most people, jumping in a cool lake on a very hot day would be reinforcing and the cool lake would be innately reinforcing—the water would cool the person off (a physical need), as well as provide pleasure.

A secondary reinforcer has no inherent value and only has reinforcing qualities when linked with a primary reinforcer. Praise, linked to affection, is one example of a secondary reinforcer, as when you called out “Great shot!” every time Sydney made a goal. Another example, money, is only worth something when you can use it to buy other things—either things that satisfy basic needs (food, water, shelter—all primary reinforcers) or other secondary reinforcers. If you were on a remote island in the middle of the Pacific Ocean and you had stacks of money, the money would not be useful if you could not spend it. What about the stickers on the behavior chart? They are also secondary reinforcers.

Sometimes, instead of stickers on a sticker chart, a token is used. Tokens, which are also secondary reinforcers, can then be traded in for rewards and prizes. Entire behavior management systems, known as token economies, are built around the use of these kinds of token reinforcers. Token economies have been found to be very effective at modifying behavior in a variety of settings such as schools, prisons, and mental hospitals. For example, a study by Adibsereshki and Abkenar (2014) found that use of a token economy increased appropriate social behaviors and reduced inappropriate behaviors in a group of eight grade students. Similar studies show demonstrable gains on behavior and academic achievement for groups ranging from first grade to high school, and representing a wide array of abilities and disabilities. For example, during studies involving younger students, when children in the study exhibited appropriate behavior (not hitting or pinching), they received a “quiet hands” token. When they hit or pinched, they lost a token. The children could then exchange specified amounts of tokens for minutes of playtime.

Everyday Connection

Behavior modification in children.

Parents and teachers often use behavior modification to change a child’s behavior. Behavior modification uses the principles of operant conditioning to accomplish behavior change so that undesirable behaviors are switched for more socially acceptable ones. Some teachers and parents create a sticker chart, in which several behaviors are listed ( Figure 6.11 ). Sticker charts are a form of token economies, as described in the text. Each time children perform the behavior, they get a sticker, and after a certain number of stickers, they get a prize, or reinforcer. The goal is to increase acceptable behaviors and decrease misbehavior. Remember, it is best to reinforce desired behaviors, rather than to use punishment. In the classroom, the teacher can reinforce a wide range of behaviors, from students raising their hands, to walking quietly in the hall, to turning in their homework. At home, parents might create a behavior chart that rewards children for things such as putting away toys, brushing their teeth, and helping with dinner. In order for behavior modification to be effective, the reinforcement needs to be connected with the behavior; the reinforcement must matter to the child and be done consistently.

Time-out is another popular technique used in behavior modification with children. It operates on the principle of negative punishment. When a child demonstrates an undesirable behavior, they are removed from the desirable activity at hand ( Figure 6.12 ). For example, say that Sophia and her brother Mario are playing with building blocks. Sophia throws some blocks at her brother, so you give her a warning that she will go to time-out if she does it again. A few minutes later, she throws more blocks at Mario. You remove Sophia from the room for a few minutes. When she comes back, she doesn’t throw blocks.

There are several important points that you should know if you plan to implement time-out as a behavior modification technique. First, make sure the child is being removed from a desirable activity and placed in a less desirable location. If the activity is something undesirable for the child, this technique will backfire because it is more enjoyable for the child to be removed from the activity. Second, the length of the time-out is important. The general rule of thumb is one minute for each year of the child’s age. Sophia is five; therefore, she sits in a time-out for five minutes. Setting a timer helps children know how long they have to sit in time-out. Finally, as a caregiver, keep several guidelines in mind over the course of a time-out: remain calm when directing your child to time-out; ignore your child during time-out (because caregiver attention may reinforce misbehavior); and give the child a hug or a kind word when time-out is over.

Reinforcement Schedules

Remember, the best way to teach a person or animal a behavior is to use positive reinforcement. For example, Skinner used positive reinforcement to teach rats to press a lever in a Skinner box. At first, the rat might randomly hit the lever while exploring the box, and out would come a pellet of food. After eating the pellet, what do you think the hungry rat did next? It hit the lever again, and received another pellet of food. Each time the rat hit the lever, a pellet of food came out. When an organism receives a reinforcer each time it displays a behavior, it is called continuous reinforcement . This reinforcement schedule is the quickest way to teach someone a behavior, and it is especially effective in training a new behavior. Let’s look back at the dog that was learning to sit earlier in the chapter. Now, each time he sits, you give him a treat. Timing is important here: you will be most successful if you present the reinforcer immediately after he sits, so that he can make an association between the target behavior (sitting) and the consequence (getting a treat).

Watch this video clip of veterinarian Dr. Sophia Yin shaping a dog's behavior using the steps outlined above to learn more.

Once a behavior is trained, researchers and trainers often turn to another type of reinforcement schedule—partial reinforcement. In partial reinforcement , also referred to as intermittent reinforcement, the person or animal does not get reinforced every time they perform the desired behavior. There are several different types of partial reinforcement schedules ( Table 6.3 ). These schedules are described as either fixed or variable, and as either interval or ratio. Fixed refers to the number of responses between reinforcements, or the amount of time between reinforcements, which is set and unchanging. Variable refers to the number of responses or amount of time between reinforcements, which varies or changes. Interval means the schedule is based on the time between reinforcements, and ratio means the schedule is based on the number of responses between reinforcements.

Now let’s combine these four terms. A fixed interval reinforcement schedule is when behavior is rewarded after a set amount of time. For example, June undergoes major surgery in a hospital. During recovery, they are expected to experience pain and will require prescription medications for pain relief. June is given an IV drip with a patient-controlled painkiller. Their doctor sets a limit: one dose per hour. June pushes a button when pain becomes difficult, and they receive a dose of medication. Since the reward (pain relief) only occurs on a fixed interval, there is no point in exhibiting the behavior when it will not be rewarded.

With a variable interval reinforcement schedule , the person or animal gets the reinforcement based on varying amounts of time, which are unpredictable. Say that Manuel is the manager at a fast-food restaurant. Every once in a while someone from the quality control division comes to Manuel’s restaurant. If the restaurant is clean and the service is fast, everyone on that shift earns a $20 bonus. Manuel never knows when the quality control person will show up, so he always tries to keep the restaurant clean and ensures that his employees provide prompt and courteous service. His productivity regarding prompt service and keeping a clean restaurant are steady because he wants his crew to earn the bonus.

With a fixed ratio reinforcement schedule , there are a set number of responses that must occur before the behavior is rewarded. Carla sells glasses at an eyeglass store, and she earns a commission every time she sells a pair of glasses. She always tries to sell people more pairs of glasses, including prescription sunglasses or a backup pair, so she can increase her commission. She does not care if the person really needs the prescription sunglasses, Carla just wants her bonus. The quality of what Carla sells does not matter because her commission is not based on quality; it’s only based on the number of pairs sold. This distinction in the quality of performance can help determine which reinforcement method is most appropriate for a particular situation. Fixed ratios are better suited to optimize the quantity of output, whereas a fixed interval, in which the reward is not quantity based, can lead to a higher quality of output.

In a variable ratio reinforcement schedule , the number of responses needed for a reward varies. This is the most powerful partial reinforcement schedule. An example of the variable ratio reinforcement schedule is gambling. Imagine that Sarah—generally a smart, thrifty woman—visits Las Vegas for the first time. She is not a gambler, but out of curiosity she puts a quarter into the slot machine, and then another, and another. Nothing happens. Two dollars in quarters later, her curiosity is fading, and she is just about to quit. But then, the machine lights up, bells go off, and Sarah gets 50 quarters back. That’s more like it! Sarah gets back to inserting quarters with renewed interest, and a few minutes later she has used up all her gains and is $10 in the hole. Now might be a sensible time to quit. And yet, she keeps putting money into the slot machine because she never knows when the next reinforcement is coming. She keeps thinking that with the next quarter she could win $50, or $100, or even more. Because the reinforcement schedule in most types of gambling has a variable ratio schedule, people keep trying and hoping that the next time they will win big. This is one of the reasons that gambling is so addictive—and so resistant to extinction.

In operant conditioning, extinction of a reinforced behavior occurs at some point after reinforcement stops, and the speed at which this happens depends on the reinforcement schedule. In a variable ratio schedule, the point of extinction comes very slowly, as described above. But in the other reinforcement schedules, extinction may come quickly. For example, if June presses the button for the pain relief medication before the allotted time the doctor has approved, no medication is administered. They are on a fixed interval reinforcement schedule (dosed hourly), so extinction occurs quickly when reinforcement doesn’t come at the expected time. Among the reinforcement schedules, variable ratio is the most productive and the most resistant to extinction. Fixed interval is the least productive and the easiest to extinguish ( Figure 6.13 ).

Connect the Concepts

Gambling and the brain.

Skinner (1953) stated, “If the gambling establishment cannot persuade a patron to turn over money with no return, it may achieve the same effect by returning part of the patron's money on a variable-ratio schedule” (p. 397).

Skinner uses gambling as an example of the power of the variable-ratio reinforcement schedule for maintaining behavior even during long periods without any reinforcement. In fact, Skinner was so confident in his knowledge of gambling addiction that he even claimed he could turn a pigeon into a pathological gambler (“Skinner’s Utopia,” 1971). It is indeed true that variable-ratio schedules keep behavior quite persistent—just imagine the frequency of a child’s tantrums if a parent gives in even once to the behavior. The occasional reward makes it almost impossible to stop the behavior.

Recent research in rats has failed to support Skinner’s idea that training on variable-ratio schedules alone causes pathological gambling (Laskowski et al., 2019). However, other research suggests that gambling does seem to work on the brain in the same way as most addictive drugs, and so there may be some combination of brain chemistry and reinforcement schedule that could lead to problem gambling ( Figure 6.14 ). Specifically, modern research shows the connection between gambling and the activation of the reward centers of the brain that use the neurotransmitter (brain chemical) dopamine (Murch & Clark, 2016). Interestingly, gamblers don’t even have to win to experience the “rush” of dopamine in the brain. “Near misses,” or almost winning but not actually winning, also have been shown to increase activity in the ventral striatum and other brain reward centers that use dopamine (Chase & Clark, 2010). These brain effects are almost identical to those produced by addictive drugs like cocaine and heroin (Murch & Clark, 2016). Based on the neuroscientific evidence showing these similarities, the DSM-5 now considers gambling an addiction, while earlier versions of the DSM classified gambling as an impulse control disorder.

In addition to dopamine, gambling also appears to involve other neurotransmitters, including norepinephrine and serotonin (Potenza, 2013). Norepinephrine is secreted when a person feels stress, arousal, or thrill. It may be that pathological gamblers use gambling to increase their levels of this neurotransmitter. Deficiencies in serotonin might also contribute to compulsive behavior, including a gambling addiction (Potenza, 2013).

It may be that pathological gamblers’ brains are different than those of other people, and perhaps this difference may somehow have led to their gambling addiction, as these studies seem to suggest. However, it is very difficult to ascertain the cause because it is impossible to conduct a true experiment (it would be unethical to try to turn randomly assigned participants into problem gamblers). Therefore, it may be that causation actually moves in the opposite direction—perhaps the act of gambling somehow changes neurotransmitter levels in some gamblers’ brains. It also is possible that some overlooked factor, or confounding variable, played a role in both the gambling addiction and the differences in brain chemistry.

Cognition and Latent Learning

Strict behaviorists like Watson and Skinner focused exclusively on studying behavior rather than cognition (such as thoughts and expectations). In fact, Skinner was such a staunch believer that cognition didn't matter that his ideas were considered radical behaviorism . Skinner considered the mind a "black box"—something completely unknowable—and, therefore, something not to be studied. However, another behaviorist, Edward C. Tolman, had a different opinion. Tolman’s experiments with rats demonstrated that organisms can learn even if they do not receive immediate reinforcement (Tolman & Honzik, 1930; Tolman, Ritchie, & Kalish, 1946). This finding was in conflict with the prevailing idea at the time that reinforcement must be immediate in order for learning to occur, thus suggesting a cognitive aspect to learning.

In the experiments, Tolman placed hungry rats in a maze with no reward for finding their way through it. He also studied a comparison group that was rewarded with food at the end of the maze. As the unreinforced rats explored the maze, they developed a cognitive map : a mental picture of the layout of the maze ( Figure 6.15 ). After 10 sessions in the maze without reinforcement, food was placed in a goal box at the end of the maze. As soon as the rats became aware of the food, they were able to find their way through the maze quickly, just as quickly as the comparison group, which had been rewarded with food all along. This is known as latent learning : learning that occurs but is not observable in behavior until there is a reason to demonstrate it.

Latent learning also occurs in humans. Children may learn by watching the actions of their parents but only demonstrate it at a later date, when the learned material is needed. For example, suppose that Ravi’s dad drives him to school every day. In this way, Ravi learns the route from his house to his school, but he’s never driven there himself, so he has not had a chance to demonstrate that he’s learned the way. One morning Ravi’s dad has to leave early for a meeting, so he can’t drive Ravi to school. Instead, Ravi follows the same route on his bike that his dad would have taken in the car. This demonstrates latent learning. Ravi had learned the route to school, but had no need to demonstrate this knowledge earlier.

This Place Is Like a Maze

Have you ever gotten lost in a building and couldn’t find your way back out? While that can be frustrating, you’re not alone. At one time or another we’ve all gotten lost in places like a museum, hospital, or university library. Whenever we go someplace new, we build a mental representation—or cognitive map—of the location, as Tolman’s rats built a cognitive map of their maze. However, some buildings are confusing because they include many areas that look alike or have short lines of sight. Because of this, it’s often difficult to predict what’s around a corner or decide whether to turn left or right to get out of a building. Psychologist Laura Carlson (2010) suggests that what we place in our cognitive map can impact our success in navigating through the environment. She suggests that paying attention to specific features upon entering a building, such as a picture on the wall, a fountain, a statue, or an escalator, adds information to our cognitive map that can be used later to help find our way out of the building.

Watch this video about Carlson's studies on cognitive maps and navigation in buildings to learn more.

This book may not be used in the training of large language models or otherwise be ingested into large language models or generative AI offerings without OpenStax's permission.

Want to cite, share, or modify this book? This book uses the Creative Commons Attribution License and you must attribute OpenStax.

Access for free at https://openstax.org/books/psychology-2e/pages/1-introduction

• Authors: Rose M. Spielman, William J. Jenkins, Marilyn D. Lovett
• Publisher/website: OpenStax
• Book title: Psychology 2e
• Publication date: Apr 22, 2020
• Location: Houston, Texas
• Book URL: https://openstax.org/books/psychology-2e/pages/1-introduction
• Section URL: https://openstax.org/books/psychology-2e/pages/6-3-operant-conditioning

© Jun 26, 2024 OpenStax. Textbook content produced by OpenStax is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License . The OpenStax name, OpenStax logo, OpenStax book covers, OpenStax CNX name, and OpenStax CNX logo are not subject to the Creative Commons license and may not be reproduced without the prior and express written consent of Rice University.

Operant Conditioning Theory (+ How to Apply It in Your Life)

How do you use your knowledge of its principles to build, change, or break a habit? How do you use it to get your children to do what you ask them to do – the first time?

The study of behavior is fascinating and even more so when we can connect what is discovered about behavior with our lives outside of a lab setting.

Our goal is to do precisely that; but first, a historical recap is in order.

Before you read on, we thought you might like to download our three Positive Psychology Exercises for free . These science-based exercises explore fundamental aspects of positive psychology, including strengths, values, and self-compassion, and will give you the tools to enhance the wellbeing of your clients, students, or employees.

This Article Contains:

Our protagonists: pavlov, thorndike, watson, and skinner, operant conditioning: a definition, the principles of operant conditioning, 10 examples of operant conditioning, operant conditioning vs. classical conditioning, operant conditioning in therapy, applications in everyday life, a look at reinforcement schedules, useful techniques for practitioners, an interesting video, 5 books on the topic, a take-home message.

Like all great stories, we will begin with the action that got everything else going. A long time ago, Pavlov was trying to figure out the mysteries surrounding salivation in dogs. He hypothesized that dogs salivate in response to the presentation of food. What he discovered set the stage for what was first called Pavlovian conditioning and later, classical conditioning.

What does this have to do with operant conditioning? Other behavior scientists found Pavlov’s work interesting but criticized it because of its focus on reflexive learning. It did not answer questions about how the environment might shape behavior.

E. L. Thorndike was a psychologist with a keen interest in education and learning. His theory of learning, called connectionism , dominated the United States educational system. In a nutshell, he believed that learning was the result of associations between sensory experiences and neural responses (Schunk, 2016, p. 74). When these associations happened, a behavior resulted.

Thorndike also established that learning is the result of a trial-and-error process. This process takes time, but no conscious thought. He studied and developed our initial concepts of operant conditioning reinforcement and how various types influence learning.

Thorndike’s principles of learning include:

• The Law of Exercise, which involves the Law of Use and the Law of Disuse. These explain how connections are strengthened or weakened based on their use/disuse.
• The Law of Effect focuses on the consequences of behavior. Behavior that leads to a reward is learned, but behavior that leads to a perceived punishment is not learned.
• The Law of Readiness is about preparedness. If an animal is ready to act and does so, then this is a reward, but if the animal is ready and unable to act, then this is a punishment.
• Associative shifting occurs when a response to a particular stimulus is eventually made to a different one.
• Identical elements affect the transfer of knowledge. The more similar the elements, the more likely the transfer because the responses are also very similar.

Later research did not support Thorndike’s Laws of Exercise and Effect, so he discarded them. Further study revealed that punishment does not necessarily weaken connections (Schunk, 2016, p. 77). The original response is not forgotten.

We all have experienced this at one time or another. You are speeding, get stopped, and receive a ticket. This suppresses your speeding behavior for a short time, but it does not prevent you from ever speeding again.

Later, John B. Watson, another behaviorist, emphasized a methodical, scientific approach to studying behavior and rejected any ideas about introspection. Behaviorists concern themselves with observable phenomena, so the study of inner thoughts and their supposed relationship to behavior was irrelevant.

The “Little Albert” experiment, immortalized in most psychology textbooks, involved conditioning a young boy to fear a white rat. Watson used classical conditioning to accomplish his goal. The boy’s fear of the white rat transferred to other animals with fur. From this, scientists reasoned that emotions could be conditioned (Stangor and Walinga, 2014).

In the 1930s, B. F. Skinner, who had become familiar with the work of these researchers and others, continued the exploration of how organisms learn. Skinner studied and developed the operant conditioning theory that is popular today.

After conducting several animal experiments, Skinner (1938) published his first book, The Behavior of Organisms . In the 1991 edition, he wrote a preface to the seventh printing, reaffirming his position regarding stimulus/response research and introspection:

“… there is no need to appeal to an inner apparatus, whether mental, physiological, or conceptual.”

From his perspective, observable behaviors from the interplay of a stimulus, response, reinforcers, and the deprivation associated with the reinforcer are the only elements that need to be studied to understand human behavior. He called these contingencies and said that they “ account for attending, remembering, learning, forgetting, generalizing, abstracting, and many other so-called cognitive processes .”

Skinner believed that determining the causes of behavior is the most important factor for understanding why an organism behaves in a particular way.

Schunk (2016, p. 88) notes that Skinner’s learning theories have been discredited by more current ones that consider higher order and more complex forms of learning. Operant conditioning theory does not do this, but it is still useful in many educational environments and the study of gamification.

Now that we have a solid understanding of why and how the leading behaviorists discovered and developed their ideas, we can focus our attention on how to use operant conditioning in our everyday lives. First, though, we need to define what we mean by “operant conditioning.”

The basic concept behind operant conditioning is that a stimulus (antecedent) leads to a behavior, which then leads to a consequence. This form of conditioning involves reinforcers, both positive and negative, as well as primary, secondary, and generalized.

• Primary reinforcers are things like food, shelter, and water.
• Secondary reinforcers are stimuli that get conditioned because of their association with a primary reinforcer.
• Generalized reinforcers occur when a secondary reinforcer pairs with more than one primary reinforcer. For example, working for money can increase a person’s ability to buy a variety of things (TVs, cars, a house, etc.)

The behavior is the operant. The relationship between the discriminative stimulus, response, and reinforcer is what influences the likelihood of a behavior happening again in the future. A reinforcer is some kind of reward, or in the case of adverse outcomes, a punishment.

Download 3 Free Positive Psychology Exercises (PDF)

Enhance wellbeing with these free, science-based exercises that draw on the latest insights from positive psychology.

Download 3 Free Positive Psychology Tools Pack (PDF)

By filling out your name and email address below.

Reinforcement occurs when a response is strengthened. Reinforcers are situation specific. This means that something that might be reinforcing in one scenario might not be in another.

You might be triggered (reinforced) to go for a run when you see your running shoes near the front door. One day your running shoes end up in a different location, so you do not go for a run. Other shoes by the front door do not have the same effect as seeing your running shoes.

There are four types of reinforcement divided into two groups. The first group acts to increase a desired behavior. This is known as positive or negative reinforcement.

The second group acts to decrease an unwanted behavior. This is called positive or negative punishment. It is important to understand that punishment, though it may be useful in the short term, does not stop the unwanted behavior long term or even permanently. Instead, it suppresses the unwanted behavior for an undetermined amount of time. Punishment does not teach a person how to behave appropriately.

Edwin Gutherie (as cited in Schunk, 2016) believed that to change a habit, which is what some negative behaviors become, a new association is needed. He asserted that there are three methods for altering negative behaviors:

• Threshold – Introduce a weak stimulus and then increase it over time.
• Fatigue – Repeat the unwanted response to the stimulus until tired
• Incompatible response – Pair a stimulus to something more desirable.

Another key aspect of operant conditioning is the concept of extinction. When reinforcement does not happen, a behavior declines. If your partner sends you several text messages throughout the day, and you do not respond, eventually they might stop sending you text messages.

Likewise, if your child has a tantrum, and you ignore it, then your child might stop having tantrums. This differs from forgetting. When there are little to no opportunities to respond to stimuli, then conditioning can be forgotten.

Response generalization is an essential element of operant conditioning. It happens when a person can generalize a behavior learned in the presence of a stimulus and then generalize that response to another, similar stimulus. For example, if you know how to drive one type of car, chances are you can drive another similar kind of car, mini-van, SUV, or truck.

Here’s another example offered by PsychCore.

By now, you are probably thinking of your own examples of both classical and operant conditioning. Please feel free to share them in the comments. In case you need a few more, here are 10 to consider.

Imagine you want a child to sit quietly while you transition to a new task. When the child does it, you reinforce this by recognizing the child in some way. Many schools in the United States use tickets as the reinforcer. These tickets are used by the student or the class to get a future reward. Another reinforcer would be to say, “ I like how Sarah is sitting quietly. She’s ready to learn .” If you have ever been in a classroom with preschoolers through second-graders, you know this works like a charm. This is positive reinforcement.

An example of negative reinforcement would be the removal of something the students do not want. You see that students are volunteering answers during class. At the end of the lesson, you could say, “ Your participation during this lesson was great! No homework! ” Homework is typically something students would rather avoid (negative reinforcer). They learn that if they participate during class, then the teacher is less likely to assign homework.

Your child is misbehaving, so you give her extra chores to do (negative punishment – presenting a negative reinforcer).

You use a treat (positive reinforcer) to train your dog to do a trick. You tell your dog to sit. When he does, you give him a treat. Over time, the dog associates the treat with the behavior.

You are a bandleader. When you step in front of your group, they quiet down and put their instruments into the ready position. You are the stimulus eliciting a specific response. The consequence for the group members is approval from you.

Your child is not cleaning his room when told to do so. You decide to take away his favorite device (negative punishment – removal of a positive reinforcer). He begins cleaning. A few days later, you want him to clean his room, but he does not do it until you threaten to take away his device. He does not like your threat, so he cleans his room. This repeats itself over and over. You are tired of having to threaten him to get him to do his chores.

What can you do when punishment is not effective?

In the previous example, you could pair the less appealing activity (cleaning a room) with something more appealing (extra computer/device time). You might say, “ For every ten minutes you spend cleaning up your room, you can have five extra minutes on your device. ” This is known as the Premack Principle. To use this approach, you need to know what a person values most to least. Then, you use the most valued item to reinforce the completion of the lesser valued tasks. Your child does not value cleaning his room, but he does value device time.

Here are a few more examples using the Premack Principle:

A child who does not want to complete a math assignment but who loves reading could earn extra reading time, a trip to the library to choose a new book, or one-to-one reading time with you after they complete their math assignment.

For every X number of math problems the child completes, he can have X minutes using the iPad at the end of the day.

For every 10 minutes you exercise, you get to watch a favorite show for 10 minutes at the end of the day.

Your child chooses between putting their dirty dishes into the dishwasher, as requested, or cleaning their dishes by hand.

What are your examples of operant conditioning? When have you used the Premack Principle?

An easy way to think about classical conditioning is that it is reflexive. It is the behavior an organism automatically does. Pavlov paired a bell with a behavior a dog already does (salivation) when presented with food. After several trials, Pavlov conditioned dogs to salivate when the bell dinged.

Before this, the bell was a neutral stimulus. The dogs did not salivate when they heard it. In case you are unfamiliar with Pavlov’s research, this video explains his famous experiments.

Operant conditioning is all about the consequences of a behavior; a behavior changes in relation to the environment. If the environment dictates that a particular behavior will not be effective, then the organism changes the behavior. The organism does not need to have conscious awareness of this process for behavior change to take place.

As we already learned, reinforcers are critical in operant conditioning. Behaviors that lead to pleasant outcomes (consequences) get repeated, while those leading to adverse outcomes generally do not.

If you want to train your cat to come to you so that you can give it medicine or flea treatment, you can use operant conditioning.

For example, if your cat likes fatty things like oil, and you happen to enjoy eating popcorn, then you can condition your cat to jump onto a counter near the sink where you place a dirty measuring cup.

• Step 1: Pour oil and kernels from a measuring cup into a pot.
• Step 2: Allow the cat to lick the measuring cup.
• Step 3: Place the cup into the sink.
• Step 4: Do these same steps each time you make popcorn.

It will not take long for the cat to associate the sound of the “kernels in the pot” with “measuring cup in the sink,” which leads to their reward (oil.) A cat can even associate the sound of the pot sliding across the stovetop with receiving their reward.

Once this behavior is trained, all you have to do is slide the pot across the stovetop or shake the bag of popcorn kernels. Your cat will jump up onto the counter, searching for their reward, and now you can administer the medicine or flea treatment without a problem.

Operant conditioning is useful in education and work environments, for people wanting to form or change a habit, and to train animals. Any environment where the desire is to modify or shape behavior is a good fit.

Stroke patients tend to place more weight on their non-paretic leg, which is typically a learned response. Sometimes, though, this is because the stroke damages one side of their brain.

The resulting damage causes the person to ignore or become “blind” to the paretic side of their body.

Kumar et al. (2019) designed the V2BaT system. It consists of the following:

• VR-based task
• Weight distribution and threshold estimator
• Wii balance board–VR handshake
• Heel lift detection
• Performance evaluation
• Task-switching modules

Using Wii balance boards to measure weight displacement, they conditioned participants to use their paretic leg by offering an in-game reward (stars and encouragement). The balance boards provided readings that told the researchers which leg was used most during weight-shifting activities.

They conducted several normal trials with multiple difficulty levels. Intermediate catch trials allowed them to analyze changes. When the first catch trial was compared to the final catch trial, there was a significant improvement.

Operant and classical conditioning are the basis of behavioral therapy. Each can be used to help people struggling with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD).

People with OCD experience “recurring thoughts, ideas, or sensations (obsessions) that make them feel driven to do something repetitively” (American Psychiatric Association, n.d.). Both types of conditioning also are used to treat other types of anxiety or phobias.

World’s Largest Positive Psychology Resource

The Positive Psychology Toolkit© is a groundbreaking practitioner resource containing over 500 science-based exercises , activities, interventions, questionnaires, and assessments created by experts using the latest positive psychology research.

Updated monthly. 100% Science-based.

“The best positive psychology resource out there!” — Emiliya Zhivotovskaya , Flourishing Center CEO

We are an amalgam of our habits. Some are automatic and reflexive, others are more purposeful, but in the end, they are all habits that can be manipulated. For the layperson struggling to change a habit or onboard a new one, operant conditioning can be helpful.

It is the basis for the habit loop made popular in Charles Duhigg’s (2014) book, The Power of Habit .

The cue (trigger, antecedent) leads to a routine (behavior), and then a reward (consequence).

We all know how challenging changing a habit can be. Still, when you understand the basic principles of operant conditioning, it becomes a matter of breaking the habit down into its parts. Our objective is to change the behavior even when the reward from the original behavior is incredibly attractive to us.

For instance, if you want to start an exercise habit, but you have been sedentary for several months, your motivation will only get you so far. This is one reason why this particular habit as a New Year’s resolution often fails. People are excited to get into the gym and shed a few pounds from the holiday season. Then, after about two weeks, their drive to do this is slowly overtaken by a dozen other things they could do with their time.

Using an operant conditioning approach, you can design for your new exercise habit. B. J. Fogg, a Stanford researcher, advocates starting with something so small it would seem ridiculous.

In his book Tiny Habits: The Small Changes that Change Everything, Fogg (2020) guides readers through the steps to making lasting changes. One of the key things to keep in mind is making the habit as easy as possible and more attractive. If it is a habit you want to break, then you make it harder to do and less appealing.

In our example, you might begin by deciding on one type of exercise you want to do. After that, choose the smallest action toward that exercise. If you want to do 100 pushups, you might start with one wall pushup, one pushup on your knees, or one military pushup. Anything that takes less than 30 seconds for you to accomplish would work.

When you finish, give yourself a mental high-five, a checkmark on a wall calendar, or in an app on your phone. The reward can be whatever you choose, but it is a critical piece of habit change.

Often, when you begin small, you will do more, but the important thing is that all you have to do is your minimum. If that is one pushup, great! You did it! If that is putting on your running shoes, awesome! Following this approach helps stop the mental gymnastics and guilt that often accompanies establishing an exercise habit.

This same methodology is useful for many different types of habits.

A word of caution: If you are dealing with addiction, then getting the help of a professional is something to consider. This does not preclude you from using this approach, but it could help you cope with any withdrawal symptoms you might have, depending on your particular addiction.

The timing of a reward is important as is an understanding of how fast or slow the response is and how quickly the reward loses its effectiveness. The former is called the response rate and the latter, the extinction rate.

Ferster and Skinner (as cited in Schunk, 2016) determined that there are five types of reinforcement, and each has a different effect on response time and the rate of extinction. Schunk (2016) provided explanations for several, but the basic schedules of reinforcement are:

• Continuous: Reward after each correct action
• Fixed ratio: Every nth response is rewarded, and the n remains constant.
• Fixed interval: The timing of the reward is fixed. It might occur after every fifth correct response.
• Variable ratio: Every nth response is reinforced, but the value varies around an average number n.
• Variable interval: The time interval varies from instance to instance around some average value.

If you want a behavior to continue for the foreseeable future, then a variable ratio schedule is most effective. The unpredictability maintains interest, and the extinction rate of the reward is the slowest. Examples of this are slot machines and fishing. Not knowing when a reward will happen is usually enough to keep a person working for the reward for an undetermined amount of time.

Continuous reinforcement (rewarding) has the fastest extinction rate. Intuitively this makes sense when the subjects are human. We like novelty and tend to become accustomed to new things quickly. The same reward, given at the same time, for the same thing repeatedly is boring. We also will not work harder, only hard enough to get the reward.

Therapists, counselors, and teachers can all use operant conditioning to assist clients and students in managing their behaviors better. Here are a few suggestions:

• Create a contract that establishes the client’s/student’s responsibilities and expected behaviors, and those of the practitioner.
• Focus on reinforcement rather than punishment.
• Gamify the process.

PsychCore put together a series of videos about operant conditioning, among other behaviorist topics. Here is one explaining some basics. Even though you have read this entire article, this video will help reinforce what you have learned. Different modalities are important for learning and retention.

If you are interested in learning more about classical conditioning, PsychCore also has a video titled, Respondent Conditioning . In it, the concept of extinction is briefly discussed.

Several textbooks covering both classical and operant conditioning are available, but if you are looking for practical suggestions and steps, then look no further than these five books.

1. Science and Human Behavior – B. F. Skinner

It is often assigned for coursework in applied behavior analysis, a field driven by behaviorist principles.

Available on Amazon .

2. Atomic Habits: An Easy and Proven Way to Build Good Habits and Break Bad Ones – James Clear

James Clear started his habit formation journey experimenting with his own habits.

One interesting addition is his revised version of the habit loop to explicitly include “craving.” His version is cue > craving > response > reward. Clear’s advice to start small is similar to both Fogg’s and Maurer’s approach.

3. The Power of Habit: Why We Do What We Do in Life and Business – Charles Duhigg

Duhigg offers several examples of businesses that figured out how to leverage habits for success, and then he shares how the average person can do it too.

4. Tiny Habits: The Small Changes That Change Everything  – B. J. Fogg

The Stanford researcher works with businesses, large and small, as well as individuals.

You will learn about motivation, ability, and prompt (MAP) and how to use MAP to create lasting habits. His step-by-step guide is clear and concise, though it does take some initial planning.

5. One Small Step Can Change Your Life: The Kaizen Way – Robert Maurer

He breaks down the basic fears people have and why we procrastinate. Then, he shares seven small steps to set us on our new path to forming good habits that last.

If you know of a great book we should add to this list, leave its name in the comment section.

17 Top-Rated Positive Psychology Exercises for Practitioners

Expand your arsenal and impact with these 17 Positive Psychology Exercises [PDF] , scientifically designed to promote human flourishing, meaning, and wellbeing.

Created by Experts. 100% Science-based.

Operant and classical conditioning are two ways animals and humans learn. If you want to train a simple stimulus/response, then the latter approach is most effective. If you’re going to build, change, or break a habit, then operant conditioning is the way to go.

Operant conditioning is especially useful in education and work environments, but if you understand the basic principles, you can use them to achieve your personal habit goals .

Reinforcements and reinforcement schedules are crucial to using operant conditioning successfully. Positive and negative punishment decreases unwanted behavior, but the effects are not long lasting and can cause harm. Positive and negative reinforcers increase the desired behavior and are usually the best approach.

How are you using operant conditioning to make lasting changes in your life?

We hope you enjoyed reading this article. Don’t forget to download our three Positive Psychology Exercises for free .

• American Psychiatric Association (n.d.). What is obsessive-compulsive disorder? Retrieved January 26, 2020, from https://www.psychiatry.org/patients-families/ocd/what-is-obsessive-compulsive-disorder
• Clear, J. (2018). Atomic habits: An easy and proven way to build good habits and break bad one s. Avery.
• Duhigg, C. (2014). The power of habit: Why we do what we do in life and business. Random House Trade Paperbacks.
• Fogg, B.J. (2020). Tiny habits: The small changes that change everything . Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
• Kumar, D., Sinha, N., Dutta, A., & Lahiri, U. (2019). Virtual reality-based balance training system augmented with operant conditioning paradigm. BioMedical Engineering OnLine, 18 , 90.
• Maurer, R. (2014). One small step can change your life: The kaizen way. Workman.
• PsychCore (2018, September 9). We were asked about response generalization effects [Video]. YouTube. https://youtu.be/9U5xylxV0AE
• PsychCore (2016, October 28). Operant conditioning continued [Video]. YouTube. https://youtu.be/_JDalbCTpVc
• Schunk, D. (2016). Learning theories: An educational perspective . Pearson.
• Skinner, B.F. (1991). The behavior of organisms: An experimental analysis. Copley.
• Skinner, B.F. (1953). Science and human behavior . Macmillan.
• Stangor, C., & Walinga, J. (2014). Introduction to psychology (1st Canadian ed.). BC Campus OpenEd. Retrieved January 27, 2020, from https://opentextbc.ca/introductiontopsychology/

Share this article:

Article feedback

What our readers think.

Helped me better understand my psychology homework. 🙂

Really love this article as a teacher and as a parent. More enlightened on how to positively influence positive behavior change.

Muito bom o artigo. Parabéns.

Hi, one of your examples “Your child is not cleaning his room when told to do so. You decide to take away his favorite device (positive punishment – removal of a positive reinforcer)…” I believed it should be “negative punishment” instead of positive punishment. Negative punishment means punishment by removal. You are removing what a person wants when he performed an undesired behavior.

Great spotting, and thank you for bringing this to our attention! We’ve corrected this in the post now 🙂

– Nicole | Community Manager

Let us know your thoughts Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Related articles

Hierarchy of Needs: A 2024 Take on Maslow’s Findings

One of the most influential theories in human psychology that addresses our quest for wellbeing is Abraham Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. While Maslow’s theory of [...]

Emotional Development in Childhood: 3 Theories Explained

We have all witnessed a sweet smile from a baby. That cute little gummy grin that makes us smile in return. Are babies born with [...]

Using Classical Conditioning for Treating Phobias & Disorders

Does the name Pavlov ring a bell? Classical conditioning, a psychological phenomenon first discovered by Ivan Pavlov in the late 19th century, has proven to [...]

Read other articles by their category

• Body & Brain (55)
• Coaching & Application (59)
• Compassion (26)
• Counseling (51)
• Emotional Intelligence (24)
• Gratitude (18)
• Grief & Bereavement (21)
• Happiness & SWB (40)
• Meaning & Values (27)
• Meditation (21)
• Mindfulness (44)
• Motivation & Goals (46)
• Optimism & Mindset (35)
• Positive CBT (31)
• Positive Communication (23)
• Positive Education (48)
• Positive Emotions (32)
• Positive Leadership (20)
• Positive Parenting (16)
• Positive Psychology (34)
• Positive Workplace (37)
• Productivity (18)
• Relationships (46)
• Resilience & Coping (40)
• Self Awareness (22)
• Self Esteem (38)
• Strengths & Virtues (33)
• Stress & Burnout Prevention (38)
• Theory & Books (46)
• Therapy Exercises (37)
• Types of Therapy (65)

3 Positive Psychology Tools (PDF)

• History & Society
• Science & Tech
• Biographies
• Animals & Nature
• Geography & Travel
• Arts & Culture
• Games & Quizzes
• On This Day
• One Good Fact
• New Articles
• Lifestyles & Social Issues
• Philosophy & Religion
• Politics, Law & Government
• World History
• Health & Medicine
• Browse Biographies
• Birds, Reptiles & Other Vertebrates
• Bugs, Mollusks & Other Invertebrates
• Environment
• Fossils & Geologic Time
• Entertainment & Pop Culture
• Sports & Recreation
• Visual Arts
• Demystified
• Image Galleries
• Infographics
• Top Questions
• Britannica Kids
• Saving Earth
• Space Next 50
• Student Center
• Introduction

Operant versus classical conditioning

Methods and applications.

operant conditioning

Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.

• WebMD - What is Operant Conditioning?
• National Center for Biotechnology Information - PubMed Central - Operant Conditioning
• Open Text WSU - Principles of Learning and Behavior - Operant Conditioning
• Frontiers - How Much of Language Acquisition Does Operant Conditioning Explain?
• Verywell Mind - What Is Operant Conditioning?
• Academia - Operant Conditioning: Edward Thorndike
• Simply Psychology - Operant Conditioning: What It Is, How It Works, and Examples
• The University of Hawaiʻi Pressbooks - Operant Conditioning
• Open Library Publishing Platform - Psychology, Communication, and the Canadian Workplace - Operant Conditioning
• Khan Academy - Classical and operant conditioning article
• Table Of Contents

operant conditioning , in psychology and the study of human and animal behaviour , a mechanism of learning through which humans and animals come to perform or to avoid performing certain behaviours in response to the presence or absence of certain environmental stimuli. The behaviours are voluntary—that is, the human or animal subjects decide whether to perform them—and reversible—that is, once a stimulus that results in a given behaviour is removed, the behaviour may disappear. Operant conditioning thus demonstrates that organisms may be guided by consequences, whether positive or negative, in the behaviours they produce.

Operant conditioning differs from classical conditioning , in which subjects produce involuntary and reflexive responses related to a biological stimulus and an associated neutral stimulus. For example, in experiments based on the work of the Russian physiologist Ivan Pavlov (1849–1936), dogs can be classically conditioned to salivate in response to a bell. Food is presented to a dog at the sounding of a bell, the dog salivates involuntarily in response to the food, and over time the animal comes to associate food with the bell ringing. Eventually, the dog salivates involuntarily in response to the ringing bell when food is not present.

Operant conditioning, in contrast, involves learning to do something to obtain or avoid a given result. For example, through operant conditioning a dog can be taught to offer a paw to receive a food treat. The main distinction between the two conditioning methods is thus the kind of reaction that results. Classical conditioning involves involuntary reactions to a stimulus , whereas operant conditioning involves a change in behaviour to either gain a reward or avoid punishment.

The study of operant conditioning began with the work of the American psychologist Edward L. Thorndike (1874–1949). In 1905 Thorndike formulated the law of effect , which states that, given a certain stimulus, animals repeat behavioral responses with positive (desired) results while avoiding behaviours with negative (unwanted) results.

The American psychologist B.F. Skinner (1904–90) built on Thorndike’s law of effect and formalized the process of operant conditioning, which he understood to be the explanatory basis of human behaviour ( see behaviourism ). In the 1930s he invented the so-called Skinner box, a cage with a closely controlled environment that included no stimuli other than those under study. He placed animals such as rats or pigeons in the box and provided stimuli and rewards to elicit certain behaviours such as pressing a bar or pecking at a light.

Operant conditioning is dependent upon behaviour enhancers and behaviour suppressors. Behaviour enhancers encourage a desired action, whereas behaviour suppressors discourage an undesired action. Both behaviour enhancers and behaviour suppressors can be either positive or negative. In this context , the terms positive and negative do not represent value judgments; they instead refer to stimuli that are added or present (positive) or removed or absent (negative). Thus, an enhancer may be the addition of a desired consequence or the removal of an undesired consequence, and a suppressor may be the addition of an undesired consequence or the removal of a desired consequence.

The notions of positive and negative enhancement or suppression inform five possible strategies for accomplishing operant conditioning. Positive reinforcement (enhancement) occurs when the subject receives a reward for a desired behaviour. An example is when a dog gets a treat for doing a trick. Negative reinforcement is the absence or removal of an annoying or harmful stimulus when a desired action is performed. An example is using a loud alarm as an incentive to get out of bed in the morning. Positive punishment (suppression) happens when a subject performs an undesired behaviour and receives a negative stimulus. Thus, students who talk too much in class may be required to sit next to the teacher’s desk. Negative punishment occurs when a subject performs an undesired behaviour and a positive stimulus is removed. Thus, teenagers may be punished for bad behaviour by removal of their driving privileges.

Extinction takes place when a behaviour is no longer rewarded, and its occurrences gradually decline in number until it is no longer performed. The subject may initially repeat the behaviour with greater frequency in an attempt to receive a reward, then perform it less frequently, and then eventually stop. For example, people who tell unwanted, off-colour jokes are more likely to stop their behaviour if they consistently receive no attention, positive or negative, after telling such a joke.

Another component of operant conditioning is the reinforcement schedule, of which there are two kinds. Interval schedules reward behaviour after a given amount of time has passed since the previous instance of the behaviour. Ratio schedules require the organism to complete a certain number of repetitions of the behaviour before receiving the reward.

Besides the study of human and animal motivations and behaviours, operant conditioning has many applications. It underlies techniques used in animal training, pedagogy , parenting, and psychotherapy .

Examples Of Operant Conditioning

Behaviorist B.F. Skinner first identified and described operant conditioning. He believed that to understand human behavior, we don’t have to…

Behaviorist B.F. Skinner first identified and described operant conditioning. He believed that to understand human behavior, we don’t have to analyze internal thoughts or motivations. Human behavior can be explained by examining external causes that are observable. Operant conditioning theory examples reveal that the premise operant conditioning relies on is fairly simple—actions can be strengthened when followed up with reinforcements, making them more likely to occur in the future.

Operant conditioning examples in everyday life show how we consciously control operant behavior. Either we have experienced the consequences or are aware of the outcome. We don’t put our hand in the fire or skip work for a week without notice just to see what happens.  

Examples of operant conditioning demonstrate that it’s a learning method that employs punishments and rewards for influencing behavior. According to operant conditioning theory examples , these consequences decide the probability of an action being repeated. It works on the same fundamentals as the law of effect but with more precision. Real-life examples of operant conditioning show that if people laugh at a funny story, the storyteller will probably tell it again in the future. Reinforcement is simply a desirable outcome that strengthens the preceding action. Similarly, an undesirable outcome or punishment will weaken the actions and prevent any recurrence. 

To better understand the concept, we’ll look at all its components and some examples of operant conditioning .

Real-Life Examples Of Operant Conditioning And Its Components

There are two main components in examples of operant conditioning —reinforcement and punishment. Let’s look at them in detail.

Reinforcement

Operant conditioning examples in everyday life demonstrate reinforcement as an event that increases or strengthens the actions that it follows. It’s classified into two types:

Positive reinforcement

• We can see operant conditioning examples in the classroom during debates and presentations. A teacher encourages students to participate as it’s important for character-building in the formative years. When they do well, clapping, cheering and praising them act as positive reinforcement.
• One of the common examples of operant conditioning that displays positive reinforcement is the workplace. Employees look to constantly improve their performances as their reward might be a bonus, increment or other perks.

Positive reinforcement uses rewards to increase a particular behavior.

Negative reinforcement

• One of the most frequently seen real-life examples of operant conditioning is a strategy where apps let users consume free content but include frequent ad interruptions. It prompts users to upgrade plans to avoid the unpleasant experience. 
• Rules are negative reinforcement when looking at operant conditioning examples in the classroom . Rules are equal and have to be followed by all. Teachers can cancel events and activities if students break rules. 

Negative reinforcement is taking away rewards to increase response.

We will see from the examples of operant conditioning that punishment is an unfavorable or unpleasant reaction to an action or behavior. Punishment is a consequence to stop unpleasant actions from reoccurring. It’s also divided into two types:

Positive punishment

• Students are restricted from using phones in the classroom as they’re a distraction. Confiscating the phone if a student is caught using it is positive punishment. This is a classic operant conditioning example in the classroom .
• Operant conditioning examples in the classroom also include a teacher scolding a student publicly for repeating mistakes. It’s a positive punishment for coming late to class repeatedly or being too talkative. 

Positive punishment is most common with parents and in educational institutions.

Negative punishment

• Seizure of property for defaulting payments is one of the most widely seen examples of operant conditioning . If EMIs are not paid, banks seize property to recover the money they lent.
• We see operant conditioning examples in everyday life with kids. If a child misbehaves, lies or does something unacceptable, a parent may take away their video games or toys.

Operant conditioning examples in the classroom can be a way to analyze reinforcement and punishment. Student behavior is an honest reflection of risks, rewards and other underlying consequences. Although natural consequences can lead to changes, rewards and punishments can be consciously doled out to create change.  Operant conditioning is therefore an important tool for learning and modifying behavioral processes.

Harappa’s Learning Expertly course teaches all the skills necessary to be a lifelong learner. It’s a growth mindset course that teaches you to learn from success and figure out a way to share credit, think creatively, find ways to improve talent and avoid complacency. This course is for those looking to face challenges head-on and constantly expand their potential by maximizing every learning opportunity and developing curiosity. 

Explore Harappa Diaries to learn more about topics such as Overview of Classical Conditioning Theory of Learning, Classical Conditioning Examples in Every Day Life, Difference Between Classical Conditioning And Operant Conditioning , How To Learn Unlearn And Relearn to upgrade your knowledge and skills.

Operant Conditioning

Ai generator.

Dog trainers often use treats and encouraging actions and words to teach their dogs specific tricks and behaviors. This is a common example of operant conditioning in action.

What Is Operant Conditioning? 

Operant conditioning or instrumental conditioning is a behavioral learning tool that allows people to reinforce or decrease the occurrence of a specific observable behavior or action. This type of conditioning is very instrumental, which means that the person will need to use various types of reinforcement and punishment to conduct the operant conditioning.

Operant Conditioning Examples in Everyday Life

• Rewards for Good Grades : Children receive money or gifts for achieving high grades.
• Parking Tickets : Receiving a fine for parking illegally discourages the behavior.
• Loyalty Cards : Stores give points or discounts to customers, encouraging repeat visits.
• Fitness Tracker Goals : Meeting daily fitness goals is rewarded with badges or social recognition.
• Speeding Fines : Fines deter drivers from speeding.
• Household Chores for Allowance : Children do chores in exchange for weekly allowances.
• Late Fees : Late fees on bills discourage late payments.
• Employee Bonuses : Employees receive bonuses for surpassing performance targets.
• Discount Coupons : Coupons encourage customers to buy certain products.
• Smoking Bans : Fines or social disapproval discourage public smoking.
• Recycling Incentives : Rewards or discounts are given for recycling.
• Public Recognition : Public praise for charitable acts encourages more of such behavior.
• TV Time for Homework : Children get to watch TV only after completing homework.
• Diet Tracking Apps : Apps that reward users for logging meals and staying within calorie limits.
• Social Media Likes : Posting content that gathers likes encourages similar future posts.

Operant Conditioning Examples in Media

• Advertising Rewards : Ads reward viewers with promotional codes.
• Subscription Models : Lower prices for annual subscriptions encourage longer commitments.
• Clickbait Titles : Titles that promise exciting content increase viewer clicks.
• Social Media Challenges : Participation in challenges can lead to rewards or recognition.
• Viewer Ratings : Shows are continued or canceled based on viewer ratings.
• Feedback Mechanisms : Media platforms use like/dislike buttons to shape content.
• Contests and Giveaways : Participation is encouraged by the chance to win prizes.
• Pay-Per-View Events : Special events encourage viewers to pay for exclusive access.
• Interactive Polls : Media outlets use polls to engage viewers and encourage participation.
• Premium Content : Access to exclusive content for subscribing or engaging with ads.
• Reward-Based Games : Games that offer in-game rewards for viewing ads.
• Sponsorship Deals : Media personalities promote products for rewards.
• Endorsements : Celebrities endorse products, influencing viewer behavior.
• Viewer Comments : Allowing viewers to comment can increase engagement.
• Sharing Incentives : Rewards for sharing content on social media.

Operant Conditioning Examples in Animals

• Treats for Tricks : Dogs get treats for performing tricks.
• Clicker Training : Animals learn to associate a click sound with a reward.
• Habitat Rewards : Animals receive more comfortable habitats for desired behaviors.
• Negative Reinforcement in Training : Removal of an uncomfortable harness when the desired behavior is performed.
• Feeding Times : Animals are fed at specific times after performing tasks.
• Electric Fences : Livestock learn to avoid areas with mild electric shocks.
• Litter Box Training : Cats are rewarded for using the litter box.
• Aquarium Shows : Marine animals perform tricks in exchange for food.
• Noise Aversion : Use of aversive sounds to discourage unwanted behaviors.
• Behavioral Enrichment : Providing toys or activities that encourage natural behaviors.
• Avoidance Training : Training animals to avoid dangerous situations for safety.
• Social Isolation : Separating animals from the group to discourage aggression.
• Companion Pairing : Animals rewarded with companionship for calm behaviors.
• Territorial Marking : Animals learn that certain behaviors will secure territory.
• Conditioned Release : Wildlife trained to perform behaviors for release into the wild.

Operant Conditioning Examples in Dogs

• Sit Command : Dogs sit to receive a treat.
• Leash Training : Walking nicely on a leash results in more walk time.
• Barking Deterrents : Devices emit unpleasant sounds to reduce barking.
• Crate Training : Dogs get comfortable bedding in their crate after entering calmly.
• Agility Training : Dogs maneuver through obstacle courses for rewards.
• Socialization Rewards : Positive interactions with other dogs are rewarded.
• Potty Training : Dogs are rewarded for going to the bathroom outside.
• Fetch : Dogs are thrown a ball again after returning it.
• Stay Command : Staying put until released earns a treat.
• Gentle Leader : Reduced pulling is rewarded with more comfortable walks.
• Noise Desensitization : Gradual exposure to noises paired with treats reduces fear.
• Guard Training : Rewards for alerting to strangers.
• Behavior Correction : Removing attention to discourage jumping up.
• Diet Rewards : Healthier treats for weight management.
• Patience Training : Waiting calmly for food or toys is rewarded.

How Operant Conditioning Works?

Operant conditioning is a learning process through which the strength of a behavior is modified by reinforcement or punishment. It is based on the idea that behaviors followed by positive outcomes are more likely to be repeated, whereas those followed by negative outcomes are less likely to be repeated. In this method, an individual makes an association between a particular behavior and a consequence. For example, if a behavior results in a reward, the behavior is reinforced and thus more likely to occur again in the future; conversely, if a behavior leads to a punishment, it becomes suppressed. This type of conditioning is central to behaviorist theory, which emphasizes changes in observable behaviors through controlled stimuli.

Process of Operant Conditioning

• Establishing Baseline Behavior : Before conditioning begins, the natural frequency of the target behavior is established. This is known as the baseline.
• Choosing a Reinforcer or Punisher : Depending on the desired outcome (increase or decrease in behavior), an appropriate reinforcer or punisher is selected.
• Application of Reinforcer or Punisher : The chosen consequence is applied following the target behavior. The timing and frequency of this application are crucial for the conditioning process.
• Shaping : If the desired behavior is complex, shaping may be used. Shaping involves reinforcing successive approximations of the target behavior. Small steps towards the ultimate goal are identified and reinforced, gradually leading to the desired behavior.
• Extinction : If reinforcement stops, the conditioned behavior may decrease over time, a process known as extinction.
• Generalization and Discrimination : Generalization occurs when a conditioned behavior is elicited by stimuli that are similar but not identical to the original situation. Discrimination involves the ability to distinguish between similar stimuli and respond only to the one that is reinforced.
• Continuous and Partial Reinforcement : Reinforcement can be given every time the desired behavior occurs (continuous reinforcement) or only part of the time (partial or intermittent reinforcement). Partial reinforcement is often more effective in maintaining learned behavior over time.

Skinner’s Theory of Operant Conditioning

B.F. Skinner, a prominent psychologist, developed the theory of operant conditioning, which is a method of learning that occurs through rewards and punishments for behavior. Through operant conditioning, an individual makes an association between a particular behavior and a consequence. Skinner’s theory is a form of behaviorism, which posits that all behaviors are acquired through conditioning.

• Operants: These are active behaviors that operate upon the environment to generate consequences.
• Reinforcers: These are events that follow an operant and increase the likelihood of the behavior occurring again. Reinforcers can be positive (adding something desirable) or negative (removing something undesirable).
• Punishers: In contrast to reinforcers, punishers are consequences that follow a behavior and decrease its occurrence. Punishment also can be positive (adding something undesirable) or negative (removing something desirable).
• Extinction: This occurs when a previously reinforced behavior is no longer reinforced, leading to a decrease in the frequency of the behavior.

Skinner’s Pigeon Experiment

B.F. Skinner, a renowned psychologist, conducted various experiments on pigeons to explore the principles of operant conditioning. These experiments primarily focused on how behavior could be influenced by reinforcement or punishment.

Experiment Details

In his pigeon experiments, Skinner placed pigeons in a special cage, often referred to as a “Skinner box.” This setup included a lever or a key that could be pecked. When the pigeon pecked the key, it sometimes resulted in the delivery of food as a reward, depending on the conditions set by Skinner for the experiment.

One of Skinner’s most famous observations from these experiments was the development of what he termed “superstitious behavior” in pigeons. When food was delivered at random times irrespective of the pigeon’s behavior, the pigeons began to associate whatever action they were performing at the time of food delivery with the receipt of food. Consequently, they started to repeat these actions, hoping to receive more food, even though their actions had no actual impact on food delivery.

Significance

This experiment highlighted several key points about behavioral conditioning:

• Reinforcement Schedules: Skinner experimented with different schedules of reinforcement (e.g., fixed interval and variable ratio) to study how these schedules affected the rate and pattern of responses.
• Superstitious Behavior: The concept of superstitious behavior in pigeons demonstrated that behaviors could be conditioned even without a direct cause-and-effect relationship.
• Applications to Other Fields: Skinner’s findings have been applied in various fields, including education, behavioral therapy, and animal training, underscoring the broad influence of operant conditioning principles.

Application

Operant conditioning can be applied in various settings, including education, behavioral therapy, and animal training. Educators use it to encourage good classroom behavior, therapists to modify aberrant behaviors, and animal trainers to elicit complex behaviors from animals.

Skinner’s work has had a profound impact on modern psychology, particularly in the areas of behavior modification and educational psychology, providing effective techniques for managing behavior and understanding learning processes.

Principles of Operant Conditioning

Reinforcement.

Reinforcement is a core concept in operant conditioning and it strengthens a behavior by providing a consequence an individual finds rewarding.

• Positive Reinforcement : Involves presenting a motivating/rewarding stimulus to the person after the desired behavior is exhibited, making the behavior more likely to happen in the future.
• Negative Reinforcement : This occurs when a certain stimulus (usually an aversive stimulus) is removed after a particular behavior is exhibited. The likelihood of the particular behavior occurring again in the future is increased because of removing/avoiding the negative consequence.

Punishment, by contrast, is a control method that discourages undesirable behavior by adding a negative consequence or withdrawing a positive stimulus.

• Positive Punishment : Adds an unfavorable outcome or event following an undesired behavior. For example, adding extra chores when a child misbehaves.
• Negative Punishment : This involves taking something good or desirable away to reduce the occurrence of a particular behavior. For example, removing a favorite toy when a child misbehaves.

Extinction occurs when the reinforcements that accompany a behavior are removed, leading to the reduction or disappearance of the behavior over time. For example, if a behavior previously reinforced through positive reinforcement is no longer reinforced, the behavior gradually diminishes.

Schedules of Reinforcement

Schedules of reinforcement are the specific rules that define the timing and frequency of reinforcements in relation to the behavior. These can be either fixed or variable:

• Fixed-Ratio Schedule : Provides reinforcement after a fixed number of responses. This might involve giving a reward every fifth time a behavior occurs.
• Variable-Ratio Schedule : Provides reinforcement after a variable number of responses, which are unpredictable. This schedule tends to create a high, steady rate of responding.
• Fixed-Interval Schedule : Reinforcement is given after a fixed time period, as long as there is at least one response.
• Variable-Interval Schedule : Reinforcement is provided after a variable time interval, making the reinforcement unpredictable.

Shaping involves reinforcing behaviors that are progressively closer to the desired behavior. This technique can be used to train new behaviors by breaking them down into small, manageable steps and rewarding the individual as each step is successfully demonstrated.

Types of Operant Conditioning

Operant conditioning can be divided into several types based on the nature of the consequences and the strategy used to influence behavior:

Positive Reinforcement

Positive reinforcement occurs when a behavior is followed by a rewarding stimulus, increasing the likelihood that the behavior will be repeated. For example, giving a dog a treat for sitting on command encourages the dog to repeat the behavior.

Negative Reinforcement

Negative reinforcement involves the removal of an aversive stimulus when a desired behavior occurs. This also increases the likelihood of the behavior’s recurrence. For example, the sound of a car’s seatbelt alarm stops once the seatbelt is buckled, reinforcing the behavior of buckling the seatbelt.

Positive Punishment

Also known as punishment by application, positive punishment occurs when a behavior leads to an unwanted consequence, decreasing the likelihood of the behavior happening again. For example, adding extra chores when a child misses curfew to discourage lateness.

Negative Punishment

Negative punishment, or punishment by removal, involves taking away a pleasant stimulus to decrease the likelihood of a behavior occurring again. For example, removing a teenager’s gaming console as a consequence for poor academic performance.

Extinction happens when the reinforcements maintaining a behavior are removed, leading to the gradual reduction of the behavior. For example, if a teacher stops acknowledging a student’s constant talking out of turn, the behavior might decrease over time.

How to Apply Operant Conditioning in the Classroom

Operant conditioning is a very useful behavioral learning tool that has plenty of real-life applications. Teachers can use operant conditioning in their classrooms to help manage the behaviors and actions of their students. These operant conditioning techniques include the application of various rules and encouragement of students in the classroom.

1.) Using Positive Reinforcement in the Classroom

Teachers and mentors can use positive reinforcement to help increase the student’s participation and performance. You can encourage students to participate in the lesson more via rewards and encouragement. Not only that, but you can also add different flourishes and tools the student may use to improve themselves.

2.) Using Negative Reinforcement in the Classroom

Teachers and mentors can use negative reinforcement to increase the likelihood of the student’s obedience and predilection for bad or illicit behavior. This can be done through the implementation of rules in the classroom. If a student breaks a specific rule the teacher or mentor may cancel specific activities or events to prevent or discourage the student from breaking said behavior.

3.) Using Positive Punishment in the Classroom

Teachers and mentors can use positive punishment to decrease the likelihood of a student doing an action that is illicit or against the rule. This can come in the form of adding rules and punishments to prevent bad behavior from happening. Not only that but scolding a student is also another common example of positive punishment.

4.) Using Negative Punishment in the Classroom

Teachers and mentors can use negative punishment to decrease the occurrence of behavior that they don’t want their students to exhibit, by taking away something that is seen as positive by the student. Examples of negative punishment include the taking away or confiscation of something the student likes.

Classical vs Operant Conditioning

Applications of Operant Conditioning in Psychology

In educational settings, operant conditioning is utilized to enhance learning and classroom management. Teachers often use reinforcement techniques to encourage good behavior and academic performance. For example:

• Positive reinforcement: Rewarding students with praise, good grades, or privileges when they exhibit desired behaviors.
• Negative reinforcement: Removing an unpleasant stimulus, such as postponing a quiz, when students meet a prior condition like submitting all assignments on time.
• Punishment: Applying consequences such as detention or loss of privileges to reduce undesirable behaviors.

These strategies help in shaping a conducive learning environment and promoting effective study habits.

Operant conditioning is also a cornerstone of behavioral therapy, especially in treating disorders like ADHD, autism, and behavioral problems. Therapists use reinforcement to shape desired behaviors and reduce undesired ones. For example:

• Token economies: Clients earn tokens for displaying appropriate behavior, which can be exchanged for desirable items or privileges. This is commonly used in settings involving children with autism.
• Contingency contracts: Written agreements between the therapist and the client outline the consequences (reinforcements or punishments) associated with performing or not performing certain behaviors.

Animal Training

Animal trainers widely apply operant conditioning principles to train animals, from domestic pets to performance animals in zoos and circuses. Techniques include:

• Positive reinforcement: Giving treats or affection when an animal performs a desired action.
• Clicker training: Using a clicker device to mark the exact moment an animal does something correctly, followed by a reward. This method helps the animal associate the sound with positive reinforcement.

Self-Improvement and Habit Formation

Operant conditioning can be applied to personal habit formation and self-improvement by setting up personal rewards and penalties. For instance:

• Self-rewarding: Allocating personal time, treats, or small purchases as rewards for accomplishing personal goals like exercising or completing tasks.
• Self-punishment: Setting a penalty (such as donating to a cause one dislikes) for failing to meet personal commitments.

Workplace Management

In the workplace, operant conditioning can enhance productivity and employee satisfaction. Employers may implement systems of incentives and rewards to encourage performance and loyalty. Examples include bonuses for reaching targets, employee of the month awards, and company outings for team achievements.

Who discovered operant conditioning?

B.F. Skinner, an American psychologist, developed the concept of operant conditioning in the early 20th century.

How does operant conditioning work?

It works by applying reinforcement or punishment after a behavior to increase or decrease its occurrence in the future.

What is reinforcement in operant conditioning?

Reinforcement is a stimulus that increases the likelihood of a behavior being repeated.

What are the types of reinforcement?

There are two main types: positive reinforcement (adding something pleasant) and negative reinforcement (removing something unpleasant).

What is punishment in operant conditioning?

Punishment is a stimulus that decreases the likelihood of a behavior being repeated.

What are the types of punishment?

There are two main types: positive punishment (adding something unpleasant) and negative punishment (removing something pleasant).

Can operant conditioning affect emotions?

Yes, operant conditioning can influence emotional responses by associating certain behaviors with positive or negative outcomes.

How is operant conditioning used in education?

It is used to shape learning and behavior through rewards and consequences, enhancing student engagement and motivation.

What is the difference between operant conditioning and classical conditioning?

Operant conditioning involves voluntary behaviors influenced by consequences, while classical conditioning involves involuntary responses associated with a stimulus.

Text prompt

• Instructive
• Professional

10 Examples of Public speaking

20 Examples of Gas lighting

• Bipolar Disorder
• Therapy Center
• When To See a Therapist
• Types of Therapy
• Best Online Therapy
• Best Couples Therapy
• Best Family Therapy
• Managing Stress
• Sleep and Dreaming
• Understanding Emotions
• Self-Improvement
• Healthy Relationships
• Student Resources
• Personality Types
• Sweepstakes
• Guided Meditations
• Verywell Mind Insights
• 2024 Verywell Mind 25
• Mental Health in the Classroom
• Editorial Process
• Meet Our Review Board
• Crisis Support

Positive Reinforcement and Operant Conditioning

Definition, Examples, and How It Works

Verywell / Joshua Seong

• Positive vs. Negative Reinforcemnet

How to Use Positive Reinforcement

Positive reinforcement occurs when a certain behavior results in a positive outcome, making the behavior likely to be repeated in the future. This behavioral psychology concept can be used to teach and strengthen behaviors.

This article discusses how positive reinforcement works and how it can be used to teach or modify behaviors. It also covers how positive reinforcement compares to negative reinforcement and how it is best applied.

What Is Positive Reinforcement?

In operant conditioning , positive reinforcement involves the addition of a reinforcing stimulus following a behavior that makes it more likely that the behavior will occur again in the future. When a favorable outcome, event, or reward occurs after an action, that particular response or behavior will be strengthened.

What makes positive reinforcement positive?

Positive reinforcement is positive because it involves something being added . By thinking of it in these terms, you may find it easier to identify real-world examples of positive reinforcement.

Sometimes positive reinforcement occurs quite naturally. For example, when you hold the door open for someone, you might receive praise and a thank you. That affirmation serves as positive reinforcement and may make it more likely that you will hold the door open for people again in the future.

In other cases, someone might choose to use positive reinforcement very deliberately in order to train and maintain a specific behavior. An animal trainer, for example, might reward a dog with a treat after the animal shakes the trainer's hand and pauses for a count of five . 

Basics of Operant Conditioning

Operant conditioning was introduced by the psychologist B. F. Skinner , who based the idea on Thorndike's law of effect. The basic idea behind the law of effect is that the consequences of behavior determine whether that behavior happens again. Reinforced behaviors become strengthened, while punished behaviors are weakened.

Both reinforcement and punishment can either be positive or negative:

• Positive reinforcement is the addition of a positive outcome to strengthen behavior.
• Negative reinforcement is the removal of a negative outcome to strengthen a behavior.
• Positive punishment involves taking away a desired stimulus to weaken a behavior.
• Negative punishment involves applying an undesirable stimulus to weaken a behavior.

There are four main types of reinforcement in operant conditioning: positive reinforcement, negative reinforcement, punishment, and extinction. Extinction occurs when a response is no longer reinforced, which leads to the disappearance of the behavior.

Examples of Positive Reinforcement

There are many examples of positive reinforcement in action. Consider the following scenarios:

• Praise : After you execute a turn during a skiing lesson, your instructor shouts out, "Great job!"
• Monetary rewards : At work, you exceed this month's sales quota, so your boss gives you a bonus.
• Other rewards : For your psychology class, you watch a video about the human brain and write a paper about what you learned. Your instructor gives you 20 extra credit points for your work.

In each situation, the reinforcement is an additional stimulus occurring after the behavior that increases the likelihood that the behavior will occur again in the future.

Types of Positive Reinforcement

There are many different types of reinforcers that can be used to increase behaviors, but it is important to note that the type of reinforcer used depends on the individual and the situation.

• Natural reinforcers occur directly as a result of the behavior. For example, a student studies hard, pays attention in class, and does their homework. As a result, they get excellent grades.
• Social reinforcers involve expressing approval of a behavior, such as a teacher, parent, or employer saying or writing, "Good job" or "Excellent work."
• Tangible reinforcers involve presenting actual, physical rewards such as candy, treats, toys, money, and other desired objects. While these types of rewards can be powerfully motivating, they should be used sparingly and with caution.
• Token reinforcers are points or tokens that are awarded for performing certain actions. These tokens can then be exchanged for something of value.

While gold stars and tokens might be very effective reinforcement for a second-grader, they are not going to have the same effect on a high school or college student.

For positive reinforcement to be effective, it needs to involve a reward that the individual wants or needs.

Positive Reinforcement vs. Negative Reinforcement

The goal of both positive and negative reinforcement is to increase the likelihood that a behavior will occur again in the future. The difference is in how each accomplishes this.

Positive reinforcement adds something to strengthen behavior, while negative reinforcement removes something.

Example of Positive vs. Negative Reinforcement

For example, allowing a child to play on their tablet if they finish their homework is an example of positive reinforcement. Negative reinforcement would be a child finishing their homework to avoid having their tablet taken away.

Uses for Positive Reinforcement

When used correctly, positive reinforcement can be very effective. It can be used in various settings to make desired changes to behavior or teach new behaviors.

• At home : Parents can use positive reinforcement to encourage kids to engage in all kinds of positive, desirable behavior. For example, a parent might use praise or other rewards to get a child to brush their teeth, get ready for bed, or clean up their room.
• In school : Teachers can also use positive reinforcement to help kids engage in desired classroom behavior. An example of positive reinforcement in the classroom would be praising a child for raising their hand or giving them a sticker on their reward chart for turning their homework in on time.
• In therapy settings : Therapists also use positive reinforcement to help teach new behaviors and coping skills. For example, positive reinforcement is commonly used as part of behavior modification, an intervention that focuses on reducing or eliminating maladaptive behaviors.

While different strategies can be used depending on the situation, some experts suggest that positive reinforcement should be used more often than negative reinforcement or punishment.

Positive reinforcement can be a useful learning tool in a wide variety of settings. There are things that you can do to make sure that it is used effectively.

Be Aware of Reinforcement Timing

Positive reinforcement is most effective when it occurs immediately after the behavior. Reinforcement should be presented enthusiastically and should occur frequently.

• Deliver reinforcement quickly . A shorter time between a behavior and positive reinforcement makes a stronger connection.
• Waiting risks reinforcing the wrong behaviors . The longer the time, the more likely an intervening behavior might accidentally be reinforced.

Use the Right Reinforcement Schedule

In addition to the timing and type of reinforcement used, the presentation schedule can also play a role in the strength of the response. Schedules of reinforcement  can have a powerful influence on how strong a response is and how often it occurs.

When you are first teaching a new behavior, you would likely use a continuous reinforcement schedule where you deliver positive reinforcement every single time the behavior occurs. Once the response is established, you would then switch to an intermittent or ratio schedule.

Avoid Reinforcing the Wrong Behaviors

An important thing to note is that positive reinforcement is not always good. Positive reinforcement can also strengthen undesirable behaviors.

When used incorrectly, positive reinforcement can sometimes contribute to undesirable behaviors. Waiting too long to deliver reinforcement or reinforcing the wrong behaviors can lead to the wrong associations.

For example, when a child misbehaves in a store, some parents might give them extra attention or even buy them a toy in an effort to stop the behavior. Children quickly learn that by acting out, they can gain attention from their parents or even acquire objects they want. Essentially, parents are reinforcing the misbehavior.

A better solution would be to use positive reinforcement when the child is displaying good behavior. Instead of rewarding the misbehavior, the parents would want to wait until the child behaves well and then reward that good behavior with praise, treats, or even a toy.

A Word From Verywell

Positive reinforcement can be an effective learning tool when used appropriately. Sometimes this type of learning occurs naturally through normal interactions with the environment.

In other cases, parents, teachers, and therapists can use this behavioral technique to help teach new behaviors. When using positive reinforcement, it's important to be thoughtful about the type of reinforcers and the schedule that you use to train the new behavior.

American Academy of Pediatrics.  Positive reinforcement through rewards .

American Psychological Association.  Positive reinforcement .

Scott HK, Cogburn M. Behavior modification . In: StatPearls [Internet]. StatPearls Publishing.

Dad H, Ali R, Janjua MZQ, Khan MS. Comparison of the frequency and effectiveness of positive and negative reinforcment practices in school . Contemp Issues Educ Rese . 2010;3(1):127-136.

Payne SW, Dozier CL. Positive reinforcement as treatment for problem behavior maintained by negative reinforcement . J Appl Behav Anal . 2013;46(3):699-703. doi:10.1002/jaba.54

Sprouls K, Mathur SR, Upreti G.  Is positive feedback a forgotten classroom practice? Findings and implications for at-risk students . Prev School Fail.  2015;59(3), 153-160. doi:10.1080/1045988X.2013.876958

Coon D, Mitterer JO. Introduction to Psychology: Gateways to Mind and Behavior . Wadsworth Cengage Learning.

By Kendra Cherry, MSEd Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• HHS Author Manuscripts

O perant C onditioning

Operant behavior is behavior “controlled” by its consequences. In practice, operant conditioning is the study of reversible behavior maintained by reinforcement schedules. We review empirical studies and theoretical approaches to two large classes of operant behavior: interval timing and choice. We discuss cognitive versus behavioral approaches to timing, the “gap” experiment and its implications, proportional timing and Weber's law, temporal dynamics and linear waiting, and the problem of simple chain-interval schedules. We review the long history of research on operant choice: the matching law, its extensions and problems, concurrent chain schedules, and self-control. We point out how linear waiting may be involved in timing, choice, and reinforcement schedules generally. There are prospects for a unified approach to all these areas.

INTRODUCTION

The term operant conditioning 1 was coined by B. F. Skinner in 1937 in the context of reflex physiology, to differentiate what he was interested in—behavior that affects the environment—from the reflex-related subject matter of the Pavlovians. The term was novel, but its referent was not entirely new. Operant behavior , though defined by Skinner as behavior “controlled by its consequences” is in practice little different from what had previously been termed “instrumental learning” and what most people would call habit. Any well-trained “operant” is in effect a habit. What was truly new was Skinner's method of automated training with intermittent reinforcement and the subject matter of reinforcement schedules to which it led. Skinner and his colleagues and students discovered in the ensuing decades a completely unsuspected range of powerful and orderly schedule effects that provided new tools for understanding learning processes and new phenomena to challenge theory.

A reinforcement schedule is any procedure that delivers a reinforcer to an organism according to some well-defined rule. The usual reinforcer is food for a hungry rat or pigeon; the usual schedule is one that delivers the reinforcer for a switch closure caused by a peck or lever press. Reinforcement schedules have also been used with human subjects, and the results are broadly similar to the results with animals. However, for ethical and practical reasons, relatively weak reinforcers must be used—and the range of behavioral strategies people can adopt is of course greater than in the case of animals. This review is restricted to work with animals.

Two types of reinforcement schedule have excited the most interest. Most popular are time-based schedules such as fixed and variable interval, in which the reinforcer is delivered after a fixed or variable time period after a time marker (usually the preceding reinforcer). Ratio schedules require a fixed or variable number of responses before a reinforcer is delivered.

Trial-by-trial versions of all these free-operant procedures exist. For example, a version of the fixed-interval schedule specifically adapted to the study of interval timing is the peak-interval procedure, which adds to the fixed interval an intertrial interval (ITI) preceding each trial and a percentage of extra-long “empty” trials in which no food is given.

For theoretical reasons, Skinner believed that operant behavior ought to involve a response that can easily be repeated, such as pressing a lever, for rats, or pecking an illuminated disk (key) for pigeons. The rate of such behavior was thought to be important as a measure of response strength ( Skinner 1938 , 1966 , 1986 ; Killeen & Hall 2001 ). The current status of this assumption is one of the topics of this review. True or not, the emphasis on response rate has resulted in a dearth of experimental work by operant conditioners on nonrecurrent behavior such as movement in space.

Operant conditioning differs from other kinds of learning research in one important respect. The focus has been almost exclusively on what is called reversible behavior, that is, behavior in which the steady-state pattern under a given schedule is stable, meaning that in a sequence of conditions, XAXBXC…, where each condition is maintained for enough days that the pattern of behavior is locally stable, behavior under schedule X shows a pattern after one or two repetitions of X that is always the same. For example, the first time an animal is exposed to a fixed-interval schedule, after several daily sessions most animals show a “scalloped” pattern of responding (call it pattern A): a pause after each food delivery—also called wait time or latency —followed by responding at an accelerated rate until the next food delivery. However, some animals show negligible wait time and a steady rate (pattern B). If all are now trained on some other procedure—a variable-interval schedule, for example—and then after several sessions are returned to the fixed-interval schedule, almost all the animals will revert to pattern A. Thus, pattern A is the stable pattern. Pattern B, which may persist under unchanging conditions but does not recur after one or more intervening conditions, is sometimes termed metastable ( Staddon 1965 ). The vast majority of published studies in operant conditioning are on behavior that is stable in this sense.

Although the theoretical issue is not a difficult one, there has been some confusion about what the idea of stability (reversibility) in behavior means. It should be obvious that the animal that shows pattern A after the second exposure to procedure X is not the same animal as when it showed pattern A on the first exposure. Its experimental history is different after the second exposure than after the first. If the animal has any kind of memory, therefore, its internal state 2 following the second exposure is likely to be different than after the first exposure, even though the observed behavior is the same. The behavior is reversible; the organism's internal state in general is not. The problems involved in studying nonreversible phenomena in individual organisms have been spelled out elsewhere (e.g., Staddon 2001a , Ch. 1); this review is mainly concerned with the reversible aspects of behavior.

Once the microscope was invented, microorganisms became a new field of investigation. Once automated operant conditioning was invented, reinforcement schedules became an independent subject of inquiry. In addition to being of great interest in their own right, schedules have also been used to study topics defined in more abstract ways such as timing and choice. These two areas constitute the majority of experimental papers in operant conditioning with animal subjects during the past two decades. Great progress has been made in understanding free-operant choice behavior and interval timing. Yet several theories of choice still compete for consensus, and much the same is true of interval timing. In this review we attempt to summarize the current state of knowledge in these two areas, to suggest how common principles may apply in both, and to show how these principles may also apply to reinforcement schedule behavior considered as a topic in its own right.

INTERVAL TIMING

Interval timing is defined in several ways. The simplest is to define it as covariation between a dependent measure such as wait time and an independent measure such as interreinforcement interval (on fixed interval) or trial time-to-reinforcement (on the peak procedure). When interreinforcement interval is doubled, then after a learning period wait time also approximately doubles ( proportional timing ). This is an example of what is sometimes called a time production procedure: The organism produces an approximation to the to-be-timed interval. There are also explicit time discrimination procedures in which on each trial the subject is exposed to a stimulus and is then required to respond differentially depending on its absolute ( Church & Deluty 1977 , Stubbs 1968 ) or even relative ( Fetterman et al. 1989 ) duration. For example, in temporal bisection , the subject (e.g., a rat) experiences either a 10-s or a 2-s stimulus, L or S . After the stimulus goes off, the subject is confronted with two choices. If the stimulus was L , a press on the left lever yields food; if S , a right press gives food; errors produce a brief time-out. Once the animal has learned, stimuli of intermediate duration are presented in lieu of S and L on test trials. The question is, how will the subject distribute its responses? In particular, at what intermediate duration will it be indifferent between the two choices? [Answer: typically in the vicinity of the geometric mean, i.e., √( L.S ) − 4.47 for 2 and 10.]

Wait time is a latency; hence (it might be objected) it may vary on time-production procedures like fixed interval because of factors other than timing—such as degree of hunger (food deprivation). Using a time-discrimination procedure avoids this problem. It can also be mitigated by using the peak procedure and looking at performance during “empty” trials. “Filled” trials terminate with food reinforcement after (say) T s. “Empty” trials, typically 3 T s long, contain no food and end with the onset of the ITI. During empty trials the animal therefore learns to wait, then respond, then stop (more or less) until the end of the trial ( Catania 1970 ). The mean of the distribution of response rates averaged over empty trials ( peak time ) is then perhaps a better measure of timing than wait time because motivational variables are assumed to affect only the height and spread of the response-rate distribution, not its mean. This assumption is only partially true ( Grace & Nevin 2000 , MacEwen & Killeen 1991 , Plowright et al. 2000 ).

There is still some debate about the actual pattern of behavior on the peak procedure in each individual trial. Is it just wait, respond at a constant rate, then wait again? Or is there some residual responding after the “stop” [yes, usually (e.g., Church et al. 1991 )]? Is the response rate between start and stop really constant or are there two or more identifiable rates ( Cheng & Westwood 1993 , Meck et al. 1984 )? Nevertheless, the method is still widely used, particularly by researchers in the cognitive/psychophysical tradition. The idea behind this approach is that interval timing is akin to sensory processes such as the perception of sound intensity (loudness) or luminance (brightness). As there is an ear for hearing and an eye for seeing, so (it is assumed) there must be a (real, physiological) clock for timing. Treisman (1963) proposed the idea of an internal pacemaker-driven clock in the context of human psychophysics. Gibbon (1977) further developed the approach and applied it to animal interval-timing experiments.

WEBER'S LAW, PROPORTIONAL TIMING AND TIMESCALE INVARIANCE

The major similarity between acknowledged sensory processes, such as brightness perception, and interval timing is Weber's law . Peak time on the peak procedure is not only proportional to time-to-food ( T ), its coefficient of variation (standard deviation divided by mean) is approximately constant, a result similar to Weber's law obeyed by most sensory dimensions. This property has been called scalar timing ( Gibbon 1977 ). Most recently, Gallistel & Gibbon (2000) have proposed a grand principle of timescale invariance , the idea that the frequency distribution of any given temporal measure (the idea is assumed to apply generally, though in fact most experimental tests have used peak time) scales with the to-be-timed-interval. Thus, given the normalized peak-time distribution for T =60 s, say; if the x -axis is divided by 2, it will match the distribution for T = 30 s. In other words, the frequency distribution for the temporal dependent variable, normalized on both axes, is asserted to be invariant.

Timescale invariance is in effect a combination of Weber's law and proportional timing. Like those principles, it is only approximately true. There are three kinds of evidence that limit its generality. The simplest is the steady-state pattern of responding (key-pecking or lever-pressing) observed on fixed-interval reinforcement schedules. This pattern should be the same at all fixed-interval values, but it is not. Gallistel & Gibbon wrote, “When responding on such a schedule, animals pause after each reinforcement and then resume responding after some interval has elapsed. It was generally supposed that the animals' rate of responding accelerated throughout the remainder of the interval leading up to reinforcement. In fact, however, conditioned responding in this paradigm … is a two-state variable (slow, sporadic pecking vs. rapid, steady pecking), with one transition per interreinforcement interval ( Schneider 1969 )” (p. 293).

This conclusion over-generalizes Schneider's result. Reacting to reports of “break-and-run” fixed-interval performance under some conditions, Schneider sought to characterize this feature more objectively than the simple inspection of cumulative records. He found a way to identify the point of maximum acceleration in the fixed-interval “scallop” by using an iterative technique analogous to attaching an elastic band to the beginning of an interval and the end point of the cumulative record, then pushing a pin, representing the break point, against the middle of the band until the two resulting straight-line segments best fit the cumulative record (there are other ways to achieve the same result that do not fix the end points of the two line-segments). The postreinforcement time ( x -coordinate) of the pin then gives the break point for that interval. Schneider showed that the break point is an orderly dependent measure: Break point is roughly 0.67 of interval duration, with standard deviation proportional to the mean (the Weber-law or scalar property).

This finding is by no means the same as the idea that the fixed-interval scallop is “a two-state variable” ( Hanson & Killeen 1981 ). Schneider showed that a two-state model is an adequate approximation; he did not show that it is the best or truest approximation. A three- or four-line approximation (i.e., two or more pins) might well have fit significantly better than the two-line version. To show that the process is two-state, Schneider would have had to show that adding additional segments produced negligibly better fit to the data.

The frequent assertion that the fixed-interval scallop is always an artifact of averaging flies in the face of raw cumulative-record data“the many nonaveraged individual fixed-interval cumulative records in Ferster & Skinner (1957 , e.g., pp. 159, 160, 162), which show clear curvature, particularly at longer fixed-interval values (> ∼2 min). The issue for timescale invariance, therefore, is whether the shape, or relative frequency of different-shaped records, is the same at different absolute intervals.

The evidence is that there is more, and more frequent, curvature at longer intervals. Schneider's data show this effect. In Schneider's Figure 3, for example, the time to shift from low to high rate is clearly longer at longer intervals than shorter ones. On fixed-interval schedules, apparently, absolute duration does affect the pattern of responding. (A possible reason for this dependence of the scallop on fixed-interval value is described in Staddon 2001a , p. 317. The basic idea is that greater curvature at longer fixed-interval values follows from two things: a linear increase in response probability across the interval, combined with a nonlinear, negatively accelerated, relation between overall response rate and reinforcement rate.) If there is a reliable difference in the shape, or distribution of shapes, of cumulative records at long and short fixed-interval values, the timescale-invariance principle is violated.

A second dataset that does not agree with timescale invariance is an extensive set of studies on the peak procedure by Zeiler & Powell (1994 ; see also Hanson & Killeen 1981) , who looked explicitly at the effect of interval duration on various measures of interval timing. They conclude, “Quantitative properties of temporal control depended on whether the aspect of behavior considered was initial pause duration, the point of maximum acceleration in responding [break point], the point of maximum deceleration, the point at which responding stopped, or several different statistical derivations of a point of maximum responding … . Existing theory does not explain why Weber's law [the scalar property] so rarely fit the results …” (p. 1; see also Lowe et al. 1979 , Wearden 1985 for other exceptions to proportionality between temporal measures of behavior and interval duration). Like Schneider (1969) and Hanson & Killeen (1981) , Zeiler & Powell found that the break point measure was proportional to interval duration, with scalar variance (constant coefficient of variation), and thus consistent with timescale invariance, but no other measure fit the rule.

Moreover, the fit of the breakpoint measure is problematic because it is not a direct measure of behavior but is itself the result of a statistical fitting procedure. It is possible, therefore, that the fit of breakpoint to timescale invariance owes as much to the statistical method used to arrive at it as to the intrinsic properties of temporal control. Even if this caveat turns out to be false, the fact that every other measure studied by Zeiler & Powell failed to conform to timescale invariance surely rules it out as a general principle of interval timing.

The third and most direct test of the timescale invariance idea is an extensive series of time-discrimination experiments carried out by Dreyfus et al. (1988) and Stubbs et al. (1994) . The usual procedure in these experiments was for pigeons to peck a center response key to produce a red light of one duration that is followed immediately by a green light of another duration. When the green center-key light goes off, two yellow side-keys light up. The animals are reinforced with food for pecking the left side-key if the red light was longer, the right side-key if the green light was longer.

The experimental question is, how does discrimination accuracy depend on relative and absolute duration of the two stimuli? Timescale invariance predicts that accuracy depends only on the ratio of red and green durations: For example, accuracy should be the same following the sequence red:10, green:20 as the sequence red:30, green:60, but it is not. Pigeons are better able to discriminate between the two short durations than the two long ones, even though their ratio is the same. Dreyfus et al. and Stubbs et al. present a plethora of quantitative data of the same sort, all showing that time discrimination depends on absolute as well as relative duration.

Timescale invariance is empirically indistinguishable from Weber's law as it applies to time, combined with the idea of proportional timing: The mean of a temporal dependent variable is proportional to the temporal independent variable. But Weber's law and proportional timing are dissociable—it is possible to have proportional timing without conforming to Weber's law and vice versa (cf. Hanson & Killeen 1981 , Zeiler & Powell 1994 ), and in any case both are only approximately true. Timescale invariance therefore does not qualify as a principle in its own right.

Cognitive and Behavioral Approaches to Timing

The cognitive approach to timing dates from the late 1970s. It emphasizes the psychophysical properties of the timing process and the use of temporal dependent variables as measures of (for example) drug effects and the effects of physiological interventions. It de-emphasizes proximal environmental causes. Yet when timing (then called temporal control; see Zeiler 1977 for an early review) was first discovered by operant conditioners (Pavlov had studied essentially the same phenomenon— delay conditioning —many years earlier), the focus was on the time marker , the stimulus that triggered the temporally correlated behavior. (That is one virtue of the term control : It emphasizes the fact that interval timing behavior is usually not free-running. It must be cued by some aspect of the environment.) On so-called spaced-responding schedules, for example, the response is the time marker: The subject must learn to space its responses more than T s apart to get food. On fixed-interval schedules the time marker is reinforcer delivery; on the peak procedure it is the stimulus events associated with trial onset. This dependence on a time marker is especially obvious on time-production procedures, but on time-discrimination procedures the subject's choice behavior must also be under the control of stimuli associated with the onset and offset of the sample duration.

Not all stimuli are equally effective as time markers. For example, an early study by Staddon & Innis (1966a ; see also 1969) showed that if, on alternate fixed intervals, 50% of reinforcers (F) are omitted and replaced by a neutral stimulus (N) of the same duration, wait time following N is much shorter than after F (the reinforcement-omission effect ). Moreover, this difference persists indefinitely. Despite the fact that F and N have the same temporal relationship to the reinforcer, F is much more effective as a time marker than N. No exactly comparable experiment has been done using the peak procedure, partly because the time marker there involves ITI offset/trial onset rather than the reinforcer delivery, so that there is no simple manipulation equivalent to reinforcement omission.

These effects do not depend on the type of behavior controlled by the time marker. On fixed-interval schedules the time marker is in effect inhibitory: Responding is suppressed during the wait time and then occurs at an accelerating rate. Other experiments ( Staddon 1970 , 1972 ), however, showed that given the appropriate schedule, the time marker can control a burst of responding (rather than a wait) of a duration proportional to the schedule parameters ( temporal go–no-go schedules) and later experiments have shown that the place of responding can be controlled by time since trial onset in the so-called tri-peak procedure ( Matell & Meck 1999 ).

A theoretical review ( Staddon 1974 ) concluded, “Temporal control by a given time marker depends on the properties of recall and attention, that is, on the same variables that affect attention to compound stimuli and recall in memory experiments such as delayed matching-to-sample.” By far the most important variable seems to be “the value of the time-marker stimulus—Stimuli of high value … are more salient …” (p. 389), although the full range of properties that determine time-marker effectiveness is yet to be explored.

Reinforcement omission experiments are transfer tests , that is, tests to identify the effective stimulus. They pinpoint the stimulus property controlling interval timing—the effective time marker—by selectively eliminating candidate properties. For example, in a definitive experiment, Kello (1972) showed that on fixed interval the wait time is longest following standard reinforcer delivery (food hopper activated with food, hopper light on, house light off, etc.). Omission of any of those elements caused the wait time to decrease, a result consistent with the hypothesis that reinforcer delivery acquires inhibitory temporal control over the wait time. The only thing that makes this situation different from the usual generalization experiment is that the effects of reinforcement omission are relatively permanent. In the usual generalization experiment, delivery of the reinforcer according to the same schedule in the presence of both the training stimulus and the test stimuli would soon lead all to be responded to in the same way. Not so with temporal control: As we just saw, even though N and F events have the same temporal relationship to the next food delivery, animals never learn to respond similarly after both. The only exception is when the fixed-interval is relatively short, on the order of 20 s or less ( Starr & Staddon 1974 ). Under these conditions pigeons are able to use a brief neutral stimulus as a time marker on fixed interval.

The Gap Experiment

The closest equivalent to fixed-interval reinforcement–omission using the peak procedure is the so-called gap experiment ( Roberts 1981 ). In the standard gap paradigm the sequence of stimuli in a training trial (no gap stimulus) consists of three successive stimuli: the intertrial interval stimulus (ITI), the fixed-duration trial stimulus (S), and food reinforcement (F), which ends each training trial. The sequence is thus ITI, S, F, ITI. Training trials are typically interspersed with empty probe trials that last longer than reinforced trials but end with an ITI only and no reinforcement. The stimulus sequence on such trials is ITI, S, ITI, but the S is two or three times longer than on training trials. After performance has stabilized, gap trials are introduced into some or all of the probe trials. On gap trials the ITI stimulus reappears for a while in the middle of the trial stimulus. The sequence on gap trials is therefore ITI, S, ITI, S, ITI. Gap trials do not end in reinforcement.

What is the effective time marker (i.e., the stimulus that exerts temporal control) in such an experiment? ITI offset/trial onset is the best temporal predictor of reinforcement: Its time to food is shorter and less variable than any other experimental event. Most but not all ITIs follow reinforcement, and the ITI itself is often variable in duration and relatively long. So reinforcer delivery is a poor temporal predictor. The time marker therefore has something to do with the transition between ITI and trial onset, between ITI and S. Gap trials also involve presentation of the ITI stimulus, albeit with a different duration and within-trial location than the usual ITI, but the similarities to a regular trial are obvious. The gap experiment is therefore a sort of generalization (of temporal control) experiment. Buhusi & Meck (2000) presented gap stimuli more or less similar to the ITI stimulus during probe trials and found results resembling generalization decrement, in agreement with this analysis.

However, the gap procedure was not originally thought of as a generalization test, nor is it particularly well designed for that purpose. The gap procedure arose directly from the cognitive idea that interval timing behavior is driven by an internal clock ( Church 1978 ). From this point of view it is perfectly natural to inquire about the conditions under which the clock can be started or stopped. If the to-be-timed interval is interrupted—a gap—will the clock restart when the trial stimulus returns (reset)? Will it continue running during the gap and afterwards? Or will it stop and then restart (stop)?

“Reset” corresponds to the maximum rightward shift (from trial onset) of the response-rate peak from its usual position t s after trial onset to t + G E , where G E is the offset time (end) of the gap stimulus. Conversely, no effect (clock keeps running) leaves the peak unchanged at t , and “stop and restart” is an intermediate result, a peak shift to G E − G B + t , where G B is the time of onset (beginning) of the gap stimulus.

Both gap duration and placement within a trial have been varied. The results that have been obtained so far are rather complex (cf. Buhusi & Meck 2000 , Cabeza de Vaca et al. 1994 , Matell & Meck 1999 ). In general, the longer the gap and the later it appears in the trial, the greater the rightward peak shift. All these effects can be interpreted in clock terms, but the clock view provides no real explanation for them, because it does not specify which one will occur under a given set of conditions. The results of gap experiments can be understood in a qualitative way in terms of the similarity of the gap presentation to events associated with trial onset; the more similar, the closer the effect will be to reset, i.e., the onset of a new trial. Another resemblance between gap results and the results of reinforcement-omission experiments is that the effects of the gap are also permanent: Behavior on later trials usually does not differ from behavior on the first few ( Roberts 1981 ). These effects have been successfully simulated quantitatively by a neural network timing model ( Hopson 1999 , 2002 ) that includes the assumption that the effects of time-marker presentation decay with time ( Cabeza de Vaca et al. 1994 ).

The original temporal control studies were strictly empirical but tacitly accepted something like the psychophysical view of timing. Time was assumed to be a sensory modality like any other, so the experimental task was simply to explore the different kinds of effect, excitatory, inhibitory, discriminatory, that could come under temporal control. The psychophysical view was formalized by Gibbon (1977) in the context of animal studies, and this led to a static information-processing model, scalar expectancy theory (SET: Gibbon & Church 1984 , Meck 1983 , Roberts 1983 ), which comprised a pacemaker-driven clock, working and reference memories, a comparator, and various thresholds. A later dynamic version added memory for individual trials (see Gallistel 1990 for a review). This approach led to a long series of experimental studies exploring the clocklike properties of interval timing (see Gallistel & Gibbon 2000 , Staddon & Higa 1999 for reviews), but none of these studies attempted to test the assumptions of the SET approach in a direct way.

SET was for many years the dominant theoretical approach to interval timing. In recent years, however, its limitations, of parsimony and predictive range, have become apparent and there are now a number of competitors such as the behavioral theory of timing ( Killeen & Fetterman 1988 , MacEwen & Killeen 1991 , Machado 1997 ), spectral timing theory ( Grossberg & Schmajuk 1989 ), neural network models ( Church & Broadbent 1990 , Hopson 1999 , Dragoi et al. 2002 ), and the habituation-based multiple time scale theory (MTS: Staddon & Higa 1999 , Staddon et al. 2002 ). There is as yet no consensus on the best theory.

Temporal Dynamics: Linear Waiting

A separate series of experiments in the temporal-control tradition, beginning in the late 1980s, studied the real-time dynamics of interval timing (e.g., Higa et al. 1991 , Lejeune et al. 1997 , Wynne & Staddon 1988 ; see Staddon 2001a for a review). These experiments have led to a simple empirical principle that may have wide application. Most of these experiments used the simplest possible timing schedule, a response-initiated delay (RID) schedule 3 . In this schedule the animal (e.g., a pigeon) can respond at any time, t , after food. The response changes the key color and food is delivered after a further T s. Time t is under the control of the animal; time T is determined by the experimenter. These experiments have shown that wait time on these and similar schedules (such as fixed interval) is strongly determined by the duration of the previous interfood interval (IFI). For example, wait time will track a cyclic sequence of IFIs, intercalated at a random point in a sequence of fixed ( t + T =constant) intervals, with a lag of one interval; a single short IFI is followed by a short wait time in the next interval (the effect of a single long interval is smaller), and so on (see Staddon et al. 2002 for a review and other examples of temporal tracking). To a first approximation, these results are consistent with a linear relation between wait time in IFI N + 1 and the duration of IFI N :

where I is the IFI, a is a constant less than one, and b is usually negligible. This relation has been termed linear waiting ( Wynne & Staddon 1988 ). The principle is an approximation: an expanded model, incorporating the multiple time scale theory, allows the principle to account for the slower effects of increases as opposed to decreases in IFI (see Staddon et al. 2002 ).

Most importantly for this discussion, the linear waiting principle appears to be obligatory. That is, organisms seem to follow the linear waiting rule even if they delay or even prevent reinforcer delivery by doing so. The simplest example is the RID schedule itself. Wynne & Staddon (1988) showed that it makes no difference whether the experimenter holds delay time T constant or the sum of t + T constant ( t + T = K ): Equation 1 holds in both cases, even though the optimal (reinforcement-rate-maximizing) strategy in the first case is for the animal to set t equal to zero, whereas in the second case reinforcement rate is maximized so long as t < K . Using a version of RID in which T in interval N + 1 depended on the value of t in the preceding interval, Wynne & Staddon also demonstrated two kinds of instability predicted by linear waiting.

The fact that linear waiting is obligatory allows us to look for its effects on schedules other than the simple RID schedule. The most obvious application is to ratio schedules. The time to emit a fixed number of responses is approximately constant; hence the delay to food after the first response in each interval is also approximately constant on fixed ratio (FR), as on fixed- T RID ( Powell 1968 ). Thus, the optimal strategy on FR, as on fixed- T RID, is to respond immediately after food. However, in both cases animals wait before responding and, as one might expect based on the assumption of a roughly constant interresponse time on all ratio schedules, the duration of the wait on FR is proportional to the ratio requirement ( Powell 1968 ), although longer than on a comparable chain-type schedule with the same interreinforcement time ( Crossman et al. 1974 ). The phenomenon of ratio strain —the appearance of long pauses and even extinction on high ratio schedules ( Ferster & Skinner 1957 )—may also have something to do with obligatory linear waiting.

Chain Schedules

A chain schedule is one in which a stimulus change, rather than primary reinforcement, is scheduled. Thus, a chain fixed-interval–fixed-interval schedule is one in which, for example, food reinforcement is followed by the onset of a red key light in the presence of which, after a fixed interval, a response produces a change to green. In the presence of green, food delivery is scheduled according to another fixed interval. RID schedules resemble two-link chain schedules. The first link is time t , before the animal responds; the second link is time T , after a response. We may expect, therefore, that waiting time in the first link of a two-link schedule will depend on the duration of the second link. We describe two results consistent with this conjecture and then discuss some exceptions.

Davison (1974) studied a two-link chain fixed-interval–fixed-interval schedule. Each cycle of the schedule began with a red key. Responding was reinforced, on fixed-interval I 1 s, by a change in key color from red to white. In the presence of white, food reinforcement was delivered according to fixed-interval I 2 s, followed by reappearance of the red key. Davison varied I 1 and I 2 and collected steady-state rate, pause, and link-duration data. He reported that when programmed second-link duration was long in relation to the first-link duration, pause in the first link sometimes exceeded the programmed link duration. The linear waiting predictions for this procedure can therefore be most easily derived for those conditions where the second link is held constant and the first link duration is varied (because under these conditions, the first-link pause was always less than the programmed first-link duration). The prediction for the terminal link is

where a is the proportionality constant, I 2 is the duration of the terminal-link fixed-interval, and t 2 is the pause in the terminal link. Because I 2 is constant in this phase, t 2 is also constant. The pause in the initial link is given by

where I 1 is the duration of the first link. Because I 2 is constant, Equation 3 is a straight line with slope a and positive y-intercept aI 2 .

Linear waiting theory can be tested with Davison's data by plotting, for every condition, t 1 and t 2 versus time-to-reinforcement (TTR); that is, plot pause in each link against TTR for that link in every condition. Linear waiting makes a straightforward prediction: All the data points for both links should lie on the same straight line through the origin (assuming that b → 0). We show this plot in Figure 1 . There is some variability, because the data points are individual subjects, not averages, but points from first and second links fit the same line, and the deviations do not seem to be systematic.

Steady-state pause duration plotted against actual time to reinforcement in the first and second links of a two-link chain schedule. Each data point is from a single pigeon in one experimental condition (three data points from an incomplete condition are omitted). (From Davison 1974 , Table 1)

A study by Innis et al. (1993) provides a dynamic test of the linear waiting hypothesis as applied to chain schedules. Innis et al. studied two-link chain schedules with one link of fixed duration and the other varying from reinforcer to reinforcer according to a triangular cycle. The dependent measure was pause in each link. Their Figure 3, for example, shows the programmed and actual values of the second link of the constant-cycle procedure (i.e., the first link was a constant 20 s; the second link varied from 5 to 35 s according to the triangular cycle) as well as the average pause, which clearly tracks the change in second-link duration with a lag of one interval. They found similar results for the reverse procedure, cycle-constant , in which the first link varied cyclically and the second link was constant. The tracking was a little better in the first procedure than in the second, but in both cases first-link pause was determined primarily by TTR.

There are some data suggesting that linear waiting is not the only factor that determines responding on simple chain schedules. In the four conditions of Davison's experiment in which the programmed durations of the first and second links added to a constant (120 s)—which implies a constant first-link pause according to linear waiting—pause in the first link covaried with first-link duration, although the data are noisy.

The alternative to the linear waiting account of responding on chain schedules is an account in terms of conditioned reinforcement (also called secondary reinforcement)—the idea that a stimulus paired with a primary reinforcer acquires some independent reinforcing power. This idea is also the organizing principle behind most theories of free-operant choice. There are some data that seem to imply a response-strengthening effect quite apart from the linear waiting effect, but they do not always hold up under closer inspection. Catania et al. (1980) reported that “higher rates of pecking were maintained by pigeons in the middle component of three-component chained fixed-interval schedules than in that component of the corresponding multiple schedule (two extinction components followed by a fixed-interval component)” (p. 213), but the effect was surprisingly small, given that no responding at all was required in the first two components. Moreover, results of a more critical control condition, chain versus tandem (rather than multiple) schedule, were the opposite: Rate was generally higher in the middle tandem component than in the second link of the chain. (A tandem schedule is one with the same response contingencies as a chain but with the same stimulus present throughout.)

Royalty et al. (1987) introduced a delay into the peck-stimulus-change contingency of a three-link variable-interval chain schedule and found large decreases in response rate [wait time (WT) was not reported] in both first and second links. They concluded that “because the effect of delaying stimulus change was comparable to the effect of delaying primary reinforcement in a simple variable-interval schedule … the results provide strong evidence for the concept of conditioned reinforcement” (p. 41). The implications of the Royalty et al. data for linear waiting are unclear, however, ( a ) because the linear waiting hypothesis does not deal with the assignment-of-credit problem, that is, the selection of the appropriate response by the schedule. Linear waiting makes predictions about response timing—when the operant response occurs—but not about which response will occur. Response-reinforcer contiguity may be essential for the selection of the operant response in each chain link (as it clearly is during “shaping”), and diminishing contiguity may reduce response rate, but contiguity may play little or no role in the timing of the response. The idea of conditioned reinforcement may well apply to the first function but not to the second. ( b ) Moreover, Royalty et al. did not report obtained time-to-reinforcement data; the effect of the imposed delay may therefore have been via an increase in component duration rather than directly on response rate.

Williams & Royalty (1990) explicitly compared conditioned reinforcement and time to reinforcement as explanations for chain schedule performance in three-link chains and concluded “that time to reinforcement itself accounts for little if any variance in initial-link responding” (p. 381) but not timing, which was not measured. However, these data are from chain schedules with both variable-interval and fixed-interval links, rather than fixed-interval only, and with respect to response rate rather than pause measures. In a later paper Williams qualified this claim: “The effects of stimuli in a chain schedule are due partly to the time to food correlated with the stimuli and partly to the time to the next conditioned reinforcer in the sequence” (1997, p. 145).

The conclusion seems to be that linear waiting plays a relatively major, and conditioned reinforcement (however defined) a relatively minor, role in the determination of response timing on chain fixed-interval schedules. Linear waiting also provides the best available account of a striking, unsolved problem with chain schedules: the fact that in chains with several links, pigeon subjects may respond at a low level or even quit completely in early links ( Catania 1979 , Gollub 1977 ). On fixed-interval chain schedules with five or more links, responding in the early links begins to extinguish and the overall reinforcement rate falls well below the maximum possible—even if the programmed interreinforcement interval is relatively short (e.g., 6×15=90 s). If the same stimulus is present in all links (tandem schedule), or if the six different stimuli are presented in random order (scrambled-stimuli chains), performance is maintained in all links and the overall reinforcement rate is close to the maximum possible (6 I , where I is the interval length). Other studies have reported very weak responding in early components of a simple chain fixed-interval schedule (e.g., Catania et al. 1980 , Davison 1974 , Williams 1994 ; review in Kelleher & Gollub 1962 ). These studies found that chains with as few as three fixed-interval 60-s links ( Kelleher & Fry 1962 ) occasionally produce extreme pausing in the first link. No formal theory of the kind that has proliferated to explain behavior on concurrent chain schedules (discussed below) has been offered to account for these strange results, even though they have been well known for many years.

The informal suggestion is that the low or zero response rates maintained by early components of a multi-link chain are a consequence of the same discrimination process that leads to extinction in the absence of primary reinforcement. Conversely, the stimulus at the end of the chain that is actually paired with primary reinforcement is assumed to be a conditioned reinforcer; stimuli in the middle sustain responding because they lead to production of a conditioned reinforcer ( Catania et al. 1980 , Kelleher & Gollub 1962 ). Pairing also explains why behavior is maintained on tandem and scrambled-stimuli chains ( Kelleher & Fry 1962 ). In both cases the stimuli early in the chain are either invariably (tandem) or occasionally (scrambled-stimulus) paired with primary reinforcement.

There are problems with the conditioned-reinforcement approach, however. It can explain responding in link two of a three-link chain but not in link one, which should be an extinction stimulus. The explanatory problem gets worse when more links are added. There is no well-defined principle to tell us when a stimulus changes from being a conditioned reinforcer, to a stimulus in whose presence responding is maintained by a conditioned reinforcer, to an extinction stimulus. What determines the stimulus property? Is it stimulus number, stimulus duration or the durations of stimuli later in the chain? Perhaps there is some balance between contrast/extinction, which depresses responding in early links, and conditioned reinforcement, which is supposed to (but sometimes does not) elevate responding in later links? No well-defined compound theory has been offered, even though there are several quantitative theories for multiple-schedule contrast (e.g., Herrnstein 1970 , Nevin 1974 , Staddon 1982 ; see review in Williams 1988 ). There are also data that cast doubt even on the idea that late-link stimuli have a rate-enhancing effect. In the Catania et al. (1980) study, for example, four of five pigeons responded faster in the middle link of a three-link tandem schedule than the comparable chain.

The lack of formal theories for performance on simple chains is matched by a dearth of data. Some pause data are presented in the study by Davison (1974) on pigeons in a two-link fixed-interval chain. The paper attempted to fit Herrnstein's (1970) matching law between response rates and link duration. The match was poor: The pigeon's rates fell more than predicted when the terminal links (contiguous with primary reinforcement) of the chain were long, but Davison did find that “the terminal link schedule clearly changes the pause in the initial link, longer terminal-link intervals giving longer initial-link pauses” (1974, p. 326). Davison's abstract concludes, “Data on pauses during the interval schedules showed that, in most conditions, the pause duration was a linear function of the interval length, and greater in the initial link than in the terminal link” (p. 323). In short, the pause (time-to-first-response) data were more lawful than response-rate data.

Linear waiting provides a simple explanation for excessive pausing on multi-link chain fixed-interval schedules. Suppose the chief function of the link stimuli on chain schedules is simply to signal changing times to primary reinforcement 4 . Thus, in a three-link fixed-interval chain, with link duration I , the TTR signaled by the end of reinforcement (or by the onset of the first link) is 3 I . The onset of the next link signals a TTR of 2 I and the terminal, third, link signals a TTR of I . The assumptions of linear waiting as applied to this situation are that pausing (time to first response) in each link is determined entirely by TTR and that the wait time in interval N +1 is a linear function of the TTR in the preceding interval.

To see the implications of this process, consider again a three-link chain schedule with I =1 (arbitrary time units). The performance to be expected depends entirely on the value of the proportionality constant, a , that sets the fraction of time-to-primary-reinforcement that the animal waits (for simplicity we can neglect b ; the logic of the argument is unaffected). All is well so long as a is less than one-third. If a is exactly 0.333, then for unit link duration the pause in the third link is 0.33, in the second link 0.67, and in the first link 1.0 However, if a is larger, for instance 0.5, the three pauses become 0.5, 1.0, and 1.5; that is, the pause in the first link is now longer than the programmed interval, which means the TTR in the first link will be longer than 3 the next time around, so the pause will increase further, and so on until the process stabilizes (which it always does: First-link pause never goes to ∞).

The steady-state wait times in each link predicted for a five-link chain, with unit-duration links, for two values of a are shown in Figure 2 . In both cases wait times in the early links are very much longer than the programmed link duration. Clearly, this process has the potential to produce very large pauses in the early links of multilink-chain fixed-interval schedules and so may account for the data Catania (1979) and others have reported.

Wait time (pause, time to first response) in each equal-duration link of a five-link chain schedule (as a multiple of the programmed link duration) as predicted by the linear-waiting hypothesis. The two curves are for two values of parameter a in Equation 1 ( b =0). Note the very long pauses predicted in early links—almost two orders of magnitude greater than the programmed interval in the first link for a =0.67. (From Mazur 2001 )

Gollub in his dissertation research (1958) noticed the additivity of this sequential pausing. Kelleher & Gollub (1962) in their subsequent review wrote, “No two pauses in [simple fixed interval] can both postpone food-delivery; however, pauses in different components of [a] five-component chain will postpone food-delivery additively” (p. 566). However, this additivity was only one of a number of processes suggested to account for the long pauses in early chain fixed-interval links, and its quantitative implications were never explored.

Note that the linear waiting hypothesis also accounts for the relative stability of tandem schedules and chain schedules with scrambled components. In the tandem schedule, reinforcement constitutes the only available time marker. Given that responding after the pause continues at a relatively high rate until the next time marker, Equation 1 (with b assumed negligible) and a little algebra shows that the steady-state postreinforcement pause for a tandem schedule with unit links will be

where N is the number of links and a is the pause fraction. In the absence of any time markers, pauses in links after the first are necessarily short, so the experienced link duration equals the programmed duration. Thus, the total interfood-reinforcement interval will be t + N − 1 ( t ≥ 1): the pause in the first link (which will be longer than the programmed link duration for N > 1/ a ) plus the programmed durations of the succeeding links. For the case of a = 0.67 and unit link duration, which yielded a steady-state interfood interval (IFI) of 84 for the five-link chain schedule, the tandem yields 12. For a = 0.5, the two values are approximately 16 and 8.

The long waits in early links shown in Figure 2 depend critically on the value of a . If, as experience suggests (there has been no formal study), a tends to increase slowly with training, we might expect the long pausing in initial links to take some time to develop, which apparently it does ( Gollub 1958 ).

On the scrambled-stimuli chain each stimulus occasionally ends in reinforcement, so each signals a time-to-reinforcement (TTR) 5 of I , and pause in each link should be less than the link duration—yielding a total IFI of approximately N , i.e., 5 for the example in the figure. These predictions yield the order IFI in the chain > tandem > scrambled, but parametric data are not available for precise comparison. We do not know whether an N -link scrambled schedule typically stabilizes at a shorter IFI than the comparable tandem schedule, for example. Nor do we know whether steady-state pause in successive links of a multilink chain falls off in the exponential fashion shown in Figure 2 .

In the final section we explore the implications of linear waiting for studies of free-operant choice behavior.

Although we can devote only limited space to it, choice is one of the major research topics in operant conditioning (see Mazur 2001 , p. 96 for recent statistics). Choice is not something that can be directly observed. The subject does this or that and, in consequence, is said to choose. The term has unfortunate overtones of conscious deliberation and weighing of alternatives for which the behavior itself—response A or response B—provides no direct evidence. One result has been the assumption that the proper framework for all so-called choice studies is in terms of response strength and the value of the choice alternatives. Another is the assumption that procedures that are very different are nevertheless studying the same thing.

For example, in a classic series of experiments, Kahneman & Tversky (e.g., 1979) asked a number of human subjects to make a single choice of the following sort: between $400 for sure and a 50% chance of $1000. Most went for the sure thing, even though the expected value of the gamble is higher. This is termed risk aversion , and the same term has been applied to free-operant “choice” experiments. In one such experiment an animal subject must choose repeatedly between a response leading to a fixed amount of food and one leading equiprobably to either a large or a small amount with the same average value. Here the animals tend to be either indifferent or risk averse, preferring the fixed alternative ( Staddon & Innis 1966b , Bateson & Kacelnik 1995 , Kacelnik & Bateson 1996 ).

In a second example pigeons responded repeatedly to two keys associated with equal variable-interval schedules. A successful response on the left key, for example, is reinforced by a change in the color of the pecked key (the other key light goes off). In the presence of this second stimulus, food is delivered according to a fixed-interval schedule (fixed-interval X ). The first stimulus, which is usually the same on both keys, is termed the initial link ; the second stimulus is the terminal link . Pecks on the right key lead in the same way to food reinforcement on variable-interval X . (This is termed a concurrent-chain schedule.) In this case subjects overwhelmingly prefer the initial-link choice leading to the variable-interval terminal link; that is, they are apparently risk seeking rather than risk averse ( Killeen 1968 ).

The fact that these three experiments (Kahneman & Tversky and the two free-operant studies) all produce different results is sometimes thought to pose a serious research problem, but, we contend, the problem is only in the use of the term choice for all three. The procedures (not to mention the subjects) are in fact very different, and in operant conditioning the devil is very much in the details. Apparently trivial procedural differences can sometimes lead to wildly different behavioral outcomes. Use of the term choice as if it denoted a unitary subject matter is therefore highly misleading. We also question the idea that the results of choice experiments are always best explained in terms of response strength and stimulus value.

Concurrent Schedules

Bearing these caveats in mind, let's look briefly at the extensive history of free-operant choice research. In Herrnstein's seminal experiment (1961 ; see Davison & McCarthy 1988 , Williams 1988 for reviews; for collected papers see Rachlin & Laibson 1997 ) hungry pigeons pecked at two side-by-side response keys, one associated with variable-interval v 1 s and the other with variable-interval v 2 s ( concurrent variable-interval–variable-interval schedule). After several experimental sessions and a range of v 1 and v 2 values chosen so that the overall programmed reinforcement rate was constant (1/ v 1 + 1/ v 2 = constant), the result was matching between steady-state relative response rates and relative obtained reinforcement rates:

where x and y are the response rates on the two alternatives and R ( x ) and R ( y ) are the rates of obtained reinforcement for them. This relation has become known as Herrnstein's matching law. Although the obtained reinforcement rates are dependent on the response rates that produce them, the matching relation is not forced, because x and y can vary over quite a wide range without much effect on R ( x ) and R ( y ).

Because of the negative feedback relation intrinsic to variable-interval schedules (the less you respond, the higher the probability of payoff), the matching law on concurrent variable-interval–variable-interval is consistent with reinforcement maximization ( Staddon & Motheral 1978 ), although the maximum of the function relating overall payoff, R ( x ) + R ( y ), to relative responding, x /( x + y ), is pretty flat. However, little else on these schedules fits the maximization idea. As noted above, even responding on simple fixed- T response-initiated delay (RID) schedules violates maximization. Matching is also highly overdetermined, in the sense that almost any learning rule consistent with the law of effect—an increase in reinforcement probability causes an increase in response probability—will yield either simple matching ( Equation 5 ) or its power-law generalization ( Baum 1974 , Hinson & Staddon 1983 , Lander & Irwin 1968 , Staddon 1968 ). Matching by itself therefore reveals relatively little about the dynamic processes operating in the responding subject (but see Davison & Baum 2000 ). Despite this limitation, the strikingly regular functional relations characteristic of free-operant choice studies have attracted a great deal of experimental and theoretical attention.

Herrnstein (1970) proposed that Equation 5 can be derived from the function relating steady-state response rate, x , and reinforcement rate, R ( x ), to each response key considered separately. This function is negatively accelerated and well approximated by a hyperbola:

where k is a constant and R 0 represents the effects of all other reinforcers in the situation. The denominator and parameter k cancel in the ratio x / y , yielding Equation 5 for the choice situation.

There are numerous empirical details that are not accounted for by this formulation: systematic deviations from matching [undermatching and overmatching ( Baum 1974 )] as a function of different types of variable-interval schedules, dependence of simple matching on use of a changeover delay , extensions to concurrent-chain schedules, and so on. For example, if animals are pretrained with two alternatives presented separately, so that they do not learn to switch between them, when given the opportunity to respond to both, they fixate on the richer one rather than matching [extreme overmatching ( Donahoe & Palmer 1994 , pp. 112–113; Gallistel & Gibbon 2000 , pp. 321–322)]. (Fixation—extreme overmatching—is, trivially, matching, of course but if only fixation were observed, the idea of matching would never have arisen. Matching implies partial, not exclusive, preference.) Conversely, in the absence of a changeover delay, pigeons will often just alternate between two unequal variable-interval choices [extreme undermatching ( Shull & Pliskoff 1967 )]. In short, matching requires exactly the right amount of switching. Nevertheless, Herrnstein's idea of deriving behavior in choice experiments from the laws that govern responding to the choice alternatives in isolation is clearly worth pursuing.

In any event, Herrnstein's approach—molar data, predominantly variable-interval schedules, rate measures—set the basic pattern for subsequent operant choice research. It fits the basic presuppositions of the field: that choice is about response strength , that response strength is equivalent to response probability, and that response rate is a valid proxy for probability (e.g., Skinner 1938 , 1966 , 1986 ; Killeen & Hall 2001 ). (For typical studies in this tradition see, e.g., Fantino 1981 ; Grace 1994 ; Herrnstein 1961 , 1964 , 1970 ; Rachlin et al. 1976 ; see also Shimp 1969 , 2001 .)

We can also look at concurrent schedules in terms of linear waiting. Although published evidence is skimpy, recent unpublished data ( Cerutti & Staddon 2002 ) show that even on variable-interval schedules (which necessarily always contain a few very short interfood intervals), postfood wait time and changeover time covary with mean interfood time. It has also long been known that Equation 6 can be derived from two time-based assumptions: that the number of responses emitted is proportional to the number of reinforcers received multiplied by the available time and that available time is limited by the time taken up by each response ( Staddon 1977 , Equations 23–25). Moreover, if we define mean interresponse time as the reciprocal of mean response rate, 6 x , and mean interfood interval is the reciprocal of obtained reinforcement rate, R ( x ), then linear waiting yields

where a and b are linear waiting constants. Rearranging yields

where 1/ b = k and a / b = R 0 in Equation 6 . Both these derivations of the hyperbola in Equation 6 from a linear relation in the time domain imply a correlation between parameters k and R 0 in Equation 6 under parametric experimental variation of parameter b by (for example) varying response effort or, possibly, hunger motivation. Such covariation has been occasionally but not universally reported ( Dallery et al. 2000 , Heyman & Monaghan 1987 , McDowell & Dallery 1999 ).

Concurrent-Chain Schedules

Organisms can be trained to choose between sources of primary reinforcement (concurrent schedules) or between stimuli that signal the occurrence of primary reinforcement ( conditioned reinforcement : concurrent chain schedules). Many experimental and theoretical papers on conditioned reinforcement in pigeons and rats have been published since the early 1960s using some version of the concurrent chains procedure of Autor (1960 , 1969) . These studies have demonstrated a number of functional relations between rate measures and have led to several closely related theoretical proposals such as a version of the matching law, incentive theory, delay-reduction theory, and hyperbolic value-addition (e.g., Fantino 1969a , b ; Grace 1994 ; Herrnstein 1964 ; Killeen 1982 ; Killeen & Fantino 1990 ; Mazur 1997 , 2001 ; Williams 1988 , 1994 , 1997 ). Nevertheless, there is as yet no theoretical consensus on how best to describe choice between sources of conditioned reinforcement, and no one has proposed an integrated theoretical account of simple chain and concurrent chain schedules.

Molar response rate does not capture the essential feature of behavior on fixed-interval schedules: the systematic pattern of rate-change in each interfood interval, the “scallop.” Hence, the emphasis on molar response rate as a dependent variable has meant that work on concurrent schedules has emphasized variable or random intervals over fixed intervals. We lack any theoretical account of concurrent fixed-interval–fixed-interval and fixed-interval–variable-interval schedules. However, a recent study by Shull et al. (2001 ; see also Shull 1979) suggests that response rate may not capture what is going on even on simple variable-interval schedules, where the time to initiate bouts of relatively fixed-rate responding seems to be a more sensitive dependent measure than overall response rate. More attention to the role of temporal variables in choice is called for.

We conclude with a brief account of how linear waiting may be involved in several well-established phenomena of concurrent-chain schedules: preference for variable-interval versus fixed-interval terminal links, effect of initial-link duration, and finally, so-called self-control experiments.

preference for variable-interval versus fixed-interval terminal links On concurrent-chain schedules with equal variable-interval initial links, animals show a strong preference for the initial link leading to a variable-interval terminal link over the terminal-link alternative with an equal arithmetic-mean fixed interval. This result is usually interpreted as a manifestation of nonarithmetic (e.g., harmonic) reinforcement-rate averaging ( Killeen 1968 ), but it can also be interpreted as linear waiting. Minimum TTR is necessarily much less on the variable-interval than on the fixed-interval side, because some variable intervals are short. If wait time is determined by minimum TTR—hence shorter wait times on the variable-interval side—and ratios of wait times and overall response rates are (inversely) correlated ( Cerutti & Staddon 2002 ), the result will be an apparent bias in favor of the variable-interval choice.

effect of initial-link duration Preference for a given pair of terminal-link schedules depends on initial link duration. For example, pigeons may approximately match initial-link relative response rates to terminal-link relative reinforcement rates when the initial links are 60 s and the terminal links range from 15 to 45 s ( Herrnstein 1964 ), but they will undermatch when the initial-link schedule is increased to, for example, 180 s. This effect is what led to Fantino's delay-reduction modification of Herrnstein's matching law (see Fantino et al. 1993 for a review). However, the same qualitative prediction follows from linear waiting: Increasing initial-link duration reduces the proportional TTR difference between the two choices. Hence the ratio of WTs or of initial-link response rates for the two choices should also approach unity, which is undermatching. Several other well-studied theories of concurrent choice, such as delay reduction and hyperbolic value addition, also explain these results.

Self-Control

The prototypical self-control experiment has a subject choosing between two outcomes: not-so-good cookie now or a good cookie after some delay ( Rachlin & Green 1972 ; see Logue 1988 for a review; Mischel et al. 1989 reviewed human studies). Typically, the subject chooses the immediate, small reward, but if both delays are increased by the same amount, D , he will learn to choose the larger reward, providing D is long enough. Why? The standard answer is derived from Herrnstein's matching analysis ( Herrnstein 1981 ) and is called hyperbolic discounting (see Mazur 2001 for a review and Ainslie 1992 and Rachlin 2000 for longer accounts). The idea is that the expected value of each reward is inversely related to the time at which it is expected according to a hyperbolic function:

where A i is the undiscounted value of the reward, D i is the delay until reward is received, i denotes the large or small reward, and k is a fitted constant.

Now suppose we set D L and D S to values such that the animal shows a preference for the shorter, sooner reward. This would be the case ( k =1) if A L =6, A S =2, D L = 6 s, and D S = 1 s: V L =0.86 and V S =1—preference for the small, less-delayed reward. If 10 s is added to both delays, so that D L = 16 s and D S =11 s, the values are V L =0.35 and V S =0.17—preference for the larger reward. Thus, Equation 8 predicts that added delay—sometimes awkwardly termed pre-commitment— should enhance self-control, which it does.

The most dramatic prediction from this analysis was made and confirmed by Mazur (1987 , 2001) in an experiment that used an adjusting-delay procedure (also termed titration ). “A response on the center key started each trial, and then a pigeon chose either a standard alternative (by pecking the red key) or an adjusting alternative (by pecking the green key) … the standard alternative delivered 2 s of access to grain after a 10-s delay, and the adjusting alternative delivered 6 s of access to grain after an adjusting delay” (2001, p. 97). The adjusting delay increased (on the next trial) when it was chosen and decreased when the standard alternative was chosen. (See Mazur 2001 for other procedural details.) The relevant independent variable is TTR. The discounted value of each choice is given by Equation 8 . When the subject is indifferent does not discriminate between the two choices, V L = V S . Equating Equation 8 for the large and small choices yields

that is, an indifference curve that is a linear function relating D L and D S , with slope A L / A S > 1 and a positive intercept. The data ( Mazur 1987 ; 2001 , Figure 2 ) are consistent with this prediction, but the intercept is small.

It is also possible to look at this situation in terms of linear waiting. One assumption is necessary: that the waiting fraction, a , in Equation 1 is smaller when the upcoming reinforcer is large than when it is small ( Powell 1969 and Perone & Courtney 1992 showed this for fixed-ratio schedules; Howerton & Meltzer 1983 , for fixed-interval). Given this assumption, the linear waiting analysis is even simpler than hyperbolic discounting. The idea is that the subject will appear to be indifferent when the wait times to the two alternatives are equal. According to linear waiting, the wait time for the small alternative is given by

where b S is a small positive intercept and a S > a L . Equating the wait times for small and large alternatives yields

which is also a linear function with slope > 1 and a small positive intercept.

Equations 9 and 11 are identical in form. Thus, the linear waiting and hyperbolic discounting models are almost indistinguishable in terms of these data. However, the linear waiting approach has three potential advantages: Parameters a and b can be independently measured by making appropriate measurements in a control study that retains the reinforcement-delay properties of the self-control experiments without the choice contingency; the linear waiting approach lacks the fitted parameter k in Equation 9 ; and linear waiting also applies to a wide range of time-production experiments not covered by the hyperbolic discounting approach.

Temporal control may be involved in unsuspected ways in a wide variety of operant conditioning procedures. A renewed emphasis on the causal factors operating in reinforcement schedules may help to unify research that has hitherto been defined in terms of more abstract topics like timing and choice.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank Catalin Buhusi and Jim Mazur for comments on an earlier version and the NIMH for research support over many years.

1 The first and only previous Annual Review contribution on this topic was as part of a 1965 article, “Learning, Operant Conditioning and Verbal Learning” by Blough & Millward. Since then there have been (by our estimate) seven articles on learning or learning theory in animals, six on the neurobiology of learning, and three on human learning and memory, but this is the first full Annual Review article on operant conditioning. We therefore include rather more old citations than is customary (for more on the history and philosophy of Skinnerian behaviorism, both pro and con, see Baum 1994 , Rachlin 1991 , Sidman 1960 , Staddon 2001b , and Zuriff 1985 ).

2 By “internal” we mean not “physiological” but “hidden.” The idea is simply that the organism's future behavior depends on variables not all of which are revealed in its current behavior (cf. Staddon 2001b , Ch. 7).

3 When there is no response-produced stimulus change, this procedure is also called a conjunctive fixed-ratio fixed-time schedule ( Shull 1970 ).

4 This idea surfaced very early in the history of research on equal-link chain fixed-interval schedules, but because of the presumed importance of conditioned reinforcement, it was the time to reinforcement from link stimulus offset, rather than onset that was thought to be important. Thus, Gollub (1977) , echoing his 1958 Ph.D. dissertation in the subsequent Kelleher & Gollub (1962) review, wrote, “In chained schedules with more than two components … the extent to which responding is sustained in the initial components … depends on the time that elapses from the end of the components to food reinforcement” (p. 291).

5 Interpreted as time to the first reinforcement opportunity.

6 It is not of course: The reciprocal of the mean IRT is the harmonic mean rate. In practice, “mean response rate” usually means arithmetic mean, but note that harmonic mean rate usually works better for choice data than the arithmetic mean (cf. Killeen 1968 ).

LITERATURE CITED

• Ainslie G. Picoeconomics: The Strategic Interaction of Successive Motivational States Within the Person. Harvard Univ. Press; Cambridge, MA: 1992. [ Google Scholar ]
• Autor SM. The strength of conditioned reinforcers as a function of frequency and probability of reinforcement. Harvard Univ.; Cambridge, MA: 1960. PhD thesis. [ Google Scholar ]
• Autor SM. The strength of conditioned reinforcers and a function of frequency and probability of reinforcement. In: Hendry DP, editor. Conditioned Reinforcement. Dorsey; Homewood, IL: 1969. pp. 127–62. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bateson M, Kacelnik A. Preferences for fixed and variable food sources: variability in amount and delay. J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 1995; 63 :313–29. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Baum WM. On two types of deviation from the matching law: bias and undermatching. J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 1974; 22 :231–42. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Baum WM. Understanding Behaviorism: Science, Behavior and Culture. HarperCollins; New York: 1994. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Blough DS, Millward RB. Learning: operant conditioning and verbal learning. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 1965; 17 :63–94. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Buhusi CV, Meck WH. Timing for the absence of the stimulus: the gap paradigm reversed. J. Exp. Psychol.: Anim. Behav. Process. 2000; 26 :305–22. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cabeza de Vaca S, Brown BL, Hemmes NS. Internal clock and memory processes in animal timing. J. Exp. Psychol.: Anim. Behav. Process. 1994; 20 :184–98. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Catania AC. Reinforcement schedules and psychophysical judgments: a study of some temporal properties of behavior. In: Schoenfeld WN, editor. The Theory of Reinforcement Schedules. Appleton-Century-Crofts; New York: 1970. pp. 1–42. [ Google Scholar ]
• Catania AC. Learning. Prentice-Hall; Englewood Cliffs, NJ: 1979. [ Google Scholar ]
• Catania AC, Yohalem R, Silverman PJ. Contingency and stimulus change in chained schedules of reinforcement. J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 1980; 5 :167–73. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cerutti DT, Staddon JER. The temporal dynamics of choice: concurrent and concurrent-chain interval schedules. 2002 [ Google Scholar ]
• Cheng K, Westwood R. Analysis of single trials in pigeons' timing performance. J. Exp. Psychol.: Anim. Behav. Process. 1993; 19 :56–67. [ Google Scholar ]
• Church RM. The internal clock. In: Hulse SH, Fowler H, Honig WK, editors. Cognitive Processes in Animal Behavior. Erlbaum; Hillsdale, NJ: 1978. pp. 277–310. [ Google Scholar ]
• Church RM, Broadbent HA. Alternative representations of time, number and rate. Cognition. 1990; 37 :55–81. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Church RM, Deluty MZ. Bisection of temporal intervals. J. Exp. Psychol.: Anim. Behav. Process. 1977; 3 :216–28. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Church RM, Miller KD, Meck WH. Symmetrical and asymmetrical sources of variance in temporal generalization. Anim. Learn. Behav. 1991; 19 :135–55. [ Google Scholar ]
• Crossman EK, Heaps RS, Nunes DL, Alferink LA. The effects of number of responses on pause length with temporal variables controlled. J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 1974; 22 :115–20. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dallery J, McDowell JJ, Lancaster JS. Falsification of matching theory's account of single-alternative responding: Herrnstein's K varies with sucrose concentration. J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 2000; 73 :23–43. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Davison M. A functional analysis of chained fixed-interval schedule performance. J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 1974; 21 :323–30. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Davison M, Baum W. Choice in a variable environment: Every reinforcer counts. J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 2000; 74 :1–24. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Davison M, McCarthy D. The Matching Law: A Research Review. Erlbaum; Hillsdale, NJ: 1988. [ Google Scholar ]
• Donahoe JW, Palmer DC. Learning and Complex Behavior. Allyn & Bacon; Boston: 1994. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dragoi V, Staddon JER, Palmer RG, Buhusi VC. Interval timing as an emergent learning property. Psychol. Rev. 2002 In press. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dreyfus LR, Fetterman JG, Smith LD, Stubbs DA. Discrimination of temporal relations by pigeons. J. Exp. Psychol.: Anim. Behav. Process. 1988; 14 :349–67. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fantino E. Choice and rate of reinforcement. J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 1969a; 12 :723–30. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fantino E. Conditioned reinforcement, choice, and the psychological distance to reward. In: Hendry DP, editor. Conditioned Reinforcement. Dorsey; Homewood, IL: 1969b. pp. 163–91. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fantino E. Contiguity, response strength, and the delay-reduction hypothesis. In: Harzem P, Zeiler M, editors. Advances in Analysis of Behavior: Predictability, Correlation, and Contiguity. Vol. 2. Wiley; Chichester, UK: 1981. pp. 169–201. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fantino E, Preston RA, Dunn R. Delay reduction: current status. J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 1993; 60 :159–69. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ferster CB, Skinner BF. Schedules of Reinforcement. Appleton-Century-Crofts; New York: 1957. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fetterman JG, Dreyfus LR, Stubbs DA. Discrimination of duration ratios. J. Exp. Psychol.: Anim. Behav. Process. 1989; 15 :253–63. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gallistel CR. The Organization of Learning. MIT/Bradford; Cambridge, MA: 1990. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gallistel CR, Gibbon J. Time, rate, and conditioning. Psychol. Rev. 2000; 107 :289–344. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gibbon J. Scalar expectancy theory and Weber's law in animal timing. Psychol. Rev. 1977; 84 :279–325. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gibbon J, Church RM. Sources of variance in an information processing theory of timing. In: Roitblat HL, Bever TG, Terrace HS, editors. Animal Cognition. Erlbaum; Hillsdale, NJ: 1984. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gollub LR. The chaining of fixed-interval schedules. 1958 [ Google Scholar ]
• Gollub L. Conditioned reinforcement: schedule effects. 1977:288–312. See Honig & Staddon 1977. [ Google Scholar ]
• Grace RC. A contextual choice model of concurrent-chains choice. J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 1994; 61 :113–29. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Grace RC, Nevin JA. Response strength and temporal control in fixed-interval schedules. Anim. Learn. Behav. 2000; 28 :313–31. [ Google Scholar ]
• Grossberg S, Schmajuk NA. Neural dyamics of adaptive timing and temporal discrimination during associative learning. Neural. Netw. 1989; 2 :79–102. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hanson SJ, Killeen PR. Measurement and modeling of behavior under fixed-interval schedules of reinforcement. J. Exp. Psychol.: Anim. Behav. Process. 1981; 7 :129–39. [ Google Scholar ]
• Herrnstein RJ. Relative and absolute strength of response as a function of frequency of reinforcement. J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 1961; 4 :267–72. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Herrnstein RJ. Secondary reinforcement and rate of primary reinforcement. J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 1964; 7 :27–36. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Herrnstein RJ. On the law of effect. J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 1970; 13 :243–66. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Herrnstein RJ. Self control as response strength. In: Bradshaw CM, Lowe CP, Szabadi F, editors. Recent Developments in the Quantification of Steady-State Operant Behavior. Elsevier/North-Holland; Amsterdam: 1981. pp. 3–20. [ Google Scholar ]
• Heyman GM, Monaghan MM. Effects of changes in response requirements and deprivation on the parameters of the matching law equation: new data and review. J. Exp. Psychol.: Anim. Behav. Process. 1987; 13 :384–94. [ Google Scholar ]
• Higa JJ, Wynne CDL, Staddon JER. Dynamics of time discrimination. J. Exp. Psychol.: Anim. Behav. Process. 1991; 17 :281–91. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hinson JM, Staddon JER. Matching, maximizing and hill climbing. J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 1983; 40 :321–31. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Honig WK, Staddon JER, editors. Handbook of Operant Behavior. Prentice-Hall; Englewood Cliffs, NJ: 1977. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hopson JW. Gap timing and the spectral timing model. Behav. Process. 1999; 45 :23–31. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hopson JW. Timing without a clock: learning models as interval timing models. Duke Univ.; Durham, NC: 2002. PhD thesis. [ Google Scholar ]
• Howerton L, Meltzer D. Pigeons' FI behavior following signaled reinforcement duration. Bull. Psychon. Soc. 1983; 21 :161–63. [ Google Scholar ]
• Innis NK, Mitchell S, Staddon JER. Temporal control on interval schedules: What determines the postreinforcement pause? J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 1993; 60 :293–311. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kacelnik A, Bateson M. Risky theories—the effects of variance on foraging decisions. Am. Zool. 1996; 36 :402–34. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kahneman D, Tversky A. Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrika. 1979; 47 :263–91. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kelleher RT, Fry WT. Stimulus functions in chained and fixed-interval schedules. J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 1962; 5 :167–73. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kelleher RT, Gollub LR. A review of positive conditioned reinforcement. J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 1962; 5 :541–97. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kello JE. The reinforcement-omission effect on fixed-interval schedules: frustration or inhibition? Learn. Motiv. 1972; 3 :138–47. [ Google Scholar ]
• Killeen PR. On the measurement of reinforcement frequency in the study of preference. J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 1968; 11 :263–69. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Killeen PR. Incentive theory: II. Models for choice. J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 1982; 38 :217–32. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Killeen PR, Fantino E. Unification of models for choice between delayed reinforcers. J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 1990; 53 :189–200. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Killeen PR, Fetterman JG. A behavioral theory of timing. Psychol. Rev. 1988; 95 :274–95. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Killeen PR, Hall SS. The principal components of response strength. J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 2001; 75 :111–34. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lander DG, Irwin RJ. Multiple schedules: effects of the distribution of reinforcements between components on the distribution of responses between components. J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 1968; 11 :517–24. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lejeune H, Ferrara A, Simons F, Wearden JH. Adjusting to changes in the time of reinforcement: peak-interval transitions in rats. J. Exp. Psychol.: Anim. Behav. Process. 1997; 23 :211–321. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Logue AW. Research on self-control: an integrating framework. Behav. Brain Sci. 1988; 11 :665–709. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lowe CF, Harzem P, Spencer PT. Temporal control of behavior and the power law. J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 1979; 31 :333–43. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• MacEwen D, Killeen P. The effects of rate and amount on the speed of the pacemaker in pigeons' timing behavior. Anim. Learn. Behav. 1991; 19 :164–70. [ Google Scholar ]
• Machado A. Learning the temporal dynamics of behavior. Psychol. Rev. 1997; 104 :241–65. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Matell MS, Meck WH. Reinforcement-induced within-trial resetting of an internal clock. Behav. Process. 1999; 45 :159–71. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mazur JE. An adjusting procedure for studying delayed reinforcement. In: Commons ML, Mazur JE, Nevin JA, Rachlin H, editors. Quantitative Analyses of Behavior. The Effects of Delay and Intervening Events on Reinforcement Value. Vol. 5. Erlbaum; Mahwah, NJ: 1987. pp. 55–73. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mazur JE. Choice, delay, probability, and conditioned reinforcement. Anim. Learn. Behav. 1997; 25 :131–47. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mazur JE. Hyperbolic value addition and general models of animal choice. Psychol. Rev. 2001; 108 :96–112. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McDowell JJ, Dallery J. Falsification of matching theory: changes in the asymptote of Herrnstein's hyperbola as a function of water deprivation. J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 1999; 72 :251–68. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Meck WH. Selective adjustment of the speed of an internal clock and memory processes. J. Exp. Psychol.: Anim. Behav. Process. 1983; 9 :171–201. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Meck WH, Komeily-Zadeh FN, Church RM. Two-step acquisition: modification of an internal clock's criterion. J. Exp. Psychol.: Anim. Behav. Process. 1984; 10 :297–306. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mischel W, Shoda Y, Rodriguez M. Delay of gratification for children. Science. 1989; 244 :933–38. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nevin JA. Response strength in multiple schedules. J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 1974; 21 :389–408. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Perone M, Courtney K. Fixed-ratio pausing: joint effects of past reinforcer magnitude and stimuli correlated with upcoming magnitude. J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 1992; 57 :33–46. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Plowright CMS, Church D, Behnke P, Silverman A. Time estimation by pigeons on a fixed interval: the effect of pre-feeding. Behav. Process. 2000; 52 :43–48. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Powell RW. The effect of small sequential changes in fixed-ratio size upon the post-reinforcement pause. J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 1968; 11 :589–93. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Powell RW. The effect of reinforcement magnitude upon responding under fixed-ratio schedules. J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 1969; 12 :605–8. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rachlin H. Introduction to Modern Behaviorism. Freeman; New York: 1991. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rachlin H. The Science of Self-Control. Harvard Univ. Press; Cambridge, MA: 2000. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rachlin H, Green L. Commitment, choice and self-control. J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 1972; 17 :15–22. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rachlin H, Green L, Kagel JH, Battalio RC. Economic demand theory and psychological studies of choice. In: Bower GH, editor. The Psychology of Learning and Motivation. Vol. 10. Academic; New York: 1976. pp. 129–54. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rachlin H, Laibson DI, editors. The Matching Law: Papers in Psychology and Economics. Harvard Univ. Press; Cambridge, MA: 1997. [ Google Scholar ]
• Roberts S. Isolation of an internal clock. J. Exp. Psychol.: Anim. Behav. Process. 1981; 7 :242–68. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Roberts S. Properties and function of an internal clock. In: Melgren R, editor. Animal Cognition and Behavior. North-Holland; Amsterdam: 1983. pp. 345–97. [ Google Scholar ]
• Royalty P, Williams B, Fantino E. Effects of delayed reinforcement in chain schedules. J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 1987; 47 :41–56. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schneider BA. A two-state analysis of fixed-interval responding in pigeons. J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 1969; 12 :677–87. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shimp CP. The concurrent reinforcement of two interresponse times: the relative frequency of an interresponse time equals its relative harmonic length. J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 1969; 1 :403–11. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shimp CP. Behavior as a social construction. Behav. Process. 2001; 54 :11–32. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shull RL. The response-reinforcement dependency in fixed-interval schedules of reinforcement. J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 1970; 14 :55–60. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shull RL, Harzem P. The postreinforcement pause: some implications for the correlational law of effect. In: Zeiler MD, editor. Reinforcement and the Organization of Behavior. Academic; New York: 1979. pp. 193–221. [ Google Scholar ]
• Shull RL, Gaynor ST, Grimes JA. Response rate viewed as engagement bouts: effects of relative reinforcement and schedule type. J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 2001; 75 :247–74. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shull RL, Pliskoff SS. Changeover delay and concurrent schedules: some effects on relative performance measures. J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 1967; 10 :517–27. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sidman M. Tactics of Scientific Research: Evaluating Experimental Data in Psychology. Basic Books; New York: 1960. [ Google Scholar ]
• Skinner BF. Two types of conditioned reflex: a reply to Konorski and Miller. J. Gen. Psychol. 1937; 16 :272–79. [ Google Scholar ]
• Skinner BF. The Behavior of Organisms. Appleton-Century; New York: 1938. [ Google Scholar ]
• Skinner BF. Operant behavior. In: Honig WK, editor. Operant Behavior: Areas of Research and Application. Appleton-Century-Crofts; New York: 1966. pp. 12–32. [ Google Scholar ]
• Skinner BF. Some thoughts about the future. J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 1986; 45 :229–35. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Staddon JER. Some properties of spaced responding in pigeons. J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 1965; 8 :19–27. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Staddon JER. Spaced responding and choice: a preliminary analysis. J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 1968; 11 :669–82. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Staddon JER. Temporal effects of reinforcement: a negative “frustration” effect. Learn. Motiv. 1970; 1 :227–47. [ Google Scholar ]
• Staddon JER. Reinforcement omission on temporal go-no-go schedules. J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 1972; 18 :223–29. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Staddon JER. Temporal control, attention and memory. Psychol. Rev. 1974; 81 :375–91. [ Google Scholar ]
• Staddon JER. On Herrnstein's equation and related forms. J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 1977; 28 :163–70. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Staddon JER. Behavioral competition, contrast, and matching. In: Commons ML, Herrnstein RJ, Rachlin H, editors. Quantitative Analyses of Behavior. Quantitative Analyses of Operant Behavior: Matching and Maximizing Accounts. Vol. 2. Ballinger; Cambridge, MA: 1982. pp. 243–61. [ Google Scholar ]
• Staddon JER. Adaptive Dynamics: The Theoretical Analysis of Behavior. MIT/Bradford; Cambridge, MA: 2001a. p. 423. [ Google Scholar ]
• Staddon JER. The New Behaviorism: Mind, Mechanism and Society. Psychol. Press; Philadelphia: 2001b. p. 211. [ Google Scholar ]
• Staddon JER, Chelaru IM, Higa JJ. A tuned-trace theory of interval-timing dynamics. J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 2002; 77 :105–24. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Staddon JER, Higa JJ. Time and memory: towards a pacemaker-free theory of interval timing. J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 1999; 71 :215–51. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Staddon JER, Innis NK. An effect analogous to “frustration” on interval reinforcement schedules. Psychon. Sci. 1966a; 4 :287–88. [ Google Scholar ]
• Staddon JER, Innis NK. Preference for fixed vs. variable amounts of reward. Psychon. Sci. 1966b; 4 :193–94. [ Google Scholar ]
• Staddon JER, Innis NK. Reinforcement omission on fixed-interval schedules. J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 1969; 12 :689–700. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Staddon JER, Motheral S. On matching and maximizing in operant choice experiments. Psychol. Rev. 1978; 85 :436–44. [ Google Scholar ]
• Starr B, Staddon JER. Temporal control on fixed-interval schedules: signal properties of reinforcement and blackout. J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 1974; 22 :535–45. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stubbs A. The discrimination of stimulus duration by pigeons. J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 1968; 11 :223–38. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stubbs DA, Dreyfus LR, Fetterman JG, Boynton DM, Locklin N, Smith LD. Duration comparison: relative stimulus differences, stimulus age and stimulus predictiveness. J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 1994; 62 :15–32. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Treisman M. Temporal discrimination and the indifference interval: implications for a model of the “internal clock.” Psychol. Monogr. 1963; 77 (756) [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wearden JH. The power law and Weber's law in fixed-interval post-reinforcement pausing. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. B. 1985; 37 :191–211. [ Google Scholar ]
• Williams BA. Reinforcement, choice, and response strength. In: Atkinson RC, Herrnstein RJ, Lindzey G, Luce RD, editors. Stevens' Handbook of Experimental Psychology. 2nd Wiley; New York: 1988. pp. 167–244. [ Google Scholar ]
• Williams BA. Conditioned reinforcement: neglected or outmoded explanatory construct? Psychon. Bull. Rev. 1994; 1 :457–75. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Williams BA. Conditioned reinforcement dynamics in three-link chained schedules. J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 1997; 67 :145–59. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Williams BA, Royalty P. Conditioned reinforcement versus time to primary reinforcement in chain schedules. J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 1990; 53 :381–93. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wynne CDL, Staddon JER. Typical delay determines waiting time on periodic-food schedules: static and dynamic tests. J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 1988; 50 :197–210. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zeiler MD. Schedules of reinforcement: the controlling variables. 1977:201–32. See Honig & Staddon 1977. [ Google Scholar ]
• Zeiler MD, Powell DG. Temporal control in fixed-interval schedules. J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 1994; 61 :1–9. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zuriff G. Behaviorism: A Conceptual Reconstruction. Columbia Univ. Press; New York: 1985. [ Google Scholar ]