{PBR} SKINNER-BOXED
If the premises of behaviorism trouble us once they have been laid bare, perhaps that is an invitation to question the specific practices that rest on those premises.—Alfie Kohn
In the first chapter, Kohn summarizes the considerable contribution of B.F. Skinner to developing and popularizing behaviorism. Although Skinner’s ideas are no longer widely accepted, specific practices developed according to his theory remain popular and mostly unquestioned.
{Note that this blog series is comprised of my basic notes and personal reflections. If you find these interesting, I highly recommend that you get a copy of Kohn’s book Punished by Rewards, so you can benefit from his full and original arguments.}
Discussion—What do you understand by the terms behaviorism and pop-behaviorism? How would you expect them to be different?
{SKINNER-BOXED—THE LEGACY OF BEHAVIORISM}
Kohn begins by specifying that the attention of his book will be mainly centered on the ‘pop incarnation’ of behaviorism, which is ‘To take what people want or need and offer it on a contingent basis in order to control how they act...’
‘I want to argue that there is something profoundly wrong-headed about this doctrine—that its assumptions are misleading and the practices it generates are both intrinsically objectionable and counterproductive.’ [p 4]
Discussion—What is your attitude towards pop-behaviorism, as defined here by Kohn? What common practices can you identify as pop-behaviorism, using this definition? Have you used any of these? Were they effective?—necessary?—good? Can you think of alternative practices? What do you think of those? Do you believe they could be effective?
Note that (as I understand it) Kohn is not talking here about natural consequences and rewards—which obviously exist, and sometimes involve the action or intervention of parents, teachers, employers, etc.—but is talking about control systems rigged by these authority figures.
Before we understand pop-behaviorism, however, it is important to understand the theory that informs the practice. The next section therefore introduces us to psychologist B.F. Skinner, whose research and writings did most to popularize behaviorism.
{PIGEONS AND RODENTS AND DOGS}
Behaviorism existed before B.F. Skinner or even its ‘father’ John B. Watson. Nothing is new under the sun! What Watson and Skinner did, however, was articulate, codify and popularize the philosophy that supported the practices. For that reason, a few words about Skinner may be valuable in seeking to critique pop behaviorism.
Kohn mentions a token-economy system implemented in the nineteenth century, in the first public school of New York City. It was abandoned at the time because it ‘fostered a mercenary spirit’ and ‘engendered strife and jealousies’; but today’s public schools are rife with similar behaviorist techniques.
When working in a kindergarten classroom last year, I observed a multi-level classroom management system that included several token-system economies. ‘Well-behaved’ {i.e., quiet and compliant} children earned marbles, plastic coins, or DoJo points that could be exchanged for sugary treats or cheap trinkets.
It was disheartening to see how the children responded to this system. Most made an effort to behave well when under the eye of the teacher, and developed sneaky ways of disobeying the rules or provoking other children. Some children were less calculating, and were punished for the same offenses the others skillfully concealed. All the children were aware of this double-standard; the sneaky ones were smug, and the honest children were frustrated and felt attacked by the double-standard.
‘B.F. Skinner could be described as a man who conducted most of his experiments on rodents and pigeons and wrote most of his books about people,’ Kohn begins provocatively. There was no irony in this for Skinner, who believed man is an animal distinct only in the types of behavior he displays.
In Skinner’s utterly materialistic and fatalistic view, there is no such thing as ‘self’ or ‘will.’ According to Skinner:
‘“A person is not an originating agent; he is a locus, a point at which many genetic and environmental conditions come together in a joint effect.”’ [p 6]
And, as Kohn observes {and as Skinner himself ably demonstrated}:
‘Once the self has been dispatched, it requires only a minor mopping-up operation to finish off the features of being human that we treasure, such as creativity, love, morality, and freedom.’ [p 7]
Skinner was ruthlessly logical. Kohn quotes some truly horrifying passages in which Skinner explains Beethoven’s genius or the experience of falling in love, entirely in terms of behavioral conditioning. Even freedom is dismissed as merely a comforting allusion. Kohn explains Skinner’s view:
‘Freedom’s just another word for something left to learn: it is the way we refer to the ever-diminishing set of phenomena for which science has yet to specify the causes.’ [p 8]
Discussion—What are the consequences of Skinner’s view, for moral choice and responsibility? What might be a Christian’s response to the view that man is ‘not an originating agent’? What about the providence of God? How does that interact with human free will and responsibility?
How do you suppose Skinner’s ideas about the self and the will would shape an approach to education and child-rearing? Research behaviorist education and contrast with the educational principles articulated by C.M. Mason in her volume Towards a Philosophy of Education {see summary} or in her paper ‘Concerning Children as Persons: Liberty Versus Various Forms of Tyranny.’ {ex. system vs. method, drill vs. emotional engagement, behaviors vs. ideas, et cetera}
Surely, however, these views belong only to detached academics and cannot find sympathy in larger society. Unfortunately, this is not the case; even those who would strenuously disagree with behaviorist theory adopt the attitudes and practices it has engendered.
Actually, behaviorism found especially fertile soil in America, whose take-action, can-do psyche has made it particularly susceptible to the pleas of pragmatism.
‘[I]f it can’t be quantified, it’s not real. ¶This view reflects a thoroughly American sensibility... We are a nation that prefers acting to thinking, and practice to theory... We define ourselves by numbers—take-home pay and cholesterol counts, percentiles (how much does your body weigh?) and standardized test scores (how much does your child know?). By contrast, we are uneasy with intangibles and unscientific abstractions, such as a sense of well-being or an intrinsic motivation to learn.’ [p 9]
I very much recognize the prevalence of this uneasiness, not least because I have chosen an educational path that does not provide grades or a degree or other ‘official’ recognition; I struggled at first with the idea that my worth is not something that needs to be quantified or formalized on paper in order to have existence and legitimacy.
Kohn continues:
‘[I]t is important to understand that practice does rest on theory, whether or not that theory has been explicitly identified. The overwhelming majority of teachers, according to one survey, are unable to name or describe a theory of learning that underlies what they do in the classroom, but what they do—what any of us does—is no less informed by theoretical assumptions just because these assumptions are invisible.’ [p 9-10]
Kohn acknowledges that behaviorism has become ‘more restrained and less quotable’ though he also argues that its principles have remained fundamentally consistent. Kohn departs from Skinner at this point, to launch his critique of pop behaviorism.
Discussion—How important do you believe it is to understand Skinner or Watson in order to have an accurate understanding of pop behaviorism?
{BRING IN THE REINFORCEMENTS}
What are these evidences of behaviorism in our society? Education is a good place to start.
‘To induce students to learn, we present stickers, stars, certificates, awards, trophies, membership in elite societies, and above all, grades. If the grades are good enough, some parents then hand out bicycles or cars or cash, thereby offering what are, in effect, rewards for rewards.’ [p 11]
We have programs that ‘encourage’ reading by offering free pizza or money according to the number of books read.
At home parents mete out rewards for good behavior: extra screen time, a special dessert, or even money.
Behaviorism is also the technique of choice when dealing with adults. Special programs offer incentives to those who need to lose weight or quit smoking. Some local chapters of Planned Parenthood pay young mothers for every day they avoid getting pregnant again. And virtually every business runs on the {insultingly simplistic} principle that: ‘The more money you offer someone, the harder he or she will work.’
Discussion—Would you agree or disagree with the inclusion of any of these as behaviorist manipulation tactics? Have these examples reminded you of any others you have observed in society?
But ‘the greatest tool in behavior modification,’ according to Skinner is praise. Kohn explains:
‘Approval or pleasure is often not merely expressed but doled out deliberately, conditionally, as part of a calculated strategy to shape others’ behavior.’ [p 13]
Discussion—What is your reaction to Kohn’s inclusion of praise as a possible behaviorist technique? What makes praise honest, and what makes it manipulative?
{BEHIND THE APPEAL OF BEHAVIORISM}
Why has behaviorism taken such a hold upon our society? Kohn argues that its popularity begins with ‘the belief systems already in place which it complements.’
Kohn remarks once more on our national commitment to pragmatism and rationalism. But Kohn also blames religion—specifically, Christianity—for leading ‘some people to incline towards pop behaviorism regardless of the results.’
‘It may seem a bit of a stretch to compare pay-for-performance plans to religious notions of redemption or enlightenment or karma, which are decidedly different from behaviorism, but the if-then contingency is just as salient in the latter set of ideas. We have been taught that ethical conduct will be rewarded and evil acts punished, even if it does not happen in this lifetime.’ [p 14]
I believe Kohn has completely misunderstood the Christian Gospel {‘good news’} which means that believers will not be rewarded according to their ethical conduct; that would mean hell for everyone, because no one can ever achieve the required perfection. Rather, God so loved us (while we were yet sinners, unconditionally) that he sacrificed his own Son in our place, that we might then experience the joy of being with him and like him. Christian virtue is not an effort to reach heaven; it is a joyous response to the indwelling of God and the assurance we already have of heaven. Christianity is not a morality system; it is a relationship.
Unfortunately, I can see why Kohn has a poor opinion of Christian morality. Although most Christians would easily reject the materialism and fatalism of behaviorists like Skinner, the faith of many has been weakened by the influence of pop behaviorism {most grossly evident in ‘prosperity’ theology}. Perhaps few of us could truly answer questions about God’s motives concerning promises of Heaven and threats of Hell, and whether these are in fact natural or arbitrary consequences.
A blog post about Christianity and behaviorism is forthcoming, in which I hope to address these questions and more.
Kohn suggests that one of the greatest reasons we find it so ‘natural’ to apply and generalize behaviorist tactics is that we have had the continual example of parents, teachers and employers. And in our own experience, we have probably found that behaviorism brings immediately gratifying results. ‘Rewards, like punishment, are very effective,’ Kohn concedes, ‘at producing compliance.’
That is perhaps the key to the seductive appeal of behaviorism: it promises control. Behaviorism ignores the things we can’t control—like a person’s motivation—and focuses on what can be controlled—the authoritative dispensation of rewards and punishments.
Additionally, behaviorism is ‘marvelously easy to use.’ Rather than considering the complexities of people, one simply manipulates behavior by declaring a threat or a promise.
‘If [a teacher] finds herself irritated that children in her class are talking, it takes courage and thought to consider whether it is really reasonable to expect them to sit quietly for so long—or to ask herself whether the problem might be her own discomfort with noise. It takes effort and patience to help them develop the skill of self-control and the commitment to behave responsibly. But it takes no courage, no thought, no effort, no patience, no talent, and no time to announce, “Keep quiet and here’s what you’ll get...”’ [p 16]
But is the use of rewards really effective?Kohn suggests that serious negative consequences become evident over the long term. Our first clue may be the fact that rewards must be repeated and increased in order to remain effective. What does that say about the behavior we are actually reinforcing?
‘Whacking my computer when I first turn it on may somehow help the operating system to engage, but if I have to do that every morning, I will eventually get the idea that I am not addressing the real problem. If I have to whack it harder and harder, I might even start to suspect that my quick fix is making the problem worse.’ [p 17]
Kohn closes this chapter:
‘Here, then, we have a portrait of a culture thoroughly and unreflectively committed to the use of rewards. They offer a temptingly simple way to get people to do what we want. It is an approach we know best, in part because it likely governed how we ourselves were raised and managed. It fits neatly with other institutions and belief systems with which we are familiar.’ [p 17-18]
Putting aside the concerns of behaviorist theory, are there any other ethical reasons to reject behaviorist strategies? Kohn promises to outline these reasons in ‘Chapter 2: Is It Right to Reward?’
• Psychologist researcher B.F. Skinner trained rodents and pigeons in special controlled environments known as ‘Skinner Boxes.’ •
August 6, 2013