Research figure: B. F. Skinner · Written by Artificial Sapiens
What Is The Behavior of Organisms?
B. F. Skinner's The Behavior of Organisms: An Experimental Analysis (1938) is the foundational monograph in which Burrhus Frederic Skinner organized his early experiments into a systematic science of behavior. Its central proposition is methodological and empirical: the behavior of an individual organism can be measured continuously, altered through controlled environmental conditions, and analyzed as a function of those conditions. The book established a distinctive experimental approach to operant behavior, examined the relations among reinforcement, extinction, discrimination, deprivation, and response rate, and presented the distinction between respondent and operant classes within a broader system of behavioral analysis. Its importance lies in the conjunction of apparatus, experimental strategy, observational measures, concepts, and an explicit scientific program. Skinner, 1938; B. F. Skinner Foundation, Books.
The complete original title matters. The phrase An Experimental Analysis identifies an inquiry grounded in controlled behavioral observations rather than a general manifesto about human nature. The principal organisms in the experimental work were laboratory rats, and the central observations concerned repeatable patterns in relatively simple responses under controlled circumstances. Skinner's findings supported a productive experimental tradition, while their extension to complex human language, culture, and clinical treatment required additional theories, methods, and independent evidence. Skinner, 1938; Catania, 1988.
Publication, Authorship, and the Original Edition
The book appeared in 1938 in New York through D. Appleton-Century Company as a volume in the Century Psychology Series. The original volume contains 457 numbered pages of main text. Contemporary bibliographic records and the B. F. Skinner Foundation agree on the year, title, author, and publisher. A historical assessment by A. Charles Catania identifies September 2, 1938, as the date of its first printing and reports a small initial printing of 800 copies. This print history describes the reception of a specialized experimental monograph rather than the immediate arrival of a mass-market bestseller. B. F. Skinner Foundation, Books; Google Books, 1938 record; Catania, 1988.
Skinner had developed the research during his formative years at Harvard, including graduate work and postdoctoral research. The published experiments emerged from an extended program of apparatus building, methodological revision, and observation rather than a single experiment conducted for the book. Earlier papers, including his 1935 analysis of different kinds of conditioned reflexes, show that the conceptual distinction on which the monograph depends was already being developed before 1938. Harvard's historical record and the National Academy of Sciences biographical memoir place this work within Skinner's transition from literary interests to independent experimental psychology. Skinner, 1935; Harvard Department of Psychology; National Academy of Sciences biographical memoir.
Readers should distinguish the 1938 original from subsequent editions and editorial additions. Skinner supplied a retrospective preface for the 1966 paperback edition. Later Foundation publications have included new editorial material, including a foreword by William H. Morse and, in an extended edition, Skinner's separate 1988 reflection. Those texts are historically valuable commentaries on the book's development, but they belong to their own dates. A proposition expressed in a later introduction should not automatically be assigned to the first-edition argument. B. F. Skinner Foundation, Extended Edition; B. F. Skinner Foundation, 2016 edition notice.
The Intellectual Problem Skinner Inherited
At the beginning of the twentieth century, experimental psychologists confronted multiple traditions for explaining learning. Ivan Pavlov had established an influential program around conditioned reflexes and relations between stimuli and elicited responses. Edward L. Thorndike's experiments with animal learning and his law of effect emphasized the role of consequences in strengthening or weakening connections between situations and responses. John B. Watson's 1913 behaviorist program urged psychology toward publicly observable behavior. Skinner inherited this unsettled intellectual territory and sought a general experimental vocabulary capable of describing behavior at the level at which it could actually be observed and manipulated. Skinner, 1938; National Academy of Sciences biographical memoir.
The law of effect belongs historically to Thorndike. The public program of early behaviorism belongs to Watson. Skinner's achievement in the 1938 book was the construction of a coherent operant experimental system: specified responses, controlled consequences, continuous records, and repeatable manipulations of the variables affecting behavior. He was neither simply renaming Thorndike's puzzle-box results nor extending Pavlov's conditioned-salivation procedure without modification. He changed the unit of observation and the kinds of relations an experimenter could study. Skinner, 1935; Skinner, 1938.
The contemporaneous attraction of theoretical explanations in terms of internal drives, neural pathways, associations, or purposive expectations was another target of Skinner's methodological reform. His choice was to analyze demonstrable relations between controlled circumstances and measured responses before assigning those relations to hypothetical physiological mechanisms. This choice defined the explanatory level of his experiments. It did not establish that the nervous system was causally irrelevant; it established that an unmeasured neural process could not substitute for a measured behavioral relation in the experiment at hand. Skinner, 1938, Chapters I, II, and XII.
The Structure and Argument of the Thirteen Chapters
The table of contents reveals the book's scientific architecture. Chapters I and II, A System of Behavior and Scope and Method, specify its fundamental units and experimental procedures. Chapters III and IV, Conditioning and Extinction and Periodic Reconditioning, investigate changes in operant activity when consequences are introduced, removed, or arranged over time. Chapters V through VII address stimulus control in The Discrimination of a Stimulus, Some Functions of Stimuli, and Temporal Discrimination of the Stimulus. Chapter VIII, The Differentiation of a Response, studies how consequences can selectively alter the form of responding. Skinner, 1938, contents and Chapters I–VIII.
The later chapters examine the contribution of other variables. Chapter IX, Drive, addresses motivational operations and deprivation. Chapter X, Drive and Conditioning: The Interaction of Two Variables, considers how variables may jointly affect the measured behavior. Chapter XI, Other Variables Affecting Reflex Strength, extends the search for experimentally tractable determinants. Chapter XII, Behavior and the Nervous System, sets boundaries around physiological interpretation. Chapter XIII, Conclusion, returns to the status and scope of the behavioral science Skinner was trying to construct. These chapters form a research progression: define a measurable phenomenon, identify controllable determinants, investigate their interactions, and specify what kind of causal explanation the results authorize. Skinner, 1938, contents and Chapters IX–XIII.
Why the book's sequence matters
Treating The Behavior of Organisms merely as the origin of a classroom definition of reinforcement misses most of its scientific content. The book asks how to establish a stable unit of behavior, how to compare phases within one organism, how the distribution of reinforcers changes patterns of responding, and how discriminative circumstances and motivational conditions enter into a functional analysis. Skinner's concepts were developed together with his instruments and records. A reader who approaches the chapters as a connected methodological argument can therefore explain the results more accurately than a reader who extracts only a list of terminology. Catania, 1988.
Respondent and Operant Behavior
The respondent-operant distinction is among the book's most consequential conceptual contributions. Respondent behavior is analyzed through the relation between an eliciting stimulus and a response, a framework developed in conditioned-reflex research. The presentation of food and salivation illustrate the classical reflex tradition, although the concrete relation changes across unconditioned and conditioned procedures. Operant behavior is analyzed through the occurrence of a response class and the consequences that follow some of its instances. Lever pressing by a rat is a useful example: many movements can produce the operation of the lever, and the experimental interest centers on how the rate and distribution of those effective movements change when food delivery depends upon them. Skinner, 1935; Skinner, 1938, Chapter I.
A common oversimplification describes the operant as a response with no stimulus. Skinner's point is more precise. The operant is defined primarily by its relation to consequences and by the response class being measured; it need not be elicited at a fixed short latency by one experimentally identifiable antecedent stimulus. Antecedent circumstances can nevertheless acquire discriminative functions. The later vocabulary of a three-term contingency clarifies the connection among discriminative context, response, and consequence, although a fully developed later formulation should be distinguished from the concepts and terminology in the 1938 first edition. Skinner, 1938, Chapters I and V; Skinner, 1966 preface reproduced in later edition.
The distinction is functional rather than anatomical. A particular visible movement may belong to different experimentally defined relations depending on the procedure in which it occurs. In operant analysis the experimenter therefore needs to specify both the response criterion and the contingency of consequences. The mere existence of a movement, or a subsequent reward presented independently of it, does not establish an operant reinforcement relation. Skinner, 1938, Chapters I–III.
An Experimental Method Built Around the Individual Organism
The chamber, manipulandum, and controlled consequence
Skinner's arrangement combined a controlled experimental space, a manipulandum such as a lever, a mechanism for arranging food delivery, and equipment for recording responses over time. The experimental organism could emit responses repeatedly without being returned to a start position by the investigator after each trial. Food delivery could then be made contingent on a specified response or scheduled by an explicit experimental rule. Such apparatus reduced some of the interruptions and observer-dependent judgments associated with earlier learning tasks. Skinner, 1938, Chapter II; B. F. Skinner Foundation, 2018 historical overview.
The chamber later became widely known as a Skinner box, but its historical role in this monograph was instrumental rather than theatrical. It made behavior measurable as a continuous temporal process. A lever was chosen because it produced an operationally distinct event that could be registered automatically. This helped the investigator estimate response rates and changes in performance under controlled conditions. Apparatus alone produced no theory: its significance depended on procedures that connected a recorded event to manipulated consequences. Skinner, 1938, Chapter II.
Response rate and the cumulative record
A core methodological proposal was to treat the frequency of a specified operant response over time as a primary datum. In a cumulative record, successive responses advance a pen or trace, while time moves along another axis. A steeper line represents more responses in the corresponding interval, whereas a flatter line represents fewer. Pauses, transitions, accelerations, and steady patterns become visible directly in the record. The measured quantity is the number and temporal distribution of experimentally defined responses, rather than an inference about an invisible store of knowledge. Skinner, 1938, Chapters II–IV.
Continuous recording changed what counted as evidence. A sequence of responses within one session could reveal changes that a single end-of-session score would obscure. The investigator could compare baseline behavior, the introduction of reinforcement, extinction, and recovery across repeated phases. Modern single-case experimental analysis retains the importance of temporally ordered observations, replication within and across organisms, and explicit demonstrations that a manipulated variable controls a change in behavior. Yet statistical generalization, individual variability, measurement reliability, and replication across settings require separate scrutiny; a compelling cumulative trace is not automatically a population effect. Skinner, 1938, Chapter II; Catania, 1988.
Experimental units and inferential limits
The laboratory rat was both the organism under study and the site of an extended experimental history. Skinner organized observations around a specified response, a schedule of events, an individual's previous exposure, and an environmental context. This permits strong within-case causal demonstrations when confounding conditions are adequately controlled, but the validity of any general principle depends on replication and on determining which parameters transfer across organisms and situations. The book should therefore be read as a sequence of experimental demonstrations, not as a representative statistical survey of humans or animals generally. Skinner, 1938, Chapters II–IV.
Conditioning, Reinforcement, and Extinction
In the book's operant procedures, delivery of food could follow the designated response according to an experimental contingency. Repeated arrangements of that consequence often changed the subsequent rate of the response class. For Skinner, this was a lawful relation requiring its own measurement rather than a restatement of the animal's presumed awareness of a reward. The relevant dependent variable was the behavior observed over time; the critical independent variables included the contingency and temporal arrangement of food delivery, preceding history, and deprivation. Skinner, 1938, Chapter III.
Extinction was examined by discontinuing reinforcement that had previously maintained responding. Lever pressing could persist for a period, change its rate, and eventually decline under the altered condition. Its trajectory depended on the animal's history, including previous reinforcement arrangements. The fact that behavior continues temporarily after the contingency changes is scientifically important: behavior has a history, and current responses cannot always be understood through the last event alone. Skinner, 1938, Chapters III and IV.
The book also employed explanatory devices that belong to the evolution of Skinner's own theory. The reflex reserve, for example, was an attempt to capture features of the amount and course of responding after reinforcement histories. Such a construct offered a historically intelligible way to organize observed relations, but it did not become a universally accepted physiological quantity or an independently validated stock of responses stored inside an animal. Later behavior analysts revised how they described extinction and reinforcement history. The enduring empirical phenomena should therefore be separated from the continued validity of every early theoretical term. Skinner, 1938, Chapter III; Catania, 1988.
Periodic Reconditioning and the Origins of Schedule Research
Chapter IV addresses what occurs when reinforcement is periodic or intermittent instead of following every qualifying response. Skinner's experiments showed that the arrangement of reinforcement in time changes patterns of responding and the behavior observed when reinforcement is later removed. This shift widened the explanatory question. The experimenter needed to specify not just whether reinforcement happened but how opportunities, elapsed time, and past consequences were organized. Skinner, 1938, Chapter IV.
These investigations provided an early foundation for later research on schedules of reinforcement. The comprehensive 1957 volume Schedules of Reinforcement, however, was written jointly by Charles B. Ferster and B. F. Skinner. Its mature comparative treatment of schedule-generated performance must be attributed to both authors and distinguished from the earlier monograph. Fixed-ratio, variable-ratio, fixed-interval, and variable-interval schedules became canonical categories in subsequent work, but their later systematic presentation should not be retroactively treated as the complete contents of the 1938 chapter. B. F. Skinner Foundation, Books; Skinner, 1938, Chapter IV.
A modern understanding of schedules also requires a careful distinction between temporal correlation and response-dependent reinforcement. A food event delivered after some elapsed time may affect responding differently depending on whether the event is contingent on a response, signaled by a stimulus, or merely coincides with responding. Schedule-generated performance can reflect more than a single elementary strengthening process: timing, discriminative control, prior learning, motivation, and alternative activities all matter. Skinner, 1938, Chapters IV–VII; Herrnstein, 1970.
Discrimination, Stimulus Functions, and Temporal Control
Stimuli as conditions for differential responding
Chapters V and VI investigate how a stimulus comes to alter the occurrence of an operant when reinforcement conditions differ across circumstances. A signal present during reinforced responding can acquire control over the rate of that behavior, while a different situation may come to support less responding. Such discrimination depends on the organism's history of consequences within distinct stimulus conditions. It is therefore more informative than an account in which a stimulus is assumed to trigger every later response mechanically. Skinner, 1938, Chapters V and VI.
Skinner's experiments also explored stimulus generalization, induction, and the relations among stimuli rather than presupposing a rigid one-to-one mapping between sensory input and action. A functional stimulus is defined through its effects under a specified history and procedure. A colored light, tone, or other laboratory cue has no universal behavioral meaning outside the conditions that established and measured its role. Distinguishing the physical properties of the stimulus from its learned function is an essential discipline in interpreting these experiments. Skinner, 1938, Chapters V and VI.
The organization of behavior in time
Chapter VII, Temporal Discrimination of the Stimulus, considers temporal relations as variables in behavioral control. Responding can become differentiated by delay and by the temporal organization of prior events. This is a major conceptual expansion because time itself affects the distribution of responses: a rate measured across a whole session may hide systematic pauses or periods of concentrated responding. The cumulative record and programmed consequences provided the evidence through which such temporal patterns became experimentally visible. Skinner, 1938, Chapter VII.
Subsequent quantitative research developed more precise accounts of response allocation, temporal control, and choice. Richard Herrnstein's matching-law analysis is one example of later work that described systematic relations between relative responding and relative reinforcement in particular concurrent arrangements. It extends the experimental tradition but represents a separate author's theoretical and quantitative contribution. Herrnstein, 1970.
Differentiation of Responding and the History of Shaping
Chapter VIII investigates the differentiation of a response. A response class can be narrowed or changed when consequences depend on specified features of performance. This moves beyond counting any lever press as equivalent and asks how dimensions of responding become selectively maintained. Response differentiation is a key historical route toward the later practical language of shaping by successive approximations. Skinner, 1938, Chapter VIII.
The mature training technique of shaping is best understood as a systematic arrangement of reinforcement for progressively closer approximations to a target performance. Its intellectual ancestry includes Skinner's research, but the textbook description of shaping should not be mistaken for an exhaustive representation of Chapter VIII. Later laboratory practice with other species and different tasks developed the procedure considerably. The scientific question remains how the precise differential contingency, the variation available to the organism, and the training history combine to produce changed response topography. Skinner, 1938, Chapter VIII; B. F. Skinner Foundation, bibliography.
Drive, Deprivation, and Interacting Variables
Chapters IX and X examine the question Skinner described through drive. In food-reinforced experiments, deprivation and the conditions under which food can function as an effective consequence matter to behavior. Changing the time since feeding or other motivational circumstances can alter responding even when the nominal reinforcement contingency remains the same. Skinner accordingly treated deprivation as an experimentally manipulable variable and considered its interaction with conditioning history. Skinner, 1938, Chapters IX and X.
The term drive had a wide theoretical life in contemporary psychology, and different researchers assigned it different explanatory roles. Skinner's treatment was shaped by his commitment to observable operations and measured behavior, whereas competing drive theories sometimes proposed intervening variables with broader theoretical scope. This historical contrast matters because a deprivation operation is experimentally concrete, while a general quantity called drive requires further justification if it is presented as an internal causal entity. Skinner, 1938, Chapters IX and X; Catania, 1988.
Chapter XI studies additional variables affecting what the book calls reflex strength. The chapter situates measured behavior in a multidimensional experimental system instead of attributing every change in response rate to reinforcement alone. A rate can reflect reinforcement history, deprivation, preceding experimental conditions, drug-related manipulations, temporal context, and competing behavioral tendencies. Experimental interpretation therefore depends on controlling and documenting such influences. Skinner, 1938, Chapter XI.
What the Original Experiments Actually Demonstrated
The monograph documents a family of controlled experimental effects, not one grand demonstration with one numerical outcome. Skinner observed and analyzed changes in repeated lever-pressing behavior when reinforcement was arranged, withdrawn, or delivered periodically; when stimuli differentiated the occasions for reinforcement; and when deprivation or other experimental variables were modified. The central data products were time-series patterns and comparisons across imposed conditions. Readers should examine particular figures within the original chapters before assigning sample sizes, response totals, or exact effect magnitudes to any named procedure. Skinner, 1938, Chapters II–XI.
These experiments established that laboratory behavior can be highly orderly under specified conditions. Their strongest conclusions concern functional relationships within the tested arrangements. Individual diagrams should be interpreted in light of the full sequence of conditions, possible carryover from prior training, and the organism's physiological and behavioral history. The work did not establish that any conceivable animal or human action is governed by one identical equation or that all relevant internal mechanisms had already been discovered. Skinner, 1938, Chapter XIII; Hilgard, 1939/1988.
A second contribution lies in the reversibility and replicability of experimental manipulations. By designing successive conditions and repeating observations, researchers could seek consistent changes in the rate or pattern of behavior when a relevant variable was introduced or removed. This within-organism logic helped establish the experimental analysis of behavior as a research tradition. Its rigor rests on the design and quality of each comparison, with additional replication needed for generality. Catania, 1988; Skinner, 1938.
The Nervous System and the Level of Scientific Explanation
Chapter XII, Behavior and the Nervous System, is especially important for readers who equate behaviorism with a claim that brains are irrelevant. Skinner argued for a science of behavior whose experimentally supported relations could be formulated without inventing specific neurological mechanisms beyond the evidence available. Physiological accounts may eventually connect behavior to neural events, but an untested neurological story cannot explain away an empirical relation that has yet to be demonstrated. His position organized scientific labor across levels of analysis. Skinner, 1938, Chapter XII.
Modern neuroscience has furnished independent evidence about reward processing, action selection, and learning-related signals. The dopamine reward-prediction error findings associated with Wolfram Schultz, Peter Dayan, and P. Read Montague are an important later development, connecting aspects of reinforcement learning to neural activity. Those experiments are not direct confirmations of all Skinner's philosophical positions, nor are they evidence that he formulated the later computational models. They operate with different explanatory variables, technologies, and inferential commitments. Schultz, Dayan, and Montague, 1997.
Historical Reception and Scientific Controversy
The first scholarly reception was mixed. Ernest R. Hilgard's 1939 review recognized methodological originality while examining the explanatory limitations of the proposed system. The review was republished in the Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior in 1988, together with a retrospective note by Hilgard. A. Charles Catania's 1988 assessment further located the book within an evolving body of scientific work, rather than portraying every early proposition as the final form of behavior analysis. Their reflections are particularly useful because they distinguish the striking originality of the experimental program from debates about theoretical vocabulary and generalization. Hilgard, 1939/1988; Catania, 1988.
Initial circulation was limited. Catania recounts how later teaching by Fred S. Keller and W. N. Schoenfeld helped establish the book within a developing academic tradition, especially after World War II. This reception history shows that the book's authority was constructed through subsequent educational use, research programs, and methodological adoption rather than immediate universal professional agreement. Catania, 1988.
Debates focused on whether the focus on response rate and environmental manipulation captured the explanatory complexity of behavior; how to interpret concepts such as reflex reserve, drive, and response strength; how to account for diverse species and tasks; and whether the methods could be extended to cognitive processes, language, and social contexts. Critics and successors worked within different research traditions, and their disagreements cannot be resolved simply by comparing labels such as behavioral or cognitive. The appropriate test is whether each proposed account generates reliable measurements, discriminating predictions, and evidence under the conditions at issue. Hilgard, 1939/1988; Catania, 1988.
How Skinner's Own Interpretation Changed After 1938
Skinner's later writings refined the language with which he interpreted his early findings. The 1966 preface to The Behavior of Organisms is particularly revealing because it discusses the relation of the original study to subsequent developments and acknowledges changes in the field. Later treatments of discriminative control, reinforcement, and the three-term contingency provide a more mature conceptual framework. The 1981 essay Selection by Consequences situates the analysis in an explicitly evolutionary analogy involving changes within the lifetime of an organism and broader levels of selection. These later statements illuminate the historical trajectory, but they should be assigned to their actual dates. Skinner, 1966 preface; Skinner, 1981.
A similar chronological rule applies to general schedules of reinforcement. Ferster and Skinner's 1957 coauthored Schedules of Reinforcement represents a further experimental synthesis and a different publication. Skinner's 1953 Science and Human Behavior expanded attention to human conduct and institutions. Those works are part of the history stemming from The Behavior of Organisms, but they cannot be substituted for its original text when analyzing what the 1938 book itself claimed. B. F. Skinner Foundation, Books.
Contemporary Learning Science: What Endures and What Has Developed
Reinforcement and response allocation
Contingent consequences remain an experimentally powerful determinant of behavior. Contemporary studies of operant and instrumental learning investigate response allocation, sensitivity to different reinforcement schedules, choice between alternatives, and changing motivation. Herrnstein's quantitative matching formulation illustrates how later research formalized behavioral allocation beyond the descriptive patterns in the original 1938 monograph. The success of such models depends on the tested conditions and their recognized deviations, not on the assumption that one formula applies without qualification to every choice. Herrnstein, 1970.
Goal-directed action and habit
Modern research distinguishes among actions sensitive to the current value of an outcome and its causal contingency, well-practiced behaviors that become less sensitive to some outcome changes, and other forms of learned performance. Work by Bernard Balleine and Anthony Dickinson used outcome devaluation and contingency manipulations to clarify such distinctions in instrumental learning. These research questions extend beyond the response-rate analyses of 1938 and show why identical response frequencies can be generated by different mechanisms. Balleine and Dickinson, 1998.
Extinction, relapse, and context
Current evidence establishes that extinction often involves new, context-sensitive inhibitory learning, so a response can return after apparent extinction through renewal, reinstatement, spontaneous recovery, or other arrangements. The historical observation that responding declines when reinforcement is withheld remains sound within specified procedures, but extinction cannot be equated with permanent erasure of the original learning. A comprehensive modern review by Mark Bouton, Stephen Maren, and Gavan McNally integrates evidence concerning both Pavlovian and instrumental extinction and their neural and contextual mechanisms. Bouton, Maren, and McNally, 2021.
Neurobiology and computational reinforcement learning
Modern computational and neural models examine value learning, prediction errors, state representation, action-outcome knowledge, and adaptive decision-making. They connect some behavioral regularities to measurable neural signals and formal algorithms. Their contribution is substantial precisely because they produce additional predictions and observations at another level of analysis. They should be assessed alongside behavioral experimental findings without rewriting the historical record as though Skinner's 1938 book contained contemporary dopamine recording or modern reinforcement-learning algorithms. Schultz, Dayan, and Montague, 1997; Balleine and Dickinson, 1998.
Scientific Limits, Generalization, and Ethical Interpretation
The principal evidence in The Behavior of Organisms arose from controlled laboratory work with nonhuman animals and selected response classes. Such experiments allow precise manipulations that may be infeasible in many human settings. They also raise generalization questions. Human reasoning, verbal practices, social learning, long-term planning, and culturally organized activity can involve relations that an operant-chamber lever-pressing experiment does not measure. Explanations of these activities require the relevant observations and additional methods. The historical role of the monograph is to establish a powerful research approach, not to certify an already complete account of every aspect of human psychology. Skinner, 1938; Hilgard, 1939/1988.
Animal welfare is another essential dimension of contemporary evaluation. Deprivation manipulations, food contingencies, and laboratory confinement must be assessed through current scientific ethics, welfare safeguards, and the specific research question. An experiment's historical importance does not settle the present-day ethical permissibility of reproducing its procedures. The same is true of applications involving children, patients, or other groups in dependent relationships: autonomy, informed participation, proportionality, well-being, and empirical benefit require explicit consideration beyond an observed change in response rate.
The book also cannot serve as direct evidence for the clinical effectiveness of any contemporary autism intervention, psychotherapy, school program, or behavior-modification protocol. Modern applied behavior analysis arose through multiple later contributions, prominently including Donald M. Baer, Montrose M. Wolf, and Todd R. Risley, and clinical efficacy depends on outcome-specific comparative research and relevant professional standards. The scientific attribution and evidentiary boundaries must remain clear: Skinner provided influential conceptual and methodological foundations, while applied methods and their outcome evidence have independent histories. Baer, Wolf, and Risley, 1968.
Why the Monograph Still Matters
The book's enduring contribution is a research design for causal analysis of behavior. It places temporal measurement, experimental history, stimulus context, and arranged consequences into one coherent system and treats lawful behavioral change as an empirical problem. Subsequent research has enriched, revised, and sometimes replaced features of its explanatory vocabulary. Nevertheless, a scientist investigating how actions change under specified environmental contingencies still encounters questions the book organized exceptionally clearly: What precisely counts as a response? Which variables were changed? How was the consequence arranged? What was the history before the intervention? How did responding unfold in time? Could the result be reproduced under independent conditions? Skinner, 1938; Catania, 1988.
The Behavior of Organisms also documents the formation of a scientific tradition from within its original laboratory practice. Its chapters reveal concepts under construction, measurement problems being solved, and theoretical categories being tested against evidence. That historical specificity is what makes the work valuable to contemporary readers of psychology. It can be studied simultaneously as a primary document in twentieth-century science and as the origin of procedures and research questions that remain experimentally productive. Hilgard, 1939/1988; B. F. Skinner Foundation, 2018 overview.
Frequently Asked Questions
When was The Behavior of Organisms published?
The original book was published in 1938 by D. Appleton-Century Company in New York. A contemporaneous book record and the B. F. Skinner Foundation confirm the bibliographic details. The 1966 preface and modern editorial forewords belong to later versions, so they should be cited with their respective dates. B. F. Skinner Foundation, Books; Catania, 1988.
What is the central argument of the book?
Skinner argued that experimentally defined behavioral responses can be measured as they occur and that systematic changes in their rates and patterns can be explained through demonstrated relations with manipulable environmental variables. His experiments specifically addressed reinforcement, extinction, discriminative circumstances, temporal schedules, and deprivation. Skinner, 1938.
Did Skinner invent operant conditioning in this book?
Skinner developed a distinctive experimental system for analyzing operant behavior, building upon a longer history that included Thorndike's law of effect and conditioned-reflex research. His 1935 publications already anticipate important conceptual distinctions. The 1938 monograph gave the developing system sustained experimental form. Skinner, 1935; Skinner, 1938.
What is the difference between operant and respondent conditioning?
Respondent conditioning concerns learned relations between stimuli and elicited responses. Operant conditioning concerns changes in the future occurrence of a response class as a function of its consequences, under relevant antecedent and motivational circumstances. The distinctions are defined by experimental relations rather than the outward shape of an isolated movement. Skinner, 1935.
What animals were used in the original research?
Rats were the principal experimental subjects, often producing lever presses for food under carefully arranged conditions. The book's claims should be evaluated through the precise species, apparatus, experimental histories, and outcomes reported for each procedure. Skinner, 1938, Chapters II–XI.
Does the book establish the effectiveness of applied behavior analysis in clinical care?
It establishes historical experimental foundations relevant to later behavior analysis. It does not contain modern clinical trials or intervention-specific systematic reviews. Applied behavior analysis developed through contributions by later scientists, and any contemporary treatment claim requires evidence for its population, procedures, outcomes, and ethical setting. Baer, Wolf, and Risley, 1968.
Is the book still scientifically useful?
Yes. Its historical experiments, analysis of response rate, reinforcement histories, and functional relations remain fundamental to understanding the development of experimental behavior analysis. Its earlier constructs, organism-to-human generalizations, and omissions are best studied alongside later experimental, cognitive, and neuroscientific findings. Catania, 1988; Bouton, Maren, and McNally, 2021.
Related Articles
B. F. Skinner — A scientific overview of Skinner's life, major works, operant research, radical behaviorism, and wider intellectual legacy.
B. F. Skinner's Experimental Analysis of Behavior — Single-organism experimental methods and scientific inference.
B. F. Skinner and C. B. Ferster's Schedules of Reinforcement — Ferster and Skinner's 1957 reinforcement-schedule studies.
B. F. Skinner's Operant Conditioning Theory — Operant contingencies and their experimental foundations.
References
Baer, D. M., Wolf, M. M., and Risley, T. R. (1968). Some current dimensions of applied behavior analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1(1), 91–97. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1968.1-91
Balleine, B. W., and Dickinson, A. (1998). Goal-directed instrumental action: Contingency and incentive learning and their cortical substrates. Neuropharmacology, 37(4–5), 407–419. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0028-3908(98)00033-1
B. F. Skinner Foundation. (n.d.). Books by B. F. Skinner. https://www.bfskinner.org/publications/books
B. F. Skinner Foundation. (2016). Behavior of Organisms available in e-book formats. https://www.bfskinner.org/behavior-of-organisms-available-in-e-book-formats/
B. F. Skinner Foundation. (2018). Celebrate Skinner's birthday with a free book. https://www.bfskinner.org/celebrate-skinners-birthday-with-a-free-book/
B. F. Skinner Foundation. (n.d.). The Behavior of Organisms: Extended Edition (PDF). https://www.bfskinner.org/product/the-behavior-of-organisms-extended-edition/
Bouton, M. E., Maren, S., and McNally, G. P. (2021). Behavioral and neurobiological mechanisms of Pavlovian and instrumental extinction learning. Physiological Reviews, 101(2), 611–681. https://doi.org/10.1152/physrev.00016.2020
Catania, A. C. (1988). The Behavior of Organisms as work in progress. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 50(2), 277–281. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1988.50-277
Google Books. (n.d.). The Behavior of Organisms: An Experimental Analysis (original 1938 edition). https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Behavior_of_Organisms.html?id=13glAAAAMAAJ
Harvard Department of Psychology. (n.d.). B. F. Skinner. https://psychology.fas.harvard.edu/people/b-f-skinner
Herrnstein, R. J. (1970). On the law of effect. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 13(2), 243–266. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1970.13-243
Hilgard, E. R. (1939/1988). Review of B. F. Skinner's The Behavior of Organisms. Psychological Bulletin, 36, 121–125; reprinted in Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 50(2), 283–286. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1988.50-283
National Academy of Sciences. (n.d.). B. F. Skinner: Biographical memoir. https://www.nationalacademies.org/read/4894/chapter/19
Schultz, W., Dayan, P., and Montague, P. R. (1997). A neural substrate of prediction and reward. Science, 275(5306), 1593–1599. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.275.5306.1593
Skinner, B. F. (1935). Two types of conditioned reflex and a pseudo type. Journal of General Psychology, 12(1), 66–77. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221309.1935.9920088
Skinner, B. F. (1938). The Behavior of Organisms: An Experimental Analysis. D. Appleton-Century Company. B. F. Skinner Foundation archival text
Skinner, B. F. (1981). Selection by consequences. Science, 213(4507), 501–504. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.7244649