Chapter 16 Skinner: Behavioral Analysis 485Behavior therapists have developed a variety of techniques over the years,
most based on operant conditioning (Skinner, 1988), although some are built
around the principles of classical (respondent) conditioning. In general, these ther-
apists play an active role in the treatment process, pointing out the positive con-
sequences of certain behaviors and the aversive effects of others and also
suggesting behaviors that, over the long haul, will result in positive reinforcement.
Related Research
In its early history, operant conditioning was used mostly in studies with animals,
then it was applied to simple human responses; but more recently, Skinner’s ideas
have been used in a multitude of studies dealing with complex human behaviors.
Some of these studies have been concerned with the relationship between long-term
behavior patterns (i.e., personality) and contingencies of reinforcement. These studies
are generally of three kinds: They have asked either how conditioning affects
personality, how personality affects conditioning, or the mutual influence between
personality and conditioning.
How Conditioning Affects Personality
In Chapter 1, we said that the key elements of personality are stability of behavior
over time and across different situations. By these criteria, personality change
occurs when new behaviors become stable over time and/or across different situ-
ations. One domain in which personality change may be evidenced is in psycho-
therapy. In fact, a major goal of therapy is to change behavior, and if the changes
are stable over time and situations, then one could talk about changing personality.
We say this to make clear that whereas Skinner discussed changing long-term
behavior, he never really discussed changing personality.
One basic assumption of Skinnerian conditioning is that reinforcement shapes
behavior. Yet, what are the factors that change reinforcement; that is, can certain
stimuli become more or less reinforcing for an individual over time? This is an
important question in treating people with drug problems, because successful treat-
ment requires that a reinforcer (drug) lose its reinforcing value. For smokers, for
example, nicotine gradually becomes a negative reinforcer, as mild states of tension
are removed by the effects of this drug.
Some evidence has shown that psychomotor stimulants (such as cocaine or
d-amphetamines) increase smoking levels in those who smoke. There are two possible
explanations for the effect: First, perhaps the stimulant specifically increases the rein-
forcing effect of nicotine; second, perhaps psychomotor stimulants simply increase
activity levels in general, and smoking is just one of them. In order to test these two
competing explanations, Jennifer Tidey, Suzanne O’Neill, and Stephen Higgins (2000)
conducted a study with 13 smokers and put them through an elaborate testing procedure
(12 separate 5-hour sessions), in which they received either a placebo or the drug
d-amphetamine. Ninety minutes later the smokers had to choose between two different
reinforcers, money ($0.25) or smoking (two puffs). If they chose money, a running
total of the accumulated amount was shown on a computer screen and participants
were paid that amount at the end of the testing session. If they chose the cigarette, they