Editing B. F. Skinner (section)

==Scientific inventions==

=== Operant conditioning chamber ===
{{Main|Operant conditioning chamber}}
An [[operant conditioning chamber]] (also known as a "Skinner box") is a laboratory apparatus used in the experimental analysis of animal behavior. It was invented by Skinner while he was a graduate student at [[Harvard University]]. As used by Skinner, the box had a lever (for rats), or a disk in one wall (for pigeons). A press on this "manipulandum" could deliver food to the animal through an opening in the wall, and responses reinforced in this way increased in frequency. By controlling this reinforcement together with discriminative stimuli such as lights and tones, or punishments such as electric shocks, experimenters have used the operant box to study a wide variety of topics, including schedules of reinforcement, discriminative control, delayed response ("memory"), punishment, and so on. By channeling research in these directions, the operant conditioning chamber has had a huge influence on course of research in animal learning and its applications. It enabled great progress on problems that could be studied by measuring the rate, probability, or force of a simple, repeatable response. However, it discouraged the study of behavioral processes not easily conceptualized in such terms—spatial learning, in particular, which is now studied in quite different ways, for example, by the use of the [[Water maze (neuroscience)|water maze]].<ref name="Jenkins"/>

=== Cumulative recorder ===

The cumulative recorder makes a pen-and-ink record of simple repeated responses. Skinner designed it for use with the [[Operant conditioning chamber|operant chamber]] as a convenient way to record and view the rate of responses such as a lever press or a key peck. In this device, a sheet of paper gradually unrolls over a cylinder. Each response steps a small pen across the paper, starting at one edge; when the pen reaches the other edge, it quickly resets to the initial side. The slope of the resulting ink line graphically displays the rate of the response; for example, rapid responses yield a steeply sloping line on the paper, slow responding yields a line of low slope. The cumulative recorder was a key tool used by Skinner in his analysis of behavior, and it was very widely adopted by other experimenters, gradually falling out of use with the advent of the laboratory computer and use of line graphs.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Kubina|first1=Richard M.|last2=Kostewicz|first2=Douglas E.|last3=Brennan|first3=Kaitlyn M.|last4=King|first4=Seth A.|date=September 2017|title=A Critical Review of Line Graphs in Behavior Analytic Journals|url=http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10648-015-9339-x|journal=Educational Psychology Review|language=en|volume=29|issue=3|pages=583–598|doi=10.1007/s10648-015-9339-x|s2cid=142317036|issn=1040-726X}}</ref> Skinner's major experimental exploration of response rates, presented in his book with [[Charles Ferster]], ''Schedules of Reinforcement'', is full of cumulative records produced by this device.<ref name="SR"/>

=== Air crib ===
The air crib is an easily cleaned, temperature- and humidity-controlled [[box-bed]] intended to replace the standard infant [[Infant bed|crib]]. After raising one baby, Skinner felt that he could simplify the process for parents and improve the experience for children. He primarily thought of the idea to help his wife cope with the day-to-day tasks of child rearing. Skinner had some specific concerns about raising a baby in the rough environment where he lived in Minnesota. Keeping the child warm was a central priority (Faye, 2010).<ref name="JoyceFaye">{{Cite journal |first1=Nick |last1=Joyce|first2=Cathy |last2=Faye  |name-list-style=amp |date=2010-09-01 |title=Skinner Air Crib |journal=Aps Observer |url=https://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/skinner-air-crib |volume=23}}</ref> Though this was the main goal, it also was designed to reduce laundry, diaper rash, and cradle cap, while still allowing the baby to be more mobile and comfortable. Reportedly it had some success in these goals as it was advertised commercially with an estimate of 300 children who were raised in the air crib. ''Psychology Today'' tracked down 50 children and ran a short piece on the effects of the air crib. The reports came back positive and that these children and parents enjoyed using the crib (Epstein, 2005).<ref>{{cite magazine |url=https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/articles/199511/babies-in-boxes |title=Babies in Boxes |first=Robert |last=Epstein |date=November 1, 1995 |magazine=[[Psychology Today]]}}</ref> One of these air cribs resides in the gallery at the Center for the History of Psychology in Akron, Ohio (Faye, 2010).<ref name="JoyceFaye"/>

The air crib was designed with three solid walls and a safety-glass panel at the front which could be lowered to move the baby in and out of the crib. The floor was stretched canvas. Sheets were intended to be used over the canvas and were easily rolled off when soiled. Addressing Skinners' concern for temperature, a control box on top of the crib regulated temperature and humidity. Filtered air flowed through the crib from below. This crib was higher than most standard cribs, allowing easier access to the child without the need to bend over (Faye, 2010).<ref name="JoyceFaye"/>

The air crib was a controversial invention. It was popularly characterized as a cruel pen, and it was often compared to Skinner's [[operant conditioning chamber]] (or "Skinner box"). Skinner's article in ''Ladies Home Journal'', titled "Baby in a Box", caught the eye of many and contributed to skepticism about the device (Bjork, 1997).<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Bjork |title=B. F. Skinner: A life |journal=Washington, DC: American Psychological Association}}</ref> A picture published with the article showed the Skinners' daughter, Deborah, peering out of the crib with her hands and face pressed upon the glass. Skinner also used the term "experiment" when describing the crib, and this association with laboratory animal experimentation discouraged the crib's commercial success, although several companies attempted to produce and sell it.

In 2004, therapist [[Lauren Slater]] repeated a claim that Skinner may have used his baby daughter in some of his experiments. His outraged daughter publicly accused Slater of not making a good-faith effort to check her facts before publishing. Debora was quoted by the Guardian saying "According to ''Opening Skinner's Box: Great Psychological Experiments of the Twentieth Century'', my father, who was a psychologist based at Harvard from the 1950s to the 90s, "used his infant daughter, Deborah, to prove his theories by putting her for a few hours a day in a laboratory box . . . in which all her needs were controlled and shaped". But it's not true. My father did nothing of the sort."<ref>{{Cite web |last=Buzan |first=Deborah Skinner |date=2004-03-12 |title=I was not a lab rat |url=http://www.theguardian.com/education/2004/mar/12/highereducation.uk |access-date=2023-01-21 |website=the Guardian |language=en}}</ref>

=== Teaching machine ===
[[Image:Skinner teaching machine 01.jpg|thumb|right|The teaching machine, a mechanical invention to automate the task of [[programmed learning]]]]

The [[teaching machine]] was a [[mechanical device]] whose purpose was to administer a curriculum of [[programmed learning]]. The machine embodies key elements of Skinner's theory of learning and had important implications for education in general and classroom instruction in particular.<ref name=":1">{{cite journal|last=Skinner|first=B. F.|title=Why we need teaching machines|journal=Harvard Educational Review|year=1961|volume=31|pages=377–398}}</ref>

In one incarnation, the machine was a box that housed a list of questions that could be viewed one at a time through a small window. (see picture.) There was also a mechanism through which the learner could respond to each question. Upon delivering a correct answer, the learner would be rewarded.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://faculty.coe.uh.edu/smcneil/cuin6373/idhistory/1950.html|title=Programmed Instruction and Task Analysis|publisher=College of Education, University of Houston|access-date=September 24, 2012|archive-date=June 1, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190601003908/http://faculty.coe.uh.edu/smcneil/cuin6373/idhistory/1950.html|url-status=dead}}</ref>

Skinner advocated the use of teaching machines for a broad range of students (e.g., preschool aged to adult) and instructional purposes (e.g., reading and music). For example, one machine that he envisioned could teach rhythm. He wrote:<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Skinner|first1=B.F.|year=1961|title=Teaching machines|journal=Scientific American|volume=205|issue=3|pages=90–112|doi=10.2307/1926170|jstor=1926170|pmid=13913636}}</ref>{{blockquote|A relatively simple device supplies the necessary contingencies. The student taps a rhythmic pattern in unison with the device. "Unison" is specified very loosely at first (the student can be a little early or late at each tap) but the specifications are slowly sharpened. The process is repeated for various speeds and patterns. In another arrangement, the student echoes rhythmic patterns sounded by the machine, though not in unison, and again the specifications for an accurate reproduction are progressively sharpened. Rhythmic patterns can also be brought under the control of a printed score.}}The instructional potential of the teaching machine stemmed from several factors: it provided automatic, immediate and regular reinforcement without the use of aversive control; the material presented was coherent, yet varied and novel; the pace of learning could be adjusted to suit the individual. As a result, students were interested, attentive, and learned efficiently by producing the desired behavior, "learning by doing."<ref>Skinner, B. F., and J. Holland. 1961. ''The Analysis of Behavior: A Program for Self Instruction''. p. 387.</ref>

Teaching machines, though perhaps rudimentary, were not rigid instruments of instruction. They could be adjusted and improved based upon the students' performance. For example, if a student made many incorrect responses, the machine could be reprogrammed to provide less advanced prompts or questions—the idea being that students acquire behaviors most efficiently if they make few errors. Multiple-choice formats were not well-suited for teaching machines because they tended to increase student mistakes, and the contingencies of reinforcement were relatively uncontrolled.

Not only useful in teaching explicit skills, machines could also promote the development of a repertoire of behaviors that Skinner called self-management. Effective self-management means attending to stimuli appropriate to a task, avoiding distractions, reducing the opportunity of reward for competing behaviors, and so on. For example, machines encourage students to pay attention before receiving a reward. Skinner contrasted this with the common classroom practice of initially capturing students' attention (e.g., with a lively video) and delivering a reward (e.g., entertainment) before the students have actually performed any relevant behavior. This practice fails to reinforce correct behavior and actually counters the development of self-management.

Skinner pioneered the use of teaching machines in the classroom, especially at the primary level. Today computers run software that performs similar teaching tasks, and there has been a resurgence of interest in the topic related to the development of adaptive learning systems.<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://philmcrae.com/2/post/2013/04/rebirth-of-the-teaching-maching-through-the-seduction-of-data-analytics-this-time-its-personal1.html|title=Rebirth of the Teaching Machine through the Seduction of Data Analytics: This Time It's Personal |date=April 14, 2013 |website=Philip McRae, Ph.D.}}</ref>

=== Pigeon-guided missile ===
{{Main|Project Pigeon}}
During World War II, the [[US Navy]] required a weapon effective against surface ships, such as the German [[Bismarck-class battleship|''Bismarck'' class]] battleships. Although [[missile]] and [[Television guidance|TV]] technology existed, the size of the primitive guidance systems available rendered automatic guidance impractical. To solve this problem, Skinner initiated [[Project Pigeon]], which was intended to provide a simple and effective guidance system. Skinner trained pigeons through operant conditioning to peck a camera obscura screen showing incoming targets on individual screens (Schultz-Figueroa, 2019).<ref name=":0">{{Cite journal |last=Schultz-Figueroa |title=Project Pigeon: Rendering the War Animal through Optical Technology |journal=JCMS: Journal of Cinema and Media Studies}}</ref> This system divided the nose cone of a missile into three compartments, with a pigeon placed in each. Within the ship, the three lenses projected an image of distant objects onto a screen in front of each bird. Thus, when the missile was launched from an aircraft within sight of an enemy ship, an image of the ship would appear on the screen. The screen was hinged, which connected the screens to the bomb's guidance system. This was done through four small rubber pneumatic tubes that were attached to each side of the frame, which directed a constant airflow to a pneumatic pickup system that controlled the thrusters of the bomb. Resulting in the missile being guided towards the targeted ship, through just the peck coming from the pigeon (Schultz-Figueroa, 2019).<ref name=":0" />

Despite an effective demonstration, the project was abandoned, and eventually more conventional solutions, such as those based on radar, became available. Skinner complained that "our problem was no one would take us seriously." Before the project was completely abandoned it was tested extensively in the laboratory. After the United States Army ultimately denied it the United States Naval Research Laboratory picked up Skinner's Research and renamed it Project ORCON, which was a contraction of "organic" and "control". Skinner worked closely with the US Naval Research Laboratory continuously testing the pigeon's tracking capacity for guiding missiles to their intended targets. In the end, the pigeons' performance and accuracy relied on so many uncontrollable factors that Project ORCON, like Project Pigeon before it, was again discontinued. It was never used in the field.<ref name=":0" />

=== Verbal summator ===

Early in his career Skinner became interested in "latent speech" and experimented with a device he called the ''verbal summator''.<ref name="doi_9917445">{{cite journal |last=Skinner |first=B. F. |s2cid=144303708 |year=1936 |title=The Verbal Summator and a Method for the Study of Latent Speech |journal=[[Journal of Psychology]] |volume=2 |issue=1 |pages=71–107 |doi=10.1080/00223980.1936.9917445 |hdl=11858/00-001M-0000-002D-7E05-E |hdl-access=free }}</ref> This device can be thought of as an auditory version of the Rorschach inkblots.<ref name="doi_9917445"/> When using the device, human participants listened to incomprehensible auditory "garbage" but often read meaning into what they heard. Thus, as with the Rorschach blots, the device was intended to yield overt behavior that projected subconscious thoughts. Skinner's interest in projective testing was brief, but he later used observations with the summator in creating his theory of verbal behavior. The device also led other researchers to invent new tests such as the tautophone test, the auditory apperception test, and the Azzageddi{{Definition|date=May 2016}} test.<ref>Rutherford, A. 2003. "B. F. Skinner and the auditory inkblot: The rise and fall of the verbal summator as a projective technique." ''[[History of Psychology (journal)|History of Psychology]]'' 4:362–78.</ref>