A response to myths about reinforcement

The Power of Reinforcement. By Stephen Ray Flora. State University of New York Press, Albany, New York, 2004. ISBN 0-7914-5916-0. 269 pp. Paperback, $19.95.

For decades, behavior analysts have complained about, and responded to, mischaracterizations of behavior analysis. These mischaracterizations have almost universally been egregious and have typically centered on certain myths, such as behavior analysis embracing the notion that humans are blank slates upon which experience writes, one's genetic makeup contributing nothing to one's actions. Such errors have been perpetuated by textbook writers and other academics.

Stephen Flora's book, aimed at the general public, is a response to the myths, mischaracterizations, and unwarranted criticisms of the purposeful use of reinforcement by and for humans. Flora maintains, correctly in my view, that such myths have prevented potentially useful programs.

In the book's introduction, Flora defines technical terms that he uses throughout the book such as positive reinforcement and negative reinforcement. He also describes how his father used principles of reinforcement to help teach him to read after his first-grade teacher said that he would never learn to read or write in the public schools. In Part I, Flora addresses six myths about reinforcement. He shows that each involves a misunderstanding of behavior analysis and that empirical claims said to refute the efficacy of reinforcement are unsupported by the evidence. For example, according to the Myth of Rat Psychology, reinforcement principles have no relevance for humans, because many of those principles stem from research conducted with nonhumans. The Myth of M&Ms for the Retarded holds that while reinforcements such as candy or tokens that are exchangeable for other reinforcers can work with developmentally disabled persons, such reinforcers are ineffective in changing the behavior of the nondisabled. Carrot-And-Stick Control, Bribery is the myth that reinforcers are bribes, and that to intentionally use reinforcement with humans is to treat them as something other than human.

Flora devotes Part II to descriptions of the application of reinforcement theory to social problems as well as individuals' afflictions, presenting as evidence supporting his thesis that reinforcement practices are useful in solving these problems. He examines such issues as education, drug abuse and recovery, crime and corrections, depression, chronic pain, undue dependency on others, and the inculcation of self-discipline, often presenting surprising conclusions. Research suggests, for example, "that perceived seriousness and severity of illness is not a function of biological, physiological health. One's perceived seriousness and severity of illness is a function of, caused by, one's history of reinforcement for illness (emphasis in original)."

There are a few technical and editorial problems with this book, as well as a few conceptual issues. For example, I disagree with the assertion that a defining characteristic of creativity is that it is a useful behavior. I also question the assertion that "people cry and learn to cry because it produces reinforcement from the social environment." Is that the only cause of crying? Could there not be reflexive crying, not at all related to the social environment?

But these issues should not deter readers. Flora has performed a valuable service for behavior analysis, and, more important, for society. I strongly recommend this book, particularly for those outside the discipline of behavior analysis.

Peter Lamal is Emeritus Professor of Psychology at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte and a Fellow of the Division of Behavior Analysis of the American Psychological Association. E-mail: plamal@carolina.rr.com.

COPYRIGHT 2004 Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal
COPYRIGHT 2004 Gale Group