Reinforcers are presented at fixed times, provided that the appropriate response is made. For example, on a 2-minute fixed interval schedule, a response will be reinforced, but only after 2 minutes have expired since the last reinforcement. Rats and pigeons in Skinner boxes produce predictable patterns of behavior under these schedules. Slot machines are Skinner boxes. You ‘pull the handle’, but you don’t get a reward every single time. When you do get a reward, sometimes it’s a small win, sometimes a big win. But it’s easy to feel the pressure of ‘just one more pull’.

Changes[edit]

Changed link to experimental analysis of behavior from behavior analysis which lamely links to behaviorism. Initial link to 'experimental psychology' sounds right to those who don't know any better, but it is actually a research tradition that does not descend from Skinner. Skinner actively rejected many of the practitioners mentioned on that page and it doesn't reflect informatively back on Skinner. I nuked it.

--Florkle 09:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I have removed most of the Skinner Box references. The diagram still has it and it's not a very good picture at that. Pigeons are more common in behavior analysis and SKinner himself switched due to longer longevity and other reasons. A white carneau or king hubbard pigeon with a proper setup would be better. I will see if I can get a still.

Also, it seems rather pointless the way its listed. Like, who cares? The purpose of the work, it's experimental impact is not mentioned - schedules of reinforcement, the theory of operant behavior, reinforcement itself, cumulative records, and so on are non-existent. Why?

Criticism section[edit]

The criticism section seems very out of place. Criticism of an experimental tool? Somewhat strange. On top of that, the comments are not borne out by the evidence. It states:

The Skinner box is not as objective as might be thought. Lever presses with the rat's right paw, left paw, and even with its nose or tail are recorded as a single lever press, regardless of the fact that the rodent's behaviour is constantly changing.

In behavioral research, the form of the behavior is not as important as its function. It doesn't matter which appendage is being used to push the lever at any given time. The difference is inconsequential (unless the experimenter wished to introduce different consequences based upon which paw is used, in which case you'd begin to see a difference in paw-use emerge). Whether the lever is pushed with one paw, the other, the nose, or its tail, the behavior is being controlled by the same set of consequences. Although the forms of the responses may appear to be different, since they result in identical consequences they are, as Behaviorists would call them, 'functionally equivalent.'

Furthermore, the rat may sometimes press the lever too gently to activate the mechanism, thus not counting it as a lever press.

This criticism does not amount to much either. If the rat presses too gently for the lever to activate the delivery of a reinforcer, then weak lever-pressing will be extinguished. Any response maintained by consequences can be modeled with a bell curve. An organism's response is subject to slight variation from one case to another. The most successful variations occur with the greatest frequency (at the top of the bell curve) while the least successful variations occur with minimal frequency (down at the margins of the bell curve). I'll leave these comments here. If nothing comes up after a couple of weeks, I'll remove the section in question. Lunar Spectrum | Talk 01:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Both criticisms reek of POV, neither are issues of 'objectivity' as claimed in the article, and neither cite sources credible or otherwise. I've removed the section, and I don't think it should be re-added lest someone find research-backed criticisms from published behavioural psychologists.--Gonnas 21:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

Doesn't make sense to merge it with Skinner. How can an invention be merged with the inventor? It would be equivalent to merging AK-47 with Mikhail Kalashnikov! Shushruth 18:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, it doesn't make any sense to merge an invention with its creator. The Skinner Box is a worthy enough invention to hold its own.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.166.54.246 (talk • contribs) .

I also agree that the article for this device should not be merged with the BF Skinner article. I have already referenced this page within the article for the experimental analysis of behavior as a tool of behavioral research, and this article itself could benefit from the addition of pictures and further elaboration of its uses. While it's understandable that the operant conditioning chamber has become intertwined with Skinner (hence the eponym) its use is much wider than that of one man. It could even be said that BF Skinner isn't even the original inventor of the 'Skinner Box' since Thorndike's puzzle boxes also constitute rudimentary operant conditioning chambers (although shabbily constructed since Thorndike seriously lacked Skinner's carpentry skills). Lunar Spectrum 03:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Diagram[edit]

I do believe that the diagram should be in English. Any comments? Lasdlt 02:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

Slot Machines As Skinner Boxes Walmart

The term Skinner box is often used in ad hominem attacks against the experimental analysis of behavior. I propose that the page be moved to the more technically correct operant conditioning chamber (with appropriate redirects). Silly rabbit 15:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

LOL, I can understand why a 'silly rabbit' would prefer to be placed in an 'operant conditioning chamber' rather than in a 'skinner box'. Sounds too much like a 'skinning box' for your taste? Silly, rabbit. bah, here's me engaging in ad cuniculum arguments ... Move is reasonable, of course. Fut.Perf.☼ 07:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I question the perjoritive nature of the term. I had never heard it until I heard a professor who directs the Behavior Analysis Laboratory at my university use it to describe some research one of her students was planning. She certainly wasn't using it perjoritively.

'The term Skinner Box is considered by some to be pejorative, and is probably most commonly used by those who are not in the discipline of Experimental analysis of behavior or in psychology.'For what it's worth, the professors in both of the Psych classes I've taken (one of whom was, if I recall correctly, a behavioral psychologist) referred to them as Skinner boxes. (Although I don't deny that may have been for the benefit of us non-psych majors.) --Jen 05:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Citations[edit]

The first citation link doesn't give any information and I've done a lot of studying in psychology at the university level and have never heard of slot machines or online games as conditioning chambers. I am going to remove that section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.63.31.233 (talk) 04:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The citation does verify the fact stated in the article. The link is dead, but the book is a published one. I suggest you try to find it in a library. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 11:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I did what you suggested and got a hold of it at my university's library. I've (albeit quickly) read through it and as I thought there is nothing in it concerning online games or slot machines. I could have missed it so if you can give me a page number I'll gladly look into it further but until then this claim just seems like trying to push an agenda with a random citation. 24.63.31.233 (talk) 23:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The article gives a page number for the citation. It may be from a different edition of the text. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 23:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

yes but nothing relates to it on that page. it's actually just a chart. someone put this as a fake citation so we'll just leave that section out. thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.63.31.233 (talk) 17:27, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I have checked the citation in the past when it was still available as a Google book. At the time it did verify, and I don't appreciate the charge that the citation is somehow fake. It isn't fake, and did verify what was being said in the text. Also, it hardly seems to be controversial information that slot machines are an example of a variable schedule of reinforcement. If you like, more references can be given. A bit of preliminary googling gives some possibilities. I'm going to restore the material, with a {{citation needed}} template, rather than remove it. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 19:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Rat Park challenges the Operant Conditioning Chamber model[edit]

I'm trying to introduce links to the Rat Park article into relevant articles. Would it be possible to incorporate mentions of the Rat Park series of experiments into the article? I think they constitute a working criticism of the Operant Conditioning Chamber model - particularly in regards to experiments regarding drug addiction. --- Roidroid (talk) 12:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Who uses the term perjorativly??[edit]

167.30.56.14 (talk) 02:24, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Awkward image caption[edit]

This sentence

Under the second image is awkward to parse. I can't tell which of the items are 'above the cage'? Is is it the '1 speaker'? In which case it should read

Slot Machines As Skinner Boxes Made

If it's the '1 house light and 1 speaker' this seems arbitrary. The sentence should be punctuated differently (at least) to maybe something like:

But maybe rewording to this would be better:

Slot Machines As Skinner Boxes For Kids

Since I don't know the source of the image, I don't know which correction is correct, otherwise I whould just fix it myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.224.52.228 (talk) 15:55, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Also, perhaps the 1's should be turned in to a/an's.

Purpose section needs breaking up[edit]

The Purpose section needs breaking up to make it more readable

expansion on social media to include multiplayer freemium gaming[edit]

I feel like we have a severe and potentially irresponsible lack of information on OCC/Skinner Box manipulation throughout Wikipedia. I'll argue that calling it 'manipulation' is in line with keeping NPOV because the nature of Operant Conditioning is manipulation quite objectively. When last I checked, freemium redirected to micropayment which is no longer accurate. When 'free-to-play' games that use the classic RPG explore->play->excel->level up->explore loop with the 'play' replaced with 'pay-or-wait-to-play' are around for long enough, it becomes so acceptable by standard of the status quo for never-ending games to charge 100 USD as a 'micropayment' with no limit on how much can be spent, it has become a phenomenon other than the micropay business model. I feel passionately about accuracy here and have no personal agenda of which I'm aware. What should/can I do to begin updating/adding information across relevant sections of Wikipedia to address all this, and please would you who read this take the time to respond with whether or not you think I have a substantial point? Thanks! Harlequence (talk) 06:31, 29 May 2016 (UTC)