Research figure: B. F. Skinner · Written by Artificial Sapiens
Why Thoughts and Feelings Belong in Skinner's Science of Behavior
B. F. Skinner treated thoughts, feelings, sensations, and other private events as legitimate phenomena for a natural science of behavior. His account of private events addresses a precise question: how can psychology explain what people say about their inner lives when the events being described are directly accessible chiefly to the person experiencing them? Skinner's solution was to investigate bodily stimulation, covert responding, a person's learning history, and the social conditions under which words for private experiences are acquired. He argued that the difference between a public and a private event concerns access to observation, while its occurrence remains part of the natural world. This position is developed most clearly in The Operational Analysis of Psychological Terms (1945), Science and Human Behavior (1953), Behaviorism at Fifty (1963), and About Behaviorism (1974).
Private events are a specific issue within Skinner's radical behaviorism. A pain sensation, unspoken self-instruction, or bodily feeling may be private because another observer cannot directly encounter the same episode under the same conditions. That restriction creates problems for measurement and verbal description. It does not authorize the investigator to treat a reported feeling as a complete explanation of behavior. Saying that someone escaped because of fear may summarize a meaningful experience, but a functional analysis asks what circumstances occasioned the fear report, what produced avoidance, what consequences maintained it, and how these processes interact. The distinct project of explaining the philosophy of radical behaviorism in its entirety belongs to that broader research topic; the present analysis concerns Skinner's account of private experience itself.
The central distinction is between the existence of an experience, the individual's ability to describe it, and the scientific warrant for a proposed explanation. A person's report of pain is significant evidence about what the person experiences, yet the report's wording, specificity, and reliability may reflect learning, attention, culture, and the conditions of reporting. Modern work on private stimuli and covert responses and the contested status of private events shows why this remains a live conceptual and empirical problem.
Historical Origins: From Observable Responses to the Private World
Behaviorism before Skinner
Early behaviorism emerged partly in reaction to the methodological difficulties of introspection. John B. Watson's 1913 program argued that psychology should proceed through publicly observable relations rather than rely on introspective access as its privileged evidential foundation. Edward Thorndike's earlier law of effect had already connected learning with behavioral consequences. Skinner subsequently developed an experimental analysis of operant behavior and a more expansive philosophical position. His account of privacy, therefore, cannot be reduced to Watson's early methodological program or attributed to the invention of reinforcement by Skinner. Skinner was working on how a science of behavior could address subjective vocabulary while maintaining an account in terms of natural events. The chronological record of Skinner's work can be checked in the B. F. Skinner Foundation bibliography.
Skinner's 1938 book The Behavior of Organisms established a systematic experimental program centered on operant response classes and reinforcement contingencies. Its core laboratory observations concerned measurable responses of organisms under arranged conditions. The move from such experiments to statements about thought and feeling demanded further concepts. In 1945, Skinner took up the scientific status of psychological words themselves: when someone says 'I am hurt,' 'I am afraid,' or 'I am thinking,' what histories and stimulus conditions make those particular verbal responses possible? The issue was crucial because an experimenter can hear the report without directly sharing the private stimulation about which the speaker reports. See Skinner's original 1945 publication and the historical Foundation bibliography.
The 1945 intervention and its subsequent development
In The Operational Analysis of Psychological Terms, published in Psychological Review in 1945, Skinner challenged the idea that definitions are exhausted by logical correspondences between terms and operations. He approached scientific and ordinary naming as verbal behavior whose use depends on contingencies of reinforcement. The paper appeared in volume 52, with the principal article on pages 270–277 and further contribution on pages 291–294, as recorded in the Foundation's full bibliography. Its contribution to the private-events question was a behavioral account of how psychological descriptions are learned and maintained when the purported object of description is unavailable for direct public verification. The historical DOI is 10.1037/h0062535.
Skinner broadened this analysis in Science and Human Behavior (1953), where the treatment of private events was integrated with a wider discussion of behavior, self-knowledge, emotion, and verbal communities. Verbal Behavior (1957) subsequently developed a functional approach to language that could encompass describing bodily states and talking silently to oneself. Behaviorism at Fifty (first published in Science in 1963) explicitly revisited the problem of events within the skin, and About Behaviorism (1974) devoted sustained attention to the world within the skin and the explanatory status of self-knowledge. These are successive conceptual elaborations, not separate laboratory trials confirming every proposition about introspection. Their publication dates and titles are documented by the Foundation books and bibliography and the Science journal record.
What Is a Private Event?
A private event, in the Skinnerian tradition, is an event or functional relation accessible to a particular organism in ways that are unavailable to another observer under ordinary circumstances. The expression covers several distinguishable kinds of phenomena. Private stimulation includes conditions associated with pain, hunger, visceral sensation, or bodily arousal. Covert responses may include silent verbal rehearsal, internal self-instruction, or other responding whose public form has become reduced or difficult to detect. A complex experience described as anxiety or shame may involve private stimulation, observable action, social circumstances, verbal learning, memories, and ongoing environmental interactions. The term therefore identifies a problem of accessibility and analysis, rather than one single psychological mechanism. This differentiation is central to Tourinho's 2006 conceptual review.
Skinner understood a private stimulus as potentially entering into the control of the person's subsequent responses. A headache may occasion a report, a request for help, an effort to rest, or an attempt to identify its source. In this example the headache report, the bodily condition, and the subsequent actions are analytically distinguishable. To explain their relations, researchers must ask what can actually be observed, what can be experimentally manipulated, and which proposed relations are inferred from a person's first-person description. Privacy is a relation between an observer and the accessibility of an event; anatomical location alone provides an incomplete account. Leigland's analysis develops this issue in terms of the functional conditions connecting private events and social reinforcement.
The everyday categories 'thought' and 'feeling' are broad. Thoughts can involve internal speech, imagery, recalled information, planning, judgment, or problem solving. Feelings can involve interoceptive signals, learned emotion categories, attention to bodily change, and interpretations of situations. Treating all these as interchangeable private items would erase important differences in both Skinner's argument and contemporary research. Tourinho distinguishes private stimuli, covert responses, and wider events; the contemporary interoception research roadmap illustrates the multiplicity of mechanisms involved in bodily experience.
The Functional Logic of Skinner's Explanation
Conditions, responses, and histories
An operant analysis investigates relations among antecedent conditions, response classes, and consequences across a learning history. Skinner's approach to private events extends this functional vocabulary to circumstances that may be directly available only to the participant. The question is whether a specific sensation or covert response participates in a discriminable relation with subsequent action and whether environmental and social contingencies have established that relation. Private events can therefore have functional significance in a Skinnerian analysis without becoming a mysterious, independent inner agent. This formulation is discussed in Leigland's 2014 review.
Suppose a child says 'my stomach hurts.' The utterance might occur in the presence of gastrointestinal discomfort, anxious anticipation, previous experiences of illness, parental questions, or several of these at once. Consequences such as care, medication, permission to rest, or further questioning may affect how and when similar utterances occur in the future. An adequate study would distinguish internal sensations, contextual events, measurement of bodily states, verbal training, and consequences. Functional relations cannot be established solely by assigning the familiar mental name 'pain' or 'anxiety' to the episode. This example illustrates the logic of a research question; it is not an experiment Skinner conducted on that child. The conceptual distinction appears in Skinner 1945 and Tourinho 2006.
Why inner labels are incomplete explanations
In ordinary speech, an emotion may be both an experience to be explained and a reason people give for action. Skinner objected to accounts that end at a mental label while leaving its functional history unexplored. An account that says 'she avoided the interview because she felt nervous' may be accurate as a report of experience but does not yet identify the contingencies that generated the nervousness or sustained avoidance. Research may need information about prior encounters, anticipated consequences, bodily response, attention, and avoidance learning. The broader analytical principle is to explain events through demonstrable relations rather than to elevate a label into an autonomous explanatory source. Skinner's formulation is historically documented in About Behaviorism, while later disputes about how to apply it appear in Baum 2011.
This principle does not require ignoring subjective descriptions. A participant's report can be the object of investigation, an outcome to be predicted, or one informative measure among others. It also does not establish that all thoughts are subvocal speech or that sensations are exhaustively characterized by externally observable movements. Those are additional empirical and conceptual claims requiring their own support. Scientific precision depends on preserving the distinction between a report, an inferred mechanism, and an experimental result. Modern work on inner speech demonstrates that silent verbal experience is heterogeneous rather than equivalent to one small-movement mechanism; see Fernyhough and Borghi's 2023 review and the 2023 neuroimaging meta-analysis.
How Can a Community Teach Words for Private Experiences?
The most difficult question in Skinner's private-events analysis concerns the speaker's verbal community. Adults can teach the word 'red' while looking at the same publicly accessible object as a child. They cannot directly inspect the child's hunger, itch, fear, or felt pain in the same fashion. Skinner asked how socially reinforced language could acquire discriminative control by stimuli available primarily to the speaker. Later scholarship reconstructs four routes proposed across his 1945 and subsequent writings. These routes are functional hypotheses about verbal learning, not a claim that any single route has been experimentally demonstrated for every emotion word. See Skinner 1945 and Leigland 2014.
First route: public circumstances correlated with private stimulation
A community can reinforce a description based on a publicly evident occasion commonly associated with a private state. An adult sees a child cut a finger and supplies the word 'pain' in that setting. Repeated occasions may help establish the child's use of the term when similar private stimulation occurs without the same observable injury. Yet the correlation is imperfect: injuries differ in felt intensity, some injuries produce little pain, and a reported pain can arise without visible tissue damage. This route thus explains one source of linguistic training while leaving the exact relation between public circumstances and felt qualities an empirical matter. The account and its unresolved precision problems are discussed in Leigland 2014.
Second route: observable responses correlated with private stimulation
A community can reinforce descriptions when the speaker exhibits a posture, facial expression, groan, protective movement, or other observable response correlated with an internal condition. A child who rubs the eyes and becomes drowsy may hear 'you are tired.' Such actions supply occasions for language teaching, although they remain imperfect measures of the experience. People can conceal sensations, enact expressions without the corresponding experience, or express an emotion in culturally different ways. A rigorous interpretation must not equate observable expressions with a transparent readout of inner states. This is one of the contingencies reconstructed in Leigland's review.
Third route: extension and metaphor
Words established in publicly observable contexts may be extended to private events through shared or analogous stimulus properties. Someone may describe a pain as 'sharp,' 'burning,' or 'heavy,' borrowing vocabulary from public objects and sensations. Such extensions make rich private descriptions possible, but they do not ensure that speaker and listener experience exactly the same quality. The source relation must be studied through linguistic context, individual learning history, and patterns of use. Later behavior-analytic accounts may draw on derived stimulus relations, while contemporary language science studies metaphor by additional cognitive and linguistic methods. The Skinnerian lineage of this proposed route is documented in Leigland 2014.
Fourth route: public speech that becomes covert
A person may learn a verbal repertoire in public interaction and later produce it at a reduced or private level. Children speak instructions aloud when solving tasks, and silent rehearsal or self-directed speech can emerge through development and practice. In a Skinnerian interpretation the public and covert instances are related by their behavioral history, making private self-talk intelligible without postulating a second immaterial vocabulary. The precise developmental pathways, phenomenological varieties, and brain mechanisms are separate empirical questions. Current reviews emphasize that inner speech can be dialogic, condensed, spontaneous, or deliberately elicited and may recruit different neural systems. Compare the historical reconstruction in Leigland 2014 with Fernyhough and Borghi 2023.
What the four routes establish—and what they leave open
Together, the four routes make an important claim about psychological vocabulary: first-person reports can develop in social environments even when the community cannot directly inspect every stimulus controlling the speaker's response. Their strength lies in specifying potentially observable training histories. Their limitations include underdetermination, imperfect correlations between public and private conditions, and a scarcity of experiments that isolate the full developmental history of a specific private report. A child can also learn descriptions through several routes simultaneously. Modern behavior analysts disagree about whether these routes warrant treating private events as explanatory variables or whether publicly observable patterns over time can do comparable explanatory work. These disputes are laid out in Tourinho 2006, Baum 2011, and Leigland 2014.
Self-Observation and Knowing What One Feels
Skinner understood self-knowledge as a repertoire shaped in a social environment. People learn to describe behavior, bodily sensations, tendencies to act, and circumstances affecting them. Teachers, caregivers, clinicians, and peers ask questions and supply categories such as 'hungry,' 'angry,' 'uncertain,' or 'ready.' Over time these practices may improve the person's ability to discriminate relevant conditions. A person's description may therefore be meaningful while remaining sensitive to social context, memory, attention, and how questions are asked. The account appears in Science and Human Behavior (1953), About Behaviorism (1974), and contemporary discussion in Tourinho 2006.
Introspection has different possible meanings in this setting. At the ordinary level, a person attends to and describes an experience. As a research method, the report becomes data that require careful operationalization and reliability assessment. As a purported explanation, a report may tell the investigator less about causal organization than it appears to. Skinner's account challenges the privilege given to introspection as an infallible window onto mental causes while retaining a subject's practical ability to describe internal conditions. The epistemic question is which features of an experience a report measures reliably and which interpretations go beyond the available evidence. Baum's critique demonstrates the continuing philosophical disagreement.
An additional complication is that describing an experience can alter subsequent behavior. A person who identifies early signs of fatigue may take a break; someone who privately repeats a warning may avoid a hazard. The report and the behavior following it can enter a sequence of functional relations. At the same time, people can mislabel sensations or provide strategically motivated accounts. Treating first-person data seriously therefore requires designs that distinguish accuracy, report contingencies, expectancy effects, and independently measured outcomes. Current research on interoception and mental health makes the value and limits of subjective reporting especially apparent.
Thinking as Covert Activity, Planning, and Problem Solving
Skinner frequently interpreted thinking through behavioral processes that may occur overtly or covertly. Silent verbal rehearsal, speaking to oneself, making discriminations, manipulating a problem environment, and producing preliminary responses may all be relevant. A person mentally rehearsing a route before traveling can use language learned publicly to organize later action. From a Skinnerian perspective, the analyst asks about the learning history of that repertoire, the circumstances occasioning it, and its functional relation to subsequent behavior. These examples are interpretations consistent with Skinner's framework; they should not be mistaken for direct recordings of all private thought. The relevant historical works include Verbal Behavior (1957) and About Behaviorism (1974).
An important problem is distinguishing an activity that is genuinely ongoing but difficult to observe from an explanatory hypothesis that has been attached to a later successful performance. Imagine a participant pauses before a puzzle solution. The pause alone establishes neither the presence nor the precise content of covert rehearsal. Researchers might combine concurrent verbal protocols, timing, experimental disruption of rehearsal, working-memory tasks, and physiological or neural measurements; each method measures a different aspect of the process. The modern inner-speech review describes functional diversity, and the Pratts, Pobric, and Yao meta-analysis reports neuroimaging results that vary with the type of inner speech investigated.
Thus, the Skinnerian category of covert verbal responding supplies a historically significant functional hypothesis, while modern cognitive science offers experimentally distinct models of working memory, linguistic representation, imagery, predictive processing, and control. Results showing a role for inner speech in some tasks are evidence for the studied tasks and mechanisms. They do not establish that every form of thought is covert motor behavior or that a specific behavioral explanation alone accounts for all cognition. Interpreting present-day experiments requires the full methods and comparison conditions of each study. Fernyhough and Borghi 2023 and Pratts et al. 2023 provide empirical entry points.
Feelings, Bodily Conditions, and the Language of Emotion
Skinner viewed feeling words as descriptions that may be brought under the partial control of physiological and contextual conditions. Hunger, discomfort, tension, and relief make clear why relations between bodily conditions and action deserve investigation. But a term such as 'fear' can describe an extensive pattern involving bodily arousal, attention, memory, avoidance, social practices, and anticipated outcomes. The conceptual task is to identify which variables are being grouped by the term. Modern behavior-analytic discussion of private stimuli and complex events argues against treating all emotion labels as single, simple internal stimuli.
This point matters in empirical interpretation. Heart rate, skin conductance, and endocrine measures index aspects of physiology; questionnaires and interviews measure particular forms of self-report; avoidance tasks measure behavior under controlled conditions. None of these variables alone exhausts the category 'anxiety,' and a correlation among them does not identify a unique cause. Bodily conditions may matter for what a person feels while verbal history matters for what the person calls it. Contemporary interoception research describes perception and interpretation of internal bodily signals across different measurement domains.
Theoretical successors have formulated explanations different from Skinner's. Predictive-processing and active-interoceptive-inference approaches examine how predictions about bodily states and incoming signals interact within hierarchical models. Their value lies in generating computational and neurobiological hypotheses; they are not historical claims made by Skinner, and the explanatory status of particular predictive-processing accounts depends on direct evidence. Seth and Friston's 2016 review develops this framework. A careful comparison recognizes overlap in the importance of bodily conditions and learning while retaining real differences between models of neural inference and Skinner's functional analysis of verbal behavior.
Can Private Events Function in the Control of Overt Behavior?
Skinner's approach allowed private conditions to participate in behavioral relations. An itch may precede scratching, private self-instruction may accompany a deliberate choice, and a bodily warning sensation may occasion seeking care. Demonstrating a functional relation requires more than observing temporal sequence. Researchers must consider common causes, competing stimuli, consequences, measurement error, and alternative explanations. For example, the environmental condition producing a sensation could also change behavior, making the sensation a correlated event rather than the decisive mediator. This distinction is central to Leigland's 2014 discussion.
The empirical strategy can proceed through converging designs. A study might manipulate availability of verbal rehearsal while holding other task demands constant, examine whether disrupting inner speech changes performance, and compare results with physiological or neuroimaging measures. Another could examine public correlates of privately reported sensations while carefully recording the language-learning circumstances that shape reports. Even such evidence seldom identifies every private event directly; it can narrow the range of credible functional accounts. Current experimental techniques extend the reach of observation, yet neural decoding and subjective reporting remain distinct kinds of evidence. The 2023 inner-speech meta-analysis and interoception roadmap illustrate what systematic measurement can and cannot support.
Skinner's philosophical use of functional explanation should be evaluated separately from particular empirical successes. Laboratory principles of reinforcement can be tested by manipulating consequences and measuring response patterns. A hypothetical private event that has never been independently specified or manipulated has a weaker evidential status. Likewise, showing a brain correlate of a reported thought does not adjudicate by itself whether mental vocabulary should be analyzed at the level of neural mechanisms, individual functional relations, or extended patterns of activity. Such issues motivate continuing argument among behavior analysts and cognitive scientists. See Baum 2011 and Leigland 2014.
Experimental and Methodological Challenges
The first-person and third-person gap
A private experience is available to its participant in a way another observer cannot reproduce exactly. This gap is especially important in developmental research, comparative studies with nonhuman animals, and clinical settings where communication is limited. Researchers use behavioral tasks, verbal reports, bodily measures, and neuroimaging to build convergent evidence, but each measure has its own validity limits. Inferences about unseen states should be proportional to the method that generated them. Tourinho 2006 explains why different forms of privacy should not be collapsed into a single methodological category.
Training histories and social desirability
The same private sensation may produce different descriptions across languages and experiences. Parents, teachers, clinicians, and cultural communities influence how sensations and emotions are named, when they are disclosed, and what follows disclosure. Researchers seeking to test verbal learning accounts must record or manipulate contextual variables while avoiding the assumption that socially shaped descriptions are therefore meaningless. Reports can be useful and sincere even when their vocabulary is acquired through social reinforcement. Skinner 1945 supplies the historical analysis; Leigland 2014 discusses the conditions for its functional interpretation.
Correlation, causation, and level of analysis
A private report, a brain activation pattern, and a behavioral choice may correlate without any of the measured variables uniquely explaining the others. Functional analysis, computational modeling, and cognitive neuroscience address different levels of organization. The researcher should state whether the target is prediction, manipulation of responding, a neural mechanism, developmental acquisition of self-descriptions, or the conscious character of experience. A test of an individual behavioral contingency cannot substitute for a test of a neural model, and a neural association cannot alone establish the learning history of a particular word. This distinction follows from the heterogeneous research programs examined in Leigland 2014, Seth and Friston 2016, and Pratts et al. 2023.
Disagreement Within Behavior Analysis
Skinnerian functional accounts
An influential position retains Skinner's concept of private events as possible functional elements in a comprehensive analysis of behavior. Sam Leigland argues that a multiscale account can address both individual private events and the extended public relations emphasized by critics. This approach treats the old problem of privacy as a research and conceptual agenda, proposing questions about verbal learning and relations among behavior patterns rather than declaring the answer established. Leigland 2014 provides a documented presentation.
Molar and teleological behaviorism
William M. Baum's molar behaviorism argues that extended observable environment–behavior relations can account for psychological vocabulary without assigning an explanatory role to posited private events. Howard Rachlin's teleological approach likewise emphasizes patterns of activity extended in time. Their proposals are independent later developments, not doctrines that Skinner himself adopted. Disagreement concerns what counts as a satisfactory scientific explanation and whether privately accessible episodes improve prediction and explanation or introduce avoidable inferential difficulties. Compare Baum 2011 with Leigland 2014.
Clarifying the category of privacy
Emmanuel Zagury Tourinho argues that private stimuli, covert responses, and phenomena described as private events must be distinguished because psychological terms often cover complex relations among internal stimulation, action, and social context. His analysis makes explicit a difficulty already present in Skinner's writings: a discussion of the privacy of pain may not transfer unchanged to a discussion of shame, identity, or anxiety. This conceptual refinement helps researchers formulate more precise questions. It is subsequent scholarship by Tourinho, not an original experimental taxonomy attributed to Skinner. See Tourinho 2006.
These disagreements are not settled by the simple question of whether thoughts and feelings 'exist.' The disputes concern definitions, explanatory necessity, observation, causal claims, and the correct scale of analysis. A rigorous account therefore presents the principal alternatives as substantive scientific and philosophical proposals while identifying where discriminating tests remain limited. The 2000 symposium introduction, Baum's 2011 argument, and Leigland's 2014 response document the continuing discussion.
Private Events and Contemporary Psychological Research
Inner speech and cognitive science
Modern studies of inner speech use interference paradigms, elicited tasks, questionnaires, and neuroimaging to distinguish functions and forms of silent language. Reviews identify differences between internal dialogue, condensed self-talk, and deliberately generated verbal thought. In a 2023 activation-likelihood-estimation meta-analysis, Pratts, Pobric, and Yao observed that neuroimaging patterns vary according to phenomenological classifications, with speech-production regions not uniformly activated across inner-speech subtypes. These results complicate any universal account of thinking as simply reduced speech movement. They do not erase Skinner's historically important question about how self-directed language is learned. See Fernyhough and Borghi 2023 and Pratts et al. 2023.
Interoception, embodiment, and emotional experience
Research on interoception differentiates bodily signals, detection, subjective interpretation, attention, and clinically relevant outcomes. The interdisciplinary roadmap by Khalsa and colleagues illustrates how difficult it is to infer a unitary internal ability from a single questionnaire or physiological task. Seth and Friston's active-inference model offers another conceptual framework for bodily prediction and emotional experience. These modern contributions are relevant comparisons because they investigate bodily conditions and first-person reports with empirical methods. They are independent theories rather than validations of Skinner's entire account. Sources: Khalsa et al. 2018 and Seth and Friston 2016.
Contemporary contextual behavioral approaches
Later contextual behavioral therapies, including acceptance and commitment therapy, examine relationships among behavior, language, experiences, and environment. They emerged through subsequent researchers and distinct theoretical developments; clinical claims about their benefits must be evaluated through actual intervention trials rather than inferred from Skinner's philosophical arguments. A 2026 systematic review and meta-analysis of 34 randomized comparisons found that full-model acceptance and commitment therapy was not superior overall to other bona fide psychotherapies on the assessed outcomes, while identifying important design limitations. This is evidence about those interventions and trials, not direct experimental confirmation or refutation of Skinner's private-events analysis. See Gower, Styler, and Litz 2026.
Scientific Status: What Is Established, Limited, and Contested?
Established findings include the fact that humans report bodily sensations and inner speech, the influence of environmental and social context on verbal behavior, and the presence of measurable behavioral and physiological processes associated with many of these experiences. Laboratory procedures can show causal effects of manipulations on particular responses and tasks. Contemporary research also supports differentiated neurocognitive mechanisms of inner speech and multiple components of interoceptive processing. These findings are supported by evidence within their tested settings; see Fernyhough and Borghi 2023, Pratts et al. 2023, and Khalsa et al. 2018.
The evidence is more limited for reconstructing the precise developmental reinforcement history of every private psychological term and for determining the extent to which reported private events exert distinct functional control after all common environmental variables are considered. Skinner's four routes are historically grounded proposals; their relevance differs by type of report and task. The behavioral analyses of privacy are useful conceptual tools, but their adequacy cannot be claimed solely by invoking Skinner's authority. Tourinho 2006 and Leigland 2014 emphasize those unresolved issues.
Contested positions concern whether private events are indispensable explanatory elements, whether mental categories should be interpreted mainly in extended behavioral patterns, and how neural and subjective evidence should be integrated with functional analysis. These questions involve competing standards of explanation as well as empirical constraints. A synthesis faithful to the literature maintains the differences among private stimulation, covert activity, self-report, neural measurement, and the subjective character of experience. Baum 2011, Leigland 2014, and Tourinho 2006 articulate alternative ways to organize the evidence.
Ethical and Clinical Implications
Private reports deserve careful interpretation, especially when the speaker communicates pain, fear, trauma, or distress. A functional perspective encourages attention to situations, consequences, histories, and opportunities for support; it does not justify disbelieving a person because the experience cannot be publicly observed. Ethical assessment uses first-person information, relevant clinical measures, and contextual evidence together. In clinical work, a symptom report must be distinguished from a diagnosis and from a causal theory of that symptom. Screening instruments, diagnostic interviews, physiological assessments, and behavior observations serve different purposes. The interoception and mental-health review illustrates this multidimensional approach.
A behavioral description of how reports are acquired also has implications for power and trust. Punishing or dismissing expressions of pain can change what individuals disclose without proving that pain has ceased. Reward contingencies may influence reports while distress persists. Clinical and educational decisions must be guided by informed consent, respect for communication differences, protection from coercion, and independently tested interventions. For psychotherapy specifically, contemporary evidence reviews and practice guidelines are required; the historical theory cannot substitute for clinical trials. Gower, Styler, and Litz 2026 highlights the importance of comparison treatments and rigorous design when intervention efficacy is at issue.
Historical Significance and Continuing Influence
Skinner's enduring contribution was to turn the problem of private psychological vocabulary into an explicit problem for the science of behavior. He asked how a person learns to speak about experiences that others cannot directly inspect, why verbal descriptions vary, and how the history of interaction with the environment may affect what is reported. His account connected the experimental vocabulary of operant analysis with philosophical questions about introspection and self-knowledge. Its 1945 formulation preceded his major postwar books and shaped decades of debate within behavior analysis. The most important historical anchors are Skinner 1945, Skinner 1963, and the Foundation bibliography.
The scientific value of this legacy lies in questions that remain measurable and precise: what controls a person's description of an inner state, how do overt and covert repertoires develop, when do reported experiences predict subsequent actions, and what can experimental or physiological methods establish about underlying processes? Subsequent work by Tourinho, Baum, Leigland, and cognitive neuroscientists demonstrates that these questions can be pursued through competing explanatory frameworks. Reading Skinner with attention to historical attribution and contemporary evidence makes his treatment of private events an instructive case in how psychology connects observation, language, experience, and causal investigation. See Tourinho 2006, Baum 2011, and Leigland 2014.
Frequently Asked Questions
Did B. F. Skinner deny that people have thoughts and feelings?
Skinner recognized thoughts, feelings, sensations, and covert activity as subjects for scientific explanation. His argument concerned how to interpret their occurrence, how verbal reports about them are learned, and whether mental labels identify independently demonstrated causes. Private events figured explicitly in his 1945, 1953, 1963, and 1974 writings. Skinner 1945; Skinner 1963.
What is the difference between a private stimulus and a covert response?
A private stimulus refers to conditions accessible principally to the participant, such as aspects of bodily discomfort. A covert response refers to responding occurring at a level or in a form not readily observable by others, such as silent verbal rehearsal. Complex private events may involve both and additional behavioral and social relations. Tourinho 2006.
How can a child learn to say 'I am in pain'?
Skinner proposed that verbal communities can establish descriptions of private conditions through public situations correlated with the condition, correlated observable reactions, extension of public descriptive vocabulary, and development of covert forms of speech from publicly trained repertoires. These are possible training routes, with individual reports requiring their own evidence. Leigland 2014.
Is private speech the same as all human thinking?
Private speech is one studied kind of thought-related activity. Contemporary evidence distinguishes forms of inner speech and indicates that different tasks and subtypes engage different cognitive and neural mechanisms. The category does not provide a universal definition of all thinking. Fernyhough and Borghi 2023; Pratts et al. 2023.
Is Skinner's explanation of private events scientifically proven?
His framework contains identifiable historical arguments and testable functional questions. Evidence supports numerous individual findings concerning learning, language, inner speech, and bodily experience. The full philosophical interpretation of private events remains debated within behavior analysis, and particular developmental explanations require their own empirical demonstrations. Baum 2011; Leigland 2014.
Related Articles
B. F. Skinner — The central scientific chapter places the treatment of private experience within Skinner's wider intellectual development, operant experiments, books, and historical legacy.
Learning Theories in Education: Behaviorism, Cognitivism, Constructivism, and Sociocultural Learning — Compares learning frameworks and their educational scope; Skinner's account of private events remains a separate historical and conceptual question.
Behavioral Neuroscience: How the Nervous System Shapes Behavior — Introduces the contemporary neural and physiological level of analysis relevant to the study of internal states.
Behavior Change Techniques: What Research Supports — Reviews intervention components and evidence instead of assigning contemporary efficacy to Skinner's philosophical proposals.
B. F. Skinner's Radical Behaviorism — The philosophical scope of radical behaviorism.
B. F. Skinner's Verbal Behavior — The 1957 book and its account of verbal behavior.
B. F. Skinner's About Behaviorism — Skinner's 1974 interpretation of behavioral science.
References
Anderson, C. M., Hawkins, R. P., Freeman, K. A., and Scotti, J. R. (2000). Private events: Do they belong in a science of human behavior? The Behavior Analyst, 23(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03391995
B. F. Skinner Foundation. (n.d.). Books. https://www.bfskinner.org/publications/books
B. F. Skinner Foundation. (n.d.). Full bibliography. https://www.bfskinner.org/publications/full-bibliography/
Baum, W. M. (2011). Behaviorism, private events, and the molar view of behavior. The Behavior Analyst, 34(2), 185–200. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03392249
Fernyhough, C., and Borghi, A. M. (2023). Inner speech as language process and cognitive tool. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 27(12), 1180–1193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2023.08.014
Gower, T., Styler, Z. R., and Litz, B. T. (2026). Randomized controlled evidence of the efficacy of acceptance and commitment therapy: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 128, 102786. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2026.102786
Khalsa, S. S., et al. (2018). Interoception and mental health: A roadmap. Biological Psychiatry: Cognitive Neuroscience and Neuroimaging, 3(6), 501–513. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpsc.2017.12.004
Leigland, S. (2014). Contingency horizon: On private events and the analysis of behavior. The Behavior Analyst, 37(1), 13–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40614-014-0002-5
Pratts, J., Pobric, G., and Yao, B. (2023). Bridging phenomenology and neural mechanisms of inner speech: ALE meta-analysis on egocentricity and spontaneity in a dual-mechanistic framework. NeuroImage, 282, 120399. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2023.120399
Seth, A. K., and Friston, K. J. (2016). Active interoceptive inference and the emotional brain. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 371, 20160007. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2016.0007
Skinner, B. F. (1945). The operational analysis of psychological terms. Psychological Review, 52(5), 270–277; supplementary discussion 291–294. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0062535
Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior. Macmillan. https://www.bfskinner.org/publications/books
Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal behavior. Appleton-Century-Crofts. https://www.bfskinner.org/publications/books
Skinner, B. F. (1963). Behaviorism at fifty. Science, 140(3570), 951–958. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.140.3570.951
Skinner, B. F. (1974). About behaviorism. Knopf. https://books.google.com/books/about/About_behaviorism.html?id=dsPV3S1wmfEC
Tourinho, E. Z. (2006). Private stimuli, covert responses, and private events: Conceptual remarks. The Behavior Analyst, 29(1), 13–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03392115