Talk:Operant conditioning chamber

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 September 2021 and 3 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Buginajar. Peer reviewers: CourteneyD1999, JusttheletterE, Beccyw.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:44, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

You sick people, how can you claim this was used to study "animal behavior"?!?! You know goddam well these were used on human beings. You are monsters and B.F. Skinner was the mother-of-all-monsters. I demand sympathy for my suffering! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:404:200:4D00:90B3:7EE2:3948:245D (talk) 23:53, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

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

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


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


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

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

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

Who uses the term perjorativly??
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/36492/Radoff_Games_Are_Not_Skinner_Boxes.php

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

Awkward image caption
This sentence

Skinner box with 2 respond levers, 2 cue lights, 1 electrified floor, 1 house light and 1 speaker are above the cage

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

Skinner box with 2 respond levers, 2 cue lights, 1 electrified floor, and 1 house light, with 1 speaker above the cage

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

Skinner box with 2 respond levers, 2 cue lights, 1 electrified floor; 1 house light and 1 speaker are above the cage

But maybe rewording to this would be better:

Skinner box with 2 respond levers, 2 cue lights, and 1 electrified floor, as well as 1 house light and 1 speaker above the cage

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


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

Skinner box with 2 respond levers, 2 cue lights, and an electrified floor, as well as a house light and a speaker above the cage — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.224.52.228 (talk) 15:58, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Purpose section needs breaking up
The Purpose section needs breaking up to make it more readable

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

Overhaul
Hello fellow Wiki users, So glad that you stopped by the talk page for the Operant Conditioning Chamber. I recently did a lot of work on this article and would like to continue improving it where possible. I tried my hand at editing each section. Most of my edits included citing sources and editing grammar, clarity and neutral tone. Not sure if I was 100% successful but it is definitely a start to getting this page where it should be. I made some major edits so it might help to have a look through the version history to see what I changed, I left summaries for all the edits. One topic that may be of importance to address is the commercial applications section. I went ahead and removed the example about facebook and its use of operant conditioning (i.e., the like button) as the referenced article seemed very biased and I was unable to find another source to support the statement. Perhaps another user will have better luck than I and will add the statement back in. I did want to propose adding a section on how operant conditioning is used for animal training but I was worried that would delve too far into the actual operant conditioning topic as this page is based on the chamber. Perhaps a section further discussing the observed animal behaviour in Skinner's studies (and others using the operant conditioning chamber) could be beneficial to explain what one would expect to observe using the chamber. Would love to hear some thoughts on this! Buginajar (talk) 03:45, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Imminent SpokenWikipedia Recording
Hello, I would like to try my hand at making a recording for this article for the SpokenWikipedia WikiProject. I made some basic edits where I saw needed, but I have no official relation to psychology so I didn't want to make too many expansions. If someone watching this page wants to expand on this article (especially the commercial usage section) before I start recording, I would be very grateful! I will revisit this in the coming months. Edisondotme (talk) 03:58, 18 January 2023 (UTC)