Description of Dataset for HW1 Each month the Bureau of

Description of Dataset for HW1
Each month the Bureau of Labor Statistics in the U.S.
Department of Labor conducts the
“Current Population Survey” (CPS), which provides data on
labor force characteristics of the
population, including the level of employment, unemployment,
and earnings. Approximately
65,000 randomly selected U.S. households are surveyed each
month. The sample is chosen
by randomly selecting addresses from a database comprised of
addresses from the most
recent decennial census augmented with data on new housing
units constructed after the last
census. The exact random sampling scheme is rather
complicated (first small geographical
areas are randomly selected, then housing units within these
areas randomly selected); details
can be found in the Handbook of Labor Statistics and is
described on the Bureau of Labor
Statistics website (www.bls.gov).

The survey conducted each March is more detailed than in other
months and asks questions
about earnings during the previous year. The file HW1 contains
the data for 2012 (from the
March 2013 survey). These data are for full-time workers,
defined as workers employed more
than 35 hours per week for at least 48 weeks in the previous
year. Data are provided for
workers whose highest educational achievement is (1) a high
school diploma, and (2) a
bachelor’s degree.
Series in Data Set:
FEMALE: 1 if female; 0 if male
YEAR: Year
AHE : Average Hourly Earnings
BACHELOR: 1 if worker has a bachelor’s degree; 0 if worker
has a high school degree
AGE: Age

Title:
Database:
Pavlovian conditioning. By: Sparzo, Frank J., Salem Press
Encyclopedia of Health, 2019
Research Starters
Pavlovian conditioning
Date: 1890s forward
Type of psychology: Learning
Pavlovian conditioning is a basic process of learning that
relates especially to reflexes and
emotional behavior. Interest in this form of learning has been
long-standing and continues to the
present day. Pavlovian principles apply to a very wide range of
organisms, situations, and
events.
Introduction
Pavlovian conditioning, also known as respondent conditioning
and classical conditioning (to
distinguish it from instrumental or operant conditioning), is an
elementary learning process and
has been of major interest to psychologists ever since the
Russian physiologist Ivan Petrovich
Pavlov discovered that a dog could learn to salivate to a neutral
stimulus after the stimulus was
paired repeatedly with food.

Pavlov’s early career focused on the study of heart circulation
and digestion in animals (usually
dogs), for which he received the Nobel Prize in Physiology or
Medicine in 1904. However, by
UAGC Library-test
Listen American Accent
One of the many
dogs Pavlov used in his
experiments (possibly
Baikal[1]), Pavlov
Museum Ryazan, Russia. Note
the saliva catch container and
tube surgically implanted in the
dog's muzzle. By Rklawton
(English Wikipedia, see below)
[GFDL
(http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html)
or CC-BY-SA-3.0
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
sa/3.0/)], via Wikimedia
Commons
The Pavlov memorial museum,
Ryazan; former home of the
physiologist I. P. Pavlov (built in

the early 19th century) By Ceroi
(Own work) [CC-BY-SA-3.0
sa/3.0)], via Wikimedia
Commons
that time Pavlov had already turned his attention to
experiments on conditioned reflexes, from which flowed a
new psychological nomenclature.
Conditioning
The core of Pavlovian conditioning is the pairing
(association) of stimuli to elicit responses. Food (meat
powder) placed in a dog’s mouth naturally produces
salivation. Pavlov called the food an unconditioned stimulus
(US) and salivation, elicited by the food, the unconditioned
response (UR). When a neutral stimulus—for example, a
tone that does not naturally elicit salivation—is repeatedly
followed by food, the tone alone eventually evokes
salivation. Pavlov labeled the tone a conditioned stimulus
(CS) and the response (salivation) elicited by it the
conditioned response (CR).
Pavlov’s formulation can be summarized as follows:
Before conditioning:
Food (US) elicits Salivation (UR)
Conditioning procedure:
Neutral Stimulus (Tone) plus Food (US) elicits Salivation (UR)
After conditioning:
Tone (CS) elicits Salivation (CR)
Pavlov believed that conditioned responses were identical

to unconditioned responses. That is usually not the case.
For example, conditioned responses may be less
pronounced (weaker) or a bit more lethargic than
unconditioned responses.
Several phenomena turn up in studies of Pavlovian
conditioning. Extinction, generalization, and discrimination
are among the most important. Extinction refers to the
procedure as well as to the elimination of a CR. If the CS is
repeatedly presented without the US, extinction occurs: The dog
stops salivating to the tone.
During the course of extinction, the CR may return from time to
time until it is finally
extinguished. Pavlov called the occasional return of the CR
“spontaneous recovery.”
Stimulus generalization refers to responding not only to a
particular CS but also to similar but
different stimuli. Further, the magnitude (amount of salivation)
of a generalized response tends
to decline as stimuli become less and less like the CS. For
example, a dog trained to salivate to
a 5,000-cycle-per-second (cps) tone is likely to salivate also to
5,300 cps and 4,700 cps tones
without specific training to do so (stimulus generalization).
Responses tend to weaken in an
orderly way as tones become more and more unlike the CS—
that is, as the tones move away
from the CS in both directions, say, to 4,400 cps from 4,100
cps, and 5,600 cps to 5,900 cps, the
flow of salivation becomes less and less.
Stimulus generalization in effect extends the number of stimuli

that elicit a conditioned response.
Discrimination procedures restrict that number by conditioning
a subject not to generalize across
stimuli. The procedure involves two processes: acquisition and
extinction. The CS is paired
repeatedly with the US (acquisition) while the US is withheld as
generalized stimuli are
presented repeatedly (extinction). If the dog now salivates to
the CS and not to the generalized
stimuli, the dog has learned to discriminate or to act
discriminatively. Pavlov reported that some
dogs displayed a general breakdown in behavior patterns
(experimental neurosis) when called
on to make discriminations that were too difficult for them.
Pavlov’s work on what he called the second-signal system
implies that conditioning principles
are relevant to human as well as to animal learning. Once, say, a
tone is established as a CS in
first-order conditioning, the tone can be paired with a neutral
stimulus to establish a second-
order CS. Thus, in the absence of food, a light might precede
the tone (CS) several times until
the light itself begins to function as a CS. Second-order
conditioning appears to follow many of
the same rules as first-order conditioning.
Pavlov’s work has clearly provided one way to study the
learning process in great detail. It has
also provided the kind of data and theory that have affected
research in other areas of learning,
such as instrumental conditioning and, subsequently, cognitive
science and neuroscience.
In late 2015, neuroscientists at Johns Hopkins University
conducted an experiment in the hope

of finally determining how this learning process occurs, or
exactly how Pavlov's dogs were
conditioned to drool. For the first time, the scientists were able
to prove in a lab the link between
neurotransmitters and the conditioned response by studying
brain cells of mice. After stimulating
the cells with neurotransmitters, the scientists analyzed the
significance of the brain's chemical
reward system in terms of conditioning. This research prompted
discussion about whether this
knowledge could be used to enhance learning processes or
possibly treat cognitive issues.
Range of Pavlovian Conditioning
Pavlovian phenomena have been demonstrated with different
kinds of organisms and a wide
variety of stimuli and responses far beyond those studi ed by
Pavlov. Stimuli that precede such
unconditioned stimuli as sudden loud noises (leading to rapid
heart rate), a puff of air delivered
to the eye (evoking blinking), or a large temperature increase
(eliciting sweating) may become
conditioned stimuli capable of eliciting conditioned responses
on their own. The idea of second-
order (higher-order) conditioning is profoundly important
because it suggests how rewards such
as words of praise and money are established apart from
primary (biologically necessary)
rewards, such as food and water. It also may in part explain the
power of films, plays, novels,
and advertisements to evoke strong emotion in the absence of
direct experience with primary

(unconditioned) stimuli. Studies concerned with conditioned
emotional reactions (CER),
especially fear and anxiety in people—a subject much more
complex than simple reflexes—
have been of special interest to researchers and therapists for
many years.
Additional Research Findings
Studies of conditioning essentially look at how various
unconditioned and conditioned stimuli
influence responses under different arrangements of time and
space. Following are a few
general findings.
Pavlovian conditioning tends to be readily established when
stimuli or responses or both are
strong rather than weak. For example, in response to a near-
drowning experience, some people
promptly learn to fear such conditioned stimuli as the sight of
water, boats, palm trees, bathing
suits, and so on. In such cases, relevant stimuli and responses
(panic) are presumably quite
strong.
Conditioned stimuli are most likely to elicit conditioned
responses when unconditioned and
conditioned stimuli are paired consistently. If a mother always
hums when she rocks her infant
daughter to sleep, humming is likely to become a potent and
reliable CS, which soothes and
comforts her daughter. This outcome is less likely if the mother
hums only occasionally.
When several stimuli precede a US, the one most often paired
with the US will likely emerge as

the strongest CS. If, for example, both parents threaten to
punish their young son, but only
father always carries out the threats, father’s threats are more
likely than mother’s to evoke
apprehension in the child.
For some responses, such as eye blinking, conditioned stimuli
tend to be strongest when they
precede the US by about one-half second. The optimal interval
for other responses varies from
seconds to fractions of seconds: A neighbor’s dog barks
immediately before little Sophie falls
from her swing, bumping her nose very hard. She cries. If the
dog’s bark subsequently makes
Sophie feel uneasy, the bark is functioning as a CS. This
outcome becomes less and less likely
as the bark and fall increasingly separate in time.
Conditioned responses are usually not established if a US and
CS occur together (simultaneous
conditioning)—the potency of the UC overshadows the potential
CS—or when a neutral stimulus
follows the US (backward conditioning).
Some Practical Applications
In a widely cited study reported in 1920, American researchers
John B. Watson and Rosalie
Rayner conditioned a phobic reaction in an eleven-month-old
infant named Albert. The
researchers discovered that Albert feared loud noises but
seemed unafraid of a number of other
things, including small animals.

Watson and Rayner subsequently placed a white rat in Albert’s
crib. When Albert reached for it,
the researchers struck a piece of resonant metal with a hammer,
making a “loud sound.” After a
few such presentations, presenting the rat alone elicited crying
and various avoidance reactions.
Albert also showed signs of fear to similar things, such as a
rabbit, a furry object, and fluffy
clumps of cotton (stimulus generalization). Thus, Watson and
Rayner provided early
experimental evidence that Pavlovian principles are involved in
the acquisition of human
emotional reactions.
While this study induced a phobic reaction in the subject,
systematic desensitization is a
procedure designed to eliminate phobias and anxieties. The
procedure was largely developed
and named by South African-born therapist Joseph Wolpe.
Noting that it is very difficult to have
pleasant and anxious feelings simultaneously, Wolpe fashioned
a systematic technique to teach
clients to engage in behavior (relaxation) that competes with
anxiety.
Therapy typically begins with an interview designed to identify
specific sources of the client’s
fears. The therapist helps the client assemble a list of items that
elicit fear. Items associated with
the least amount of fear are positioned at the bottom of the list;
most feared items are placed
near the top. For example, if a client has a strong fear of dogs,

the therapist and client would
develop a list of scenes that make the client fearful. Situations
may vary from hearing the word
“dog” to seeing pictures of dogs, being in the vicinity of a dog,
hearing a dog bark, being close to
dogs, and patting a dog.
The client is next taught to relax by tensing and releasing
various groups of muscles—
shoulders, face, arms, neck, and so on. This phase of treatment
ends when the client has
learned to fully relax on his or her own in a matter of minutes.
The client and therapist now move on to the next phase of
therapy. While remaining fully
relaxed, the client is asked to imagine being in the first
situation at the bottom of the list. The
image is held for several seconds. The client then relaxes for
about twenty seconds before
imagining the same situation again for several seconds. When
the client is able to imagine an
item and remain fully relaxed, the therapist presents a slightly
more fearful situation to imagine.
This procedure continues until an image causes distress, at
which time the session ends. The
next session begins with relaxation, followed by the client
slowly moving up the list. As before,
the client stops at the point of distress. Therapy is successful
when the client can imagine all the
items on the list while remaining fully relaxed. The technique is
less helpful when clients have
difficulty identifying fearful situations or calling up vivid
images.
In the hands of a skillful therapist, systematic desensitization is
an effective technique for

reducing a wide variety of fears. Its Pavlovian features involve
pairing imagined fearful scenes
with relaxation. When relaxation successfully competes with
fear, it becomes a new CR to the
imagined scenes. As relaxation becomes sufficiently strong as a
CR, anxiety is replaced by
calmness in the face of earlier aversive stimuli.
Extinction offers a more direct route to the reduction of fear
than systematic desensitization. The
technique called flooding makes use of extinction. Flooding
exposes the client to fear-arousing
stimuli for a prolonged period of time. Suppose a child is afraid
of snakes. Although fear is likely
to increase initially, flooding would require the child to
confront the snake directly and
continuously—to be “flooded” by various stimuli associated
with the snake—until the conditioned
stimuli lose their power to elicit fear. Some therapists think that
the application of this technique
is probably best left to professionals.
Some Everyday Examples
Pavlovian principles may be plausibly applied to daily life, as
the following examples illustrate.
Couples sometimes refer to a certain tune as “our song.” A
plausible interpretation is that
Pavlovian conditioning has been at work. The favored tune may
have been popular and
repeated often at the time of the couple’s courtship and
marriage. The tune has since become a
CS that evokes a variety of pleasant feelings associated with

initial love.
A babysitter notes that giving a young child a blue blanket in
the absence of his mother markedly
reduces his irritability. Most likely the blanket has been
sufficiently associated with the soothing
actions of his mother (US) and now functions as a calming
stimulus (CS).
An adolescent steadfastly avoids the location where he was
seriously injured in an automobile
accident. He says that just thinking about the highway makes
him nervous. The location
doubtless contains a number of conditioned aversive stimuli that
now trigger unpleasant feelings
(CR) and avoidance.
After a bitter divorce, a woman finds that the sight of household
items (CS) associated with her
former husband is terribly upsetting (CR). She has reduced her
resentment by getting rid of the
offending items.
A wife often places flower arrangements in her husband’s den.
The flowers (CS) now bring him
a measure of comfort (CR) when she is away on trips.
Respondent Conditioning and Reinforcement
Pavlovian behaviors are principally elicited by antecedent
events (just as low temperatures elicit
shivering), while many behaviors are strengthened (in
reinforcement) or weakened (in
punishment) by what follows behavior. In Pavlovian
conditioning, two stimuli are presented, one
following another, regardless of what a subject does. What

follows behavior is usually not
important in this form of conditioning. In studying the role of
reinforcement on behavior
(instrumental or operant conditioning), the consequences that
follow a person’s actions often
determine what the person is likely to do under similar
circumstances in the future. What follows
behavior is important in this type of conditioning.
The topic of reinforcement is introduced here because Pavlovian
conditioning and reinforcement
are intricately related in that any Pavlovian conditioning is
likely to contain elements of
instrumental conditioning, and vice versa. For example, if
someone has a near-drowning
experience and now avoids bodies of water, it is plausible to say
that conditioned stimuli
associated with the experience evoke unsettling feelings. The
person reduces the unpleasant
feelings by avoiding bodies of water. In this example, negative
feelings are conditioned
according to Pavlovian principles. The avoidance reaction is
maintained by (negative)
reinforcement and involves instrumental learning. Virtually all
the previous examples can be
analyzed similarly.
Bibliography
Baldwin, John D., and Janice I. Baldwin. Behavior Principles in
Everyday Life. 4th ed. Upper
Saddle River: Prentice Hall, 2001. Print.

Dance, Scott. "Johns Hopkins Neuroscientists Trace What Made
Pavlov's Dog Salivate."
Baltimore Sun. Tribune, 6 Dec. 2015. Web. 23 Feb. 2016.
Hergenhahn, B. R. An Introduction to the History of
Psychology. 6th ed. Belmont: Wadsworth,
2009. Print.
Levis, Donald J. Foundations of Behavioral Therapy. New
Brunswick: Transaction, 2010. Print.
"Pavlovian Test Finds Sleeping Consciousness." New Scientist
26 Sept. 2009: 18. Print.
Ramnerö, Jonas, and Niklas Törneke. ABCs of Human
Behavior: Behavioral Principles for the
Practicing Clinician. Oakland: New Harbinger, 2008. Print.
Redish, A. David. The Mind Within the Brain. Oxford: Oxford
UP, 2013. Print.
Rescorla, Robert A. “Pavlovian Conditioning: It’s Not What
You Think It Is.” American
Psychologist 43.3 (1988): 151–60. Print
Watson, J. B., and R. Rayner. “Conditioned Emotional
Reactions.” Journal of Experimental
Psychology 3 (1920): 1–14. Print.
Wolpe, Joseph. The Practice of Behavior Therapy. 4th ed.
Boston: Allyn, 2008. Print.
Copyright of Salem Press Encyclopedia of Health is the
property of Salem Press. The

copyright in an individual article may be maintained by the
author in certain cases. Content may
not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv
without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for individual
use. Source: Salem Press Encyclopedia of Health, 2019, 5p
Item: 93872139
Google Book Preview
Goodreads- User Reviews
Plum Print
Title:
Database:
Operant conditioning. By: Rholetter, Wylene, MEd, Salem Press
Encyclopedia, 2019
Research Starters
Operant conditioning
Export Manager Save E-mail
Number of items to be saved: 1
Save citations to a file formatted for:
Direct Export in RIS Format (e.g. CITAVI, EasyBib, EndNote,

ProCite, Reference Manager,
Zotero)
Generic bibliographic management software
Citations in XML format
Citations in BibTeX format
Citations in MARC21 format
Direct Export to RefWorks
Direct Export to EndNote Web
Direct Export to EasyBib
Download CSV
Direct Export to NoodleTools
Save Cancel
x
UAGC Library-test
Listen
The hierarchy of operant
conditioning. By Studentne
[GFDL
(http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html)

or CC-BY-SA-3.0
sa/3.0)], via Wikimedia
Commons
Operant conditioning, a term coined by B. F. Skinner, American
psychologist and radical
behaviorist, is the idea that behavior is the learned result of
consequences. Skinner, who
introduced the concept in his 1938 book The Behavior of
Organisms: An Experimental Analysis,
theorized that operant conditioning in the form of
reinforcements and punishments leads to an
association between a behavior and its consequence. Positive
reinforcement increases a
desirable behavior by following it with a favorable stimulus.
Negative reinforcement increases a
desirable behavior by removing an unfavorable stimulus after
the behavior is performed. Both
positive and negative reinforcement seek to increase a desirable
behavior. Punishment, like
reinforcement, also has positive and negative varieties. Positive
punishment is adding an
unfavorable stimulus in an effort to eradicate an undesirable
behavior. Negative punishment is
removing an unpleasant stimulus in order to decrease
undesirable behavior. Both positive and
negative punishment seek to decrease an undesirable behavior.
Overview
Skinner designed an operant conditioning chamber, which
came to be known as the Skinner box, to test his theory of
operant conditioning on animals. The Skinner box

prevented human interruption of the experimental session
and allowed the experimenter to study the behavior of an
animal as a continuous process. The box includes at least
one lever or key that the animal can manipulate to release
food, water, or some other reward or to avoid punishment
such as an electric shock. Skinner’s experiments with rats
and pigeons showed that the animals first hit the lever and
released food accidentally; after a few accidental releases,
the reinforcement of manipulating the lever ensured that the
behavior would be repeated. Skinner believed that operant
conditioning could be used in similar ways with human
beings.
Modifying behavior through operant conditioning has been used
in the treatment of phobias,
obsessive-compulsive disorders, substance-abuse problems, and
some sexual disorders, but
the impact of Skinner’s theories about operant conditioning has
proved to be immense, reaching
far beyond the field of psychology. Zoos and other animal
facilities routinely use food as a
positive reinforcement to train animals to move within enclosed
areas and to increase safety
during veterinary examinations. With human subjects, operant
conditioning has been used to
control absenteeism in the workplace (such as when employers
offer staff members with no
absences a chance to win cash rewards), to increase sales
(coupons), and to manage agitation
in older adults with dementia. Perhaps no field has been more
influenced by operant
conditioning than education. Skinner’s assertion that positive
reinforcement is more effective

than punishment at changing and establishing desirable behavior
led to the discrediting of
punitive punishment in schools and the common application of
timeouts (negative
reinforcement) and a token economy (i.e., rewarding good
behavior with gold stars that can be
accumulated for prizes) instead.
Critics of operant conditioning have been vehement in pointing
out its detriments. As early as
1959, American linguist and cognitive scientist Noam Chomsky
argued that what worked in
Skinner’s laboratory could be applied to complex human
behavior only in a superficial way. In
1960 progressive educator A. S. Neil insisted that rewarding
good behavior taught that the
behavior was not worth doing for reasons other than the reward.
Other critics were even more
severe, charging that operant conditioning was dangerous and
inhumane. Gradually, the
influence of Skinner’s ideas declined, and by the twenty-first
century, some declared that
operant conditioning had become peripheral in psychology and
related fields. However, in 2002
a list of ninety-nine top psychologists was published in the
Review of General Psychology and
B. F. Skinner topped the list.
Bibliography
Bunzli, Samantha, David Gillham, and Adrian Esterman.
“Physiotherapy-Provided Operant
Conditioning in the Management of Low Back Pain Disability:
A Systematic
Review.” Physiotherapy Research International 16.1 (2011): 4–
19. Academic Search Premier.

Web. 7 Aug. 2013.
Davey, Graham, and Chris Cullen. Human Operant Conditioning
and Behavior Modification.
New York: Wiley, 1988. Print.
Dayan, Peter. “Instrumental Vigour in Punishment and Reward.”
European Journal of
Neuroscience 35.7 (2012): 1152–68. Academic Search Premier.
Web. 7 Aug. 2013.
Dayan, Peter, et al. “Disentangling the Roles of Approach,
Activation and Valence in
Instrumental and Pavlovian Responding.” PLoS Computational
Biology 7.4 (2011): 1–
28. Academic Search Premier. Web. 7 Aug. 2013.
Edwards, Darren J. Integrating Behavioural and Cognitive
Psychology: A Modern Categorization
Theoretical Approach. Hauppage: Nova, 2015. Print.
Fonseca, Amilcar Rodrigues, Maria Cristina Zago Castelli, and
Emileane Costa Assis de
Oliveira. "Effects of Chronic Mild Stress on Operant
Discrimination Learning." Behavior Analysis:
Research and Practice 15.1 (2015): 20–27. Print.
Iversen, Iver H. “Skinner’s Early Research: From Reflexology
to Operant
Conditioning.” American Psychologist 47.11 (1992): 1318–28.
PsycINFO. Web. 24 July 2013.
Miller, Harold L., Jr., and E. Benjamin H. Heuston. “Recent
Trends in Operant Conditioning.”

21st Century Psychology: A Reference Handbook. Eds. Stephen
F. Davis et al. Los Angeles:
Sage, 2008, 340–50. Print.
Murphy, Eric S., and Frances K. McSweeney. The Wiley-
Blackwell Handbook of Operant and
Classical Conditioning. Hoboken: Wiley, 2014. Print.
Parrish, Margaret. “Behaviorism.” Social Work Perspectives on
Human Behavior. Maidenhead:
Open UP, 2010, 98–109. Print.
Rapanelli, Maximiliano, Luciana Romina Frick, and Bonifacio
Silvano Zanutto. “Learning an
Operant Conditioning Task Differentially Induces Gliogenesis
in the Medial Prefrontal Cortex and
Neurogenesis in the Hippocampus.” PLoS ONE 6.2 (2011): 1–
12. Academic Search Premier.
Web. 7 Aug. 2013.
Reynolds, George Stanley. A Primer of Operant Conditioning.
Rev. ed. Glenview: Scott, 1975.
Print.
Staddon, J. E. R., and D. T. Cerutti. “Operant Conditioning.”
Annual Review of Psychology 54
(2003): 115–44. PsycINFO. Web. 24 July 2013.
Copyright of Salem Press Encyclopedia is the property of Salem
Press. The copyright in an
individual article may be maintained by the author in certain
cases. Content may not be copied
or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email
articles for individual use. Source:

Salem Press Encyclopedia, 2019, 2p
Item: 89677602
Google Book Preview
Goodreads- User Reviews
Plum Print
172 asrt.org/publications
Editorial
Learning Theories: Behaviorism
Kevin R Clark, EdD, R.T.(R)(QM)
I
n its simplest form, learning is defined as gaining
knowledge through study, teaching, instruction, or
experience.1 Interestingly, learning is described and
viewed differently by theorists, researchers, and
practitioners who have spent time investigating and
experimenting in the educational psychology field.1,2
The differences in how educational theorists believe
individuals acquire, retain, and recall knowledge result-
ed in the development of multiple learning theories.1-3
Based on the context of the theorists’ work and other
factors at the time of investigation, these theories
explain how learning occurs, what internal or external

factors inf luence learning, how memory affects learn-
ing, and how transfer of knowledge occurs.1-3 In addi-
tion, the roles of the instructors and learners are
described according to each theory of learning. A basic
understanding of the various learning theories is essen-
tial for educators who strive to lead a classroom that is
conducive to learning and success.
The ideas of behaviorism date back to the late
19th and early 20th centuries when John Watson, an
American psychologist, believed the general public
would accept and recognize the new philosophy of psy-
chology as a true science only if it involved processes
of objective observation and scientific measurement.1
This notion of detailed observation and measurement
became central to the work of behaviorists.1
Behaviorism emphasizes that learning occurs when
an individual responds favorably to some type of
external stimuli.1-4 Behaviorism sometimes is referred
to as the stimulus-response theory.1 For example, when
presented with a math f lashcard showing the equation
6 3 8, the learner responds with the answer 48. The
equation is the stimulus, and the answer is the associ-
ated response.2 Essential elements with behaviorism
include the stimulus, the response, and the association
between these 2 elements.2 Of particular importance
is how the association between the stimulus and the
response is made, strengthened, and maintained.2
Behaviorists define learning as nothing more than
the acquisition of new behaviors. Behaviorists do not
emphasize thinking or other mental activities as a part
of the learning process because such variables are not
observable behaviors.1-4 Although the behaviorism

theory discounts any mental activity, other educational
theorists considered these processes to be a vital part of
learning and cognition, which resulted in the develop-
ment of other theories of learning.1,4 Behaviorists do not
address memory and how new behaviors or changes
in behaviors are stored or recalled for future use.2
Behaviorists refer to this type of learning, where a reac-
tion is made to a particular stimulus, as conditioning.1
Two main types of conditioning include Pavlov’s classi -
cal conditioning and Skinner’s operant conditioning.
Classical Conditioning
Ivan Pavlov, a Russian physiologist, noticed that dogs
salivated every time they ate or saw food and believed
173RADIOLOGIC TECHNOLOGY, November/December
2018, Volume 90, Number 2
Editorial
Clark
bowling alley.1 Skinner made generalizations about his
findings with rats and pigeons to humans.1 In addition,
he noted that operant conditioning also worked in a
negative way: stopping a behavior from occurring by
punishing it.1,3
Reinforcement and Punishment
Key aspects of operant conditioning include rein-
forcement and punishment, both of which can be
positive or negative. Reinforcement refers to anything
that has the effect of strengthening a particular behav-

ior for it to occur again.1,3 Positive reinforcement is the
addition of a rewarding stimulus to get the behavior to
happen again (eg, rewarding learners for making a high
grade on an exam in hopes they study harder for future
assessments and score high again). Negative reinforce-
ment is the removal of an unpleasant stimulus to get the
behavior to continue (eg, students learning the rules to
solve a particular problem so their instructor quits nag-
ging them about the importance of it). The unpleasant
behavior of the instructor’s nagging is removed when
students learn the rules, solve the problem correctly,
and continue the action so the nagging does not return.
Conversely, punishment refers to anything that
has an effect of lessening or discouraging a particular
behavior so that it does not occur again.1,3 Positive pun-
ishment is the addition of an unpleasant stimulus to get
the behavior to stop; any type of disciplinary action is
considered positive punishment. Negative punishment
is the removal of a rewarding stimulus to get the behav-
ior to stop (eg, not offering extra credit opportunities in
hopes the behavior stops so that the learners can receive
these beneficial opportunities in the future). Skinner
maintained that rewards and punishments control most
human behaviors.1-3
In addition to Watson, Pavlov, and Skinner, other
theorists were associated with the behaviorist move-
ment. The Table summarizes their contributions to the
theory of behaviorism.
Implications in Teaching and Learning
Behaviorists believe learning begins when a cue
or stimulus from the environment is presented, and
the learner reacts to the stimulus with some type of

response.1-3 Those responses are reinforced or punished,
he could condition the dogs to salivate at the sound of
a bell.1 Initially, Pavlov sounded a bell at the time food
was presented to the dogs and repeated this process
frequently.1 Eventually, the sound of the bell became
an indication to the dogs that food was about to be pre-
sented, and they responded by salivating at the sound
of the bell regardless of whether food was presented.1
This type of reinforcement of a natural ref lex or some
involuntary behavior that occurs as a response to a par-
ticular stimulus is called classical conditioning.1 Pavlov
was able to condition the dogs to salivate in response to
the sound of the bell.
Pavlov identified 4 stages of classical conditioning:
acquisition, extinction, generalization, and discrimina-
tion.1 The acquisition stage is the initial learning of
the conditioned response (the dogs salivating at the
sound of the bell).1 Pavlov believed the conditioned
response would not remain indefinitely, so he used the
term extinction to describe the disappearance of a con-
ditioned response.1 Pavlov demonstrated extinction by
repeatedly sounding the bell without presenting food
to the dogs.1 The final 2 stages, generalization and dis-
crimination, are opposites and explain how behaviorists
believe knowledge is transferred within learners.2 The
generalization stage implies that a conditioned response
might occur with similar stimuli without further train-
ing (the dogs salivating at the sound of something
similar to a bell).1 In contrast, the discrimination stage
indicates that a conditioned response might occur with
1 stimulus but not with another (the dogs not salivating
at the sound of something similar to a bell).1
Operant Conditioning

BF Skinner, a psychologist working in the United
States in the 1930s, established the theory of oper-
ant conditioning: a process of reinforcing a voluntary
behavior by rewarding it.1,3 Studying the behaviors of
rats, Skinner used a device (now called a Skinner box)
that contained a lever.1 W henever the rats pressed the
lever (an action Skinner considered normal, random,
and voluntary), a pellet of food was presented.1 As the
food rewards continued during the repetition of the
action, the rats learned that they had to press the lever
to be fed.1 Skinner also used reinforcement techniques
to teach pigeons to dance and to roll a ball down a mini
174 asrt.org/publications
Editorial
Learning Theories: Behaviorism
the reinforcement of appropriate classroom behaviors,
which can create a more orderly classroom environment
that is conducive to learning and success for all.1
Learning Activities
Classroom learning activities connected to the
behaviorism theory include1-3:
� lecturing
� recalling facts
� defining and illustrating concepts
� applying explanations
� participating in rote learning (ie, memorization
based on repetition)

� completing drill and practice exercises
� establishing classroom management policies
� using rewards and punishments
Implications in Medical Imaging Education
In medical imaging education, lecturing is a domi-
nant approach to presenting information because of
the complexity of the content. Considering time man-
agement issues and restrictions in higher education,
lecturing affords instructors an opportunity to pres-
ent a large amount of information to a large audience.
Often, medical imaging students memorize some of the
content presented and recall that knowledge during an
exam. The role of repetition aids in the learning of new
and challenging content. Medical imaging students
benefit from drill and practice exercises when working
with formulas, including the Inverse-Square Law, the
milliampere-seconds–distance compensation formula,
and this process is repeated so that the responses
become automatic.3 Ultimately, the change in behav-
ior indicates learning has occurred.3 As revealed,
behaviorism has little regard for mental processes or
understanding and, therefore, does not prepare learners
for problem-solving or critical-thinking skills.1-3
The instructor plays a dominant role in behaviorism
by leading the learning environment, using positive and
negative reinforcement to shape learners’ behaviors,
and presenting the content.1 With behaviorism, learn-
ers are described as passive individuals who voluntarily
respond to external stimuli.1 Other behaviorist implica-
tions in teaching and learning include1:
� creating procedures and expectations to manage

the classroom
� using rewards as incentives for learners to work
hard and behave
� using punishments (eg, loss of privileges or with-
holding of rewards) effectively and sparingly to
change learners’ behaviors
Critics of behaviorism argue that rewards can belittle
or demean a learning experience and, therefore, should
be used with caution.1 Often, rewards can evoke feel-
ings of unfairness or competition, and some learners
might become distracted from the real issue involved
in completing a task or learning new material.1 Using a
rewards system or giving 1 learner increased attention
might have a detrimental effect on others in the class or
cause them to feel isolated.1 Not surprisingly, rewards
do not always lead to higher-quality work; however,
using a behaviorist approach, rewards can result in
Table
Key Theorists and Their Contributions to Behaviorism1
Theorists Contribution
Ivan Pavlov Classical conditioning
Edward Thorndike Connectionism (emphasized the role of
experience in the strengthening and weakening of stimulus-
response
connections)
John Watson Scientific objectivity; Law of frequency (the more
frequent a stimulus and response occur in association with

each other, the stronger the habit will become)
Edwin Guthrie Contiguity (the same response to a stimulus most
likely will occur over and over again during repeated expo-
sures)
BF Skinner Operant conditioning
175RADIOLOGIC TECHNOLOGY, November/December
2018, Volume 90, Number 2
Editorial
Clark
and the grid conversion formula, as well as calculations
involving skin dose. Medical imaging instructors ben-
efit from using a behaviorist approach by implementing
a classroom management plan to lead a classroom con-
ducive to learning and success.
Conclusion
The theory of behaviorism can be illustrated by
the adage, “practice makes perfect.” Behaviorists see
learning as an observable change in behavior as a result
of experience and repetition. This stimulus-response
theory makes no attempt to assess the mental processes
necessary for learners to acquire, retain, and recall
information. The change in behavior is simply achieved
through a conditioning process using reinforcement
and punishment. Even though little importance is
placed on mental activity, concept formation, or under-
standing, there is a place for behaviorism in today’s
classrooms, especially in medical imaging education, in

the areas of rote learning and classroom management.
Kevin R Clark, EdD, R.T.(R)(QM), is assistant
professor and graduate coordinator for the School of Health
Professions at The University of Texas MD Anderson
Cancer Center in Houston. He serves on the Radiologic
Technology Editorial Review Board and can be reached at
[email protected]
References
1. Pritchard A. Behaviourism and the beginnings of theory. In:
Ways of Learning – Learning Theories and Learning Styles in
the Classroom. 3rd ed. New York, NY: Routledge; 2014:6-17.
2. Ertmer PA, Newby TJ. Behaviorism, cognitivism, construc-
tivism: comparing critical features from an instructional
design perspective. Perform Improv Q. 2013;26(2):43-71.
doi:10.1002/piq.21143.
3. Kelly J. Learning theories. The Peak Performance Center
website. http://thepeakperformancecenter.com/education
al-learning/learning/theories/. Published September 2012.
Accessed June 10, 2017.
4. David L. Behaviorism. Learning Theories website. https://
www.learning-theories.com/behaviorism.html. Published
January 31, 2007. Accessed June 10, 2017.
https://doi.org/10.1002/piq.21143
Copyright of Radiologic Technology is the property of
American Society of Radiologic
Technologists and its content may not be copied or emailed to
multiple sites or posted to a
listserv without the copyright holder's express written

permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for individual use.
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
If Everyone Is Doing It, It Must Be Safe: College Students’
Development of
Attitudes toward Poly-Substance Use
Erin Willisa , Robyn Adamsb, and Justin Keeneb
aAdvertising, Public Relations & Media Design, University of
Colorado Boulder, Boulder, Colorado, USA; bCreative Media
Industries,
College of Media and Communication, Texas Tech University,
Lubbock, Texas, USA
ABSTRACT
Background: While binge drinking on college campuses has
been a topic of concern for dec-
ades, especially among fraternity and sorority members,
recreational drug use is on the rise
and mixing alcohol and drugs is now more of a concern than
ever. Objective: Social learning
theory was used as a framework for understanding how students
develop attitudes regard-
ing the possible risks and rewards of various behaviors such as
binge drinking and drug
use. Method: This research reports the results of 13 focus group
discussions with 63 college
students. A thematic approach was used and revealed several
themes: participating in col-
lege culture, experimenting is expected, ignoring risk-taking,

and resisting peer pressure.
Findings: Participants felt as if it was expected that college
students would experiment with
alcohol and drugs, and that it was just “part of going away to
college.” Students reported
ignoring the known risks of mixing alcohol and drugs use
despite prior education efforts.
Conclusions: The findings of this study suggest that alcohol and
drug use on college cam-
puses is, at least in part, driven by a perception of college
culture and a poor balancing of
the risks and rewards associated with these behaviors.
KEYWORDS
Binge drinking; social
learning theory; focus
groups; non-medical use of
prescription medication;
risky behavior
Over one-third of full-time college students (18–22)
engaged in binge drinking in the past month; about
one in five used an illicit drug in the past month
(Center for Behavioral Health Statistics & Quality,
2015). The Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (2017) characterize substance use as the
foremost public health hazard facing college students.
Substance use creates negative health, social, and eco-
nomic consequences for students, their families, and
their communities (National Institute on Drug Abuse,
2017; Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services,
2006). While binge drinking on college campuses has
been a topic of concern for decades (Hahm, Kolaczyk,
Jang, Swenson, & Bhindarwala, 2012; Wechsler, Lee,
Kuo, & Lee, 2000; White & Hingson, 2013), recre-
ational drug use is on the rise and poly-substance use

(mixing alcohol and drugs) is now more of a concern
than ever (CDC, 2017). In addition, much of this
poly-substance use involves prescription medication in
lieu of more illicit drugs (e.g., cocaine, marijuana).
Young people who engage in the non-medical use of
prescription medications have an increased risk of
using other drugs (e.g., alcohol, marijuana), suffering
from health issues (e.g., weight gain, mental health
problems), and engaging in risky behaviors (e.g.,
unprotected sex, criminal activity) (Ford &
Arrastia, 2008).
Exposure and access to prescription medication is
high on college campuses with 61% of college students
being offered these medications at least once, and 31%
using them non-medically (Garnier-Dykstra, Caldeira,
Vincent, O’Grady, & Arria, 2012). In addition, stu-
dents often overestimate the risky behaviors of their
peers; they overestimate stimulant use by 12.2% and
pain medication use by 8.8%, whereas marijuana use
by only 2.9% (McCabe, 2008). Such an overestimation
of risky behavior likely influences students’ percep-
tions of the risks associated with particular behaviors
and shifts their likelihood of partaking in such behav-
ior in the future.
Many universities and colleges now require stu-
dents to complete alcohol education programs prior
to arriving on campus (Croom et al., 2009). Previous
research notes that these brief alcohol interventions
yield only modest results, and that education alone is
not effective (Carey, Scott-Sheldon, Garey, Elliott, &
Carey, 2016; Tanner-Smith & Lipsey, 2015). Thus, this
study has two goals: (1) to better understand the role

CONTACT Erin Willis [email protected] University of Colorado
Boulder, 1511 University Ave, Boulder, CO, 478 UCB, 80309,
USA.
� 2019 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
SUBSTANCE USE & MISUSE
2019, VOL. 54, NO. 11, 1886–1893
https://doi.org/10.1080/10826084.2019.1618334
http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1080/10826084.20
19.1618334&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2019-06-28
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1582-0867
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1404-0025
https://doi.org./10.1080/10826084.2019.1618334
http://www.tandfonline.com
of social influence and peer behavior on the creation
and maintenance of attitudes toward various sub-
stance use behaviors, like mixing alcohol and drugs;
(2) to better understand how these attitudes interact
with perceptions of rewarding outcomes and risky
consequences to influence planned behavior. The goals
of this study add to our understanding of college stu-
dents’ decision-making processes, and better inform
health education and promotion targeted at new and
incoming students. We employed qualitative method-
ology to gain insight into college students’ perspec-
tives specific to the social learning theory. The results
are discussed within the context of this theory with
particular emphasis on the practical outcomes associ-
ated with cessation efforts on college campuses related
to education and intervention.
Social learning theory

Social learning theory provides a theoretical frame-
work for understanding risk-taking behaviors among
college students. The theory posits that people can
learn by observing and modeling others’ behaviors
(Bandura, 1977). Deviant behavior is learned and pri -
mary groups, such as peer groups, play a central role
in this learning. One place where the influence of
peers is prevalent is college campuses. Indeed, collegi -
ate peer use of alcohol often determines individual
use, and peer norms predict binge drinking (Bandura,
1977; Crawford & Novak, 2010; Read, Wood, Kahler,
Maddock, & Palfai, 2003; Sher, Bartholow, & Nanda,
2001; Tyler, Schmitz, Ray, Adams, & Gordon Simons,
2017). Previous research also notes that many college
students have positive attitudes toward alcohol use
(Peralta & Steele, 2010; Schultz, Nolan, Cialdini,
Goldstein, & Griskevicius, 2007; Wechsler et al., 2003),
have well-defined reasons for drinking, for instance,
mood enhancement or reducing stress (O’Connor &
Colder, 2005; O’Hara, Armeli, & Tennen, 2015).
In addition, the perceived benefits (e.g., social
interaction, fun/enjoyment) of drinking are significant
predictors of alcohol use (Brooks-Russel, Simons-
Morton, Haynie, Farhat, & Wang, 2014). Prior work
has demonstrated that first-year students are highly
susceptible to modeling the behavior of their older
peers, and are at the highest risk for the negative con-
sequences of alcohol use (Armeli, Conner, Cullum, &
Tennen, 2010; Maggs, Williams, & Lee, 2011).
Students with the highest likelihood of engaging in
multiple health-risk behaviors reported poorer mental
health, particularly related to stress and anxiety
(Martinez, Klanecky, & McChargue, 2018). Perceived
norms influence college students’ level of drinking

through the observation and comparison of their
peers’ drinking levels (Fournier, Hall, Ricke, & Storey,
2013; Stappenbeck, Quinn, Wetherill, & Fromme,
2010). The prediction here is that risky substance use
on college campuses is, at least in part, a product of
social learning processes that lead to attitudes regard-
ing specific substances and situations.
Differential association and reinforcement
There are several key elements to the learning process,
including differential association and differential
reinforcement (Akers, 2011). Differential association is
the association with individuals who engage in certain
types of conduct, as well as the exposure to different
sets of values and norms as a consequence of such
associations (Akers, 2011). For example, over 70% of
students nationwide overestimated the quantity of
alcohol consumed by their peers; further, the percep-
tion of campus drinking norms was by far the stron-
gest predictor of personal consumption, stronger even
than the actual campus drinking norm (Wesley
Perkins, Haines, & Rice, 2005).
Differential reinforcement is “the balance of antici-
pated and actual rewards and punishments that follow
or are consequences of behavior” (Akers, 2000, p. 78).
Within the context of alcohol use, this could take the
form of several different outcomes (e.g., hangovers,
Driving While Impaired (DWIs), alcohol poisoning).
However, as Durkin, Wolfe, and Clark (2005) demon-
strated, college-aged binge drinkers reported that alco-
hol consumption has more rewarding outcomes than
negative consequences.
In addition to the prediction related to the role of

social learning processes in risky behaviors, the cur-
rent study also seeks to understand how these social
learning processes interact with prior knowledge
regarding the risky nature of certain behaviors. By
concentrating on the differential associations and rein-
forcements regarding binge drinking and drug use
among college students, this study explores how atti-
tudes are formed and how behaviors are reinforced by
perceptions of normative behavior within peer groups.
This research fills a gap in the literature related to the
qualitative exploration of college students’ perceptions
of poly-substance use and risk-taking behaviors.
Method
This study used focus groups drawn from a larger stu-
dent population at a southwestern university. Focus
SUBSTANCE USE & MISUSE 1887
groups provide insights into a target audience’s per-
ceptions and motivations (Krueger & Casey, 2015),
and can capture the complexities of attitude and
behavioral intentions (Kitzinger, 1994). Enrollment at
the southwestern university was approximately 37,000
students. The college students were recruited from
general media and communication studies courses via
an online recruitment system, and they received extra
course credit for their participation. This research
study was approved by the southwestern university’s
institutional review board. The key ethical considera-
tions reviewed for this study relate to informed con-
sent, confidentiality, and the right to withdraw.
Participants had to be at least 18 years old to register

for the study and be enrolled at the southwestern uni-
versity. The recruitment procedures, discussion guide,
transcription process, and data analysis were approved
by the IRB. Age and university enrollment were the
only exclusion criterion; participants were not
excluded based on substance use history.
Thirteen group discussions were held in October
2017 with a total of 63 college students (27 men, 36
women; 3–8 per group) who were between 18 and
25 years old. Prior to the focus group discussions, a
trained moderator reviewed the goals of the study,
consent forms, and the right to withdraw with the
participants. One author, who had received training in
conducting focus group discussions, moderated each
semi-structured focus group discussion. The duration
of the focus groups ranged from 45 to 80 min. A dis-
cussion guide was developed to probe participants’ per -
ceptions of the college “party scene” and substance use
on campus. Open-ended questions helped minimize
researchers’ bias and allow participants to respond.
Following open-ended questions, probing questions
focused on participants’ feedback. Sample questions
included: What role does alcohol play in college for
you and your friends? When drinking alcohol, are there
times when drugs are around? In your experience, is it
common for your peers to do drugs? What social pres-
sures do you feel regarding drinking/drug use?
The focus groups were audio-recorded, transcribed
verbatim by an online transcription service, and then
analyzed using a thematic approach (Miles &
Huberman, 1994). Thematic analysis identifies themes
that emerge as being important to the description of a
phenomenon; it is a form of pattern recognition
within the data, while emerging themes become cate-

gories for analysis (Miles & Huberman, 1994). The
theoretical proposition that led this study – social
learning theory, specifically differential associations
and reinforcements – was used to assist in the
development of themes. This research used Miles and
Huberman’s data-analysis procedures. The first author
reviewed all transcripts and derived a set of themes
from the discussions, and the second and third authors
independently reviewed all transcripts and the appro-
priateness of the themes derived by the first author.
Disagreements on themes were resolved through dis-
cussion. The first author then coded all of the tran-
scripts by categorizing relevant statements in the
transcripts under themes (Stappenbeck et al., 2010).
The second and third authors then reviewed the coded
statements, and disagreements on the codes were
resolved. This rigorous analysis by multiple researchers
enhanced the reliability of the themes (Miles &
Huberman, 1994). The number of focus groups needed
was determined by saturation, or the point where no
new themes emerged (Krueger & Casey, 2015).
Findings
The current study used the social learning theory as
the analytical framework for identifying themes.
Focusing on differential associations and differential
reinforcements related to “partying” and substance
use, the following themes emerged: participating in
college culture, experimenting is expected, ignoring
risk-taking, and resisting peer pressure, and are
described below.
Participating in college culture

The majority of participants felt that alcohol and drug
use is part of attending college, and that most college
students engage in this type of behavior as part of
socializing. Five participants reported not drinking
due to various factors including religion, addiction, or
hiatus. Several participants mentioned that there was
“nothing else to do” or that drinking “is just – you
don’t think about it, it’s what you do.” The partici-
pants felt as if “partying” was expected of them since
they were in college, “that’s what college students do.”
I mean in general I feel like when you want to do
something, it’s always like centered around drinking.
Like it’s kind of like the social thing to do. I think it’s
just sort of the college thing. (Female, 19, Group #5)
You feel more inclined to drink since everybody, or a
lot of people, are doing it in this demographic area.
(Male, 21, Group #1)
I just can’t imagine being here without alcohol.
(Female, 22, Group #2)
Some participants even chose to attend this particu-
lar university because of its “party school” reputation.
1888 E. WILLIS ET AL.
Many participants reported binge drinking more while
underage than after they turned age 21 due to several
factors, including being new to alcohol and not know -
ing their limits or lack of access. However, many par-
ticipants reported “having a drink at dinner” and “just
staying home on the weekends and drinking” rather

than frequenting bars after they were legally allowed
to drink.
I mean, I’m not 21 anymore. I don’t go out and get
lit every weekend. Yeah, we might drink at home, but
it’s not like going to the bars. (Female, 22, Group #6)
We will just kick back and chill sometimes at the
house … might have a few people stop by, but it’s
very chill. (Male, 22, Group #10)
All of the participants mentioned football games
and tailgating specifically as times where “drinking is
taken to the next level,” meaning that people are
drinking heavily (some reported “up to 22 drinks on
game day”). “Pre-gaming,” by student definition is
where five to eight drinks are consumed before going
out, was commonly reported. While out at the bar,
participants reported drinking more alcohol and
sometimes using drugs such as cocaine, Molly, or
Xanax. Participants reported keeping a running list of
what types of alcohol mixed best with specific types of
available drugs. While many reported experimenting
with alcohol and drugs prior to college, that experi-
mentation drastically increased while in college.
Yeah, you get here and you see everyone drinking.
Eventually, you start drinking as much as everyone
else. (Female, 21, Group #9)
Participants reported having more opportunities to
binge drink in college, and because alcohol seemed to
be at most social functions, drinking (and often, binge
drinking) was expected behavior.
Experimenting is expected

Participants felt experimentation with combining
drugs and alcohol was normal, and most agreed that
marijuana use was very common among college stu-
dents. All of the focus group participants reported
seeing or using marijuana while at college. Six partici-
pants reported being regular users of marijuana.
I smoke weed every single day. I do everything high
and I have great grades. (Female, 19, Group #8)
Other drugs were reported to be popular among
some crowds or in “bathrooms everywhere in the
bars.” For example, half of participants reported being
offered cocaine at a party.
I was at a party. We’ve had [fraternity] events where
a couple of my friends, they’d just be like, “hey, you
want a bump or something? I’d be like, ‘yeah, why
not’, it’s free, it’s nothing I would pay for because it’s
not worth it to me. (Male, 21, Group #7)
It was just at a gathering and some girl just had some
cocaine and she was like, ‘who wants a free line?’
And I was like, ‘why not?’. (Female, 20, Group #10)
Being in a social environment and having the
opportunity to try the drug facilitated participants’
willingness to act. “It’s like since so many others are
doing it, I just can’t see the harm, I guess.” The
majority of participants reported seeing others mix
drugs and alcohol. The participants who reported
common drug use also reported having prior desires
and positive attitudes toward such risky behavior.
Ten of the participants reported actively using

drugs recreationally, sometimes in combination with
alcohol. For example, many participants reported
using Xanax prior to drinking or cocaine after a long
night “to sober you up.” Half of the participants
reported experimenting with drugs once or twice, but
then after the experience, refraining from future drug
use because “it just isn’t my thing.” The remaining
participants had never used drugs, but felt like it was
okay for others who wanted to experiment.
Ignoring risk-taking
All of the participants discussed “blacking out from
alcohol,” either having personal experience or hearing
first-hand from friends. Participants reported
“blacking out” because they either did not yet know
their limits or as a planned behavior.
Usually I feel like alcohol plays the biggest part in
blacking out. I think people do plan to black out,
because I have so many friends that are like, ‘Oh, my
God, I had four tests this week. I just want to go out
tonight and not remember anything’. They completely
black out. I’ve blacked out before. Personally, I don’t
really like it because I don’t like not remembering
anything, because I feel like I did something stupid
and you just don’t remember it … (Female, 21,
Group #5)
In terms of drug use, one participant noted that
‘everyone is medicated’ and that ‘prescription pills are
everywhere’. Many reported the use of prescription
pills specifically. For example, some reported friends
‘stockpiling’ prescription Xanax to use recreationally,
or purchasing Adderall from friends with prescrip-
tions to use while studying or ‘partying’. Participants

reported prescription drugs as being ‘very accessible
around here’.
Most of the participants reported not associating
marijuana with any risk, ‘probably because it’s legal in
most states’. Other drugs were thought of as being
dangerous, including cocaine and prescription medica-
tions such as Adderall, Ambien, and Xanax, when
taken with alcohol. Additionally, when asked to rank
substances by most dangerous to least dangerous,
most participants agreed that alcohol was the most
dangerous drug, followed by prescription pills
and cocaine.
I probably would just say that alcohol is one of the
worst because you don’t see it as a drug, but it really
is because people get addicted to it every day.
(Female, 24, Group #11)
I’d say I think alcohol is worse [than prescription
drugs]. So I would really say … of course the
cocaine, most definitely, and then alcohol after that,
you know what I’m saying? Not because of the long-
term effects or whatever. You got to drink a whole lot
to actually mess your kidneys, but just the fact that
people get messed up on it, drive and stuff like that.
The majority of participants reported engaging in
binge drinking and/or drug use, but did not discuss
the risks with friends due to several factors men-
tioned, including “we learned about that in high

school” and “that’s her life, whatever.” Participants
reported drug users as not wanting to think about the
risks, or “they’re not going to be proactive with it.
You’ve got to ask them.” Five participants reported
knowing friends who passed away from drug overdose
but still reported engaging in drinking and drug use,
just “in moderation.” In addition, most agreed that
they would not warn strangers of the risks of sub-
stance use. Participants felt as if strangers would not
heed their warning, and, therefore, agreed that they
would not try to dissuade a stranger from using drugs
in combination with alcohol, despite the obvious risks.
Resisting peer pressure
The participants agreed that they felt social pressure
to drink but not to do drugs.
I’ve never been pressured to take any drugs. I’ve been
asked, but they weren’t really as persistent as with
alcohol, because I think they know that drugs is a
little more than just alcohol. (Female, 20, Group #12)
No one’s like, ‘Shove this [drink] down or you’re not
part of the [name of school] family!’ I don’t think it’s
like that, it’s just we all do it [binge drink]. (Female,
19, Group #4)
There’s no pressure to do drugs … it’s just, it’s just
if you want it. (Male, 18, Group #10)
If participants were offered drugs and they did not
want to partake, many felt as if it would be easy to
decline the offer. Additionally, participants noted that
drugs were common among ‘certain crowds’ and that
peer pressure was about choice.

I think there’s always going to be that social pressure.
The kind of friend they’re going to be like, ‘Oh,
smoke this, smoke this, smoke this’. But it’s really like
at the end of the day, it’s your own decision to make.
I feel that it’s like a lot who you surround yourself
with and like who your friends are, and like who you
choose to be around and stuff. (Female, 20,
Group #11)
Although it would seem drugs are commonly
offered with no pressure, alcohol carries a greater
social influence, “I mean, it’s hard because everyone is
doing it.” The majority of participants reported drink-
ing frequently, and when opting not to drink – did
not mention being pressured by their peers. Most
reported that their friends did not pressure them to
do anything they didn’t already want to do.
Well, I guess you are on Snapchat and you see all
your friends out, you’re like, oh, crap. I want to go
out drinking with them. I don’t want to be stuck at
home. (Female, 19, Group #8)
Participants reported fearing missing out on the
social scene if they were not out drinking with their
friends. Specifically, seeing friends having fun on
social media platforms created a desire for participants
to engage in the same activities. However, educational
duties often dictated when participants engaged in
heavy drinking, and most agreed that “drinking
shouldn’t get in the way of why I’m here.”
For those participants who did not drink at the

time of the focus groups, all reported not having any
difficulty resisting peer pressure in social settings
whether related to drugs and alcohol. After “pre-
gaming,” many participants reported drinking two to
four drinks while out at the bar unless “someone buys
me a drink, and yeah, I’ll drink it.” One participant
said: “I’ve never seen anyone be pressured to start
drinking, but I have seen people pressured to
keep drinking.”
Discussion
This study had two goals: (1) to understand how both
social influence and peer behavior influences attitudes
toward various substance use behaviors, and (2) to
understand how perceptions of rewarding outcomes
and risky consequences interact with these attitudes to
influence planned behavior. Focus groups were used
to discuss binge drinking and substance use with col-
lege students to understand their perceptions of these
risky behaviors; specifically, the differential associa-
tions and differential reinforcements that students
perceive of these behaviors was probed with direct
questioning. Although previous research has demon-
strated that experimentation with drugs and alcohol is
common and increasing among college students
(Behavioral Health Coordinating Committee:
Prescription Drug Abuse Subcommittee, Department
of Health & Human Services, 2013), this study
revealed how perceptions of peer norms and the bal -
ancing of risk with reward influence behavior.

Four themes were identified within the data: partic-
ipating in college culture, experimenting is expected,
ignoring risk-taking, and resisting peer pressure.
Students believed they were expected to experiment
with alcohol and drugs, and that sometimes included
use. In every focus group, it was said at least once,
“everybody’s doing it” in regard to drinking. Students
also noted that their university had a “party school”
reputation and that was attractive during recruitment.
Marijuana was considered “normal” amongst stu-
dents because it was often reported as “always being
around.” Interestingly, however, students reported
feeling pressure to partake in alcohol but not drugs.
Both illicit and prescription drugs were common and
available to students, and some reported accepting
while others declined. Regardless of the type, drug use
was highest in conjunction with alcohol. Although
students reported knowing the risks of combining
alcohol with prescription medications and illicit drugs,
these risks did not outweigh the perceived rewards.
Few students reported avoiding discussing the risks
with their friends because “it’s their life, you know?.”
Theoretical implications
Theoretically, the findings from this study offer
insight into the differential associations and reinforce-
ments among college students related to alcohol and
drug use. About half of the participants reported
abstaining from drug use, while only five reported not
drinking alcohol. The reported variance in drinking
behavior was evidence of different peer groups at this
university and how these associations influence the
perception of norms. Several students reported seeing

“hard drugs” at parties and making the decision to
leave because they did not feel comfortable around
illicit drug use. However, when it came to drinking,
excessive consumption was permitted because “that’s
what everyone else is doing.” Students reported “pre-
gaming” as a common behavior prior to drinking
more while out at a bar where drug use might also
occur. Many students perceive alcohol and drug use
as part of the college experience and thus, they per-
ceive this to be the norm. Because of their desire to
be part of the “in-group,” they report more reward
than risk due to their perception that “everybody’s
doing it.” Additionally, participants also mentioned
seeing “partying” on social media applications –
sometimes from peers at their same university, some-
times from peers at different universities – contribu-
ting to students’ perceptions that indeed, “everybody’s
doing it.”
In terms of differential reinforcement, students
reported learning their limits “the hard way,” for
example, drinking until sick, “blacking out,” and then
adjusting their behavior as to avoid negative conse-
quences in the future. Most of the students reported
socialization and “having fun” as benefits to engaging
in risk-taking behaviors, but they also acknowledge
the negative consequences, for example, hangovers,
sexual assault. Akers notes that differential reinforce-
ment is the “balance” of rewards and consequences of
engaging in a particular behavior (Akers, 2000; Maggs
et al., 2011). It is clear that over time, students find a
balance in the rewards and consequences of particu-
larly risky behavior that is common to their perceived
college experience. Interestingly, students’ evaluations
of their risk-taking behaviors are determined by their

performance in classes. If drinking or drug use was
interfering with attendance or their personal (or par-
ental) definition of success, then it was perceived as a
problem. However, health issues were not cited as a
reason for the cessation of the risky behavior.
Public health implications
The findings from this study inform public health
interventions targeted at high school and college stu-
dents specifically. Although the current study focused
on college students, many said they used drugs and/or
alcohol prior to attending college. Therefore, predis-
positions to alcohol and drugs start prior to college,
as does students’ perception of college culture; thus
attempts to prevent or cessate must start earlier and
grow as college progresses. More health education
should be targeted to this age group to help them
form an understanding of the risks of substance use,
especially mixing alcohol and drugs. Realistic, targeted
health messaging could help set this population’s
expectations of college “partying” and demonstrate the
consequences of risky behaviors. Findings from this
study might be used by college university’s health cen-
ters to design messages that highlight the consequen-
ces of substance abuse. Additionally, many universities
require students to complete alcohol education prior
to their first year on campus. Often, university educa-
tion includes bystander training which focuses mainly
on sexual misconduct, but perhaps should also include
lessons for students on substance use and discourag-

ing peers (not just friends!) from mixing drugs and
alcohol. Our research offers insight into substance
abuse topics that is informed by students and should
be considered when designing health messages to this
audience. This research demonstrates that students are
likely ignoring the negative consequences to risky
behaviors in order to be accepted by their peer group
and to achieve the perceived benefits of alcohol and
drug use. Future public health messaging related to
the use of drugs and alcohol concurrently should con-
centrate on accentuating the rewards of avoiding such
behavior rather than simply focusing on the risks as
these risks seem to be easily dismissed by this
age group.
Limitations
This study used a qualitative approach; focus groups
cannot be generalized to a general population of col-
lege students. The lack of independent coding by
more than one author is a limitation. In addition, the
students in the sample are from one university and,
thus, future work should include other campuses
across the country. Additionally, the university’s IRB
limited the demographic and behavioral information
that could be collected from students. Future work
should attempt to probe the relationships between
these differential associations and reinforcements
through quantitative measures such as large-scale sur-
veys or experimental designs intended to present mes-
sages that might appeal to one or both of the social
learning processes.
Taken together, the findings of this study suggest
that poly-substance use on college campuses is, at
least in part, driven by a perception of college culture

and a poor balancing of the risks and rewards associ -
ated with these behaviors.
Declaration of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
The authors alone are responsible for the content and writ-
ing of the article.
ORCID
Erin Willis http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1582-0867
Justin Keene http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1404-0025
References
Akers, R. L. (2000). Criminological theories: Introduction,
evaluation, and application (pp. 17–21). Los Angeles, CA:
Roxbury.
Akers, R. L. (2011). Social learning and social structure: A
general theory of crime and deviance (pp. 34–38).
Piscataway, NJ: Rutgers.
Armeli, S., Conner, T. S., Cullum, J., & Tennen, H. (2010).
A longitudinal analysis of drinking motives moderating
the negative affect-drinking association among college
students. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 24(1), 38–47.
doi:10.1037/a0017530
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory
of behavioral change. Psychology Review, 84(2), 191–215.
doi:10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191
Behavioral Health Coordinating Committee: Prescription
Drug Abuse Subcommittee, Department of Health and

Human Services. (2013). Addressing prescription drug
abuse in the United States: Current activities and future
opportunities. Retrieved Jan 8, 2018 from http://www.cdc.
gov/HomeandRecreationalSafety/pdf/HHS_Prescription_
Drug_Abuse_Report_09.2013.pdf.
Brooks-Russel, A., Simons-Morton, B., Haynie, D., Farhat,
T., & Wang, J. (2014). Longitudinal relationship between
drinking with peers, descriptive norms, and adolescent
alcohol use. Prevention Science, 15, 497–505. doi:10.1007/
s11121-013-0391-9
Carey, K. B., Scott-Sheldon, L. A. J., Garey, L., Elliott, J. C.,
& Carey, M. P. (2016). Alcohol interventions for man-
dated college students: A meta-analytic review. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 84(7), 619–632. doi:
10.1037/a0040275
Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality. (2015).
Results from the 2014 national survey on drug use and
health: Detailed tables (pp. 6–12). Rockville, MD:
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2017). Fact
sheets – Binge drinking. Retrieved Dec 15, 2017 from
https://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/fact-sheets/binge-drinking.htm.
Crawford, L. A., & Novak, K. B. (2010). Beliefs about alco-
hol and the college experience as moderators of the
effects of perceived drinking norms on student alcohol
use. Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education, 54, 69–86.
Croom, K., Lewis, D., Marchell, T., Lesser, M. L., Reyna,
V. F., Kubicki-Bedford, L., … Staiano-Coico, L. (2009).
Impact of an online alcohol education course on behavior

and harm for incoming first-year college students: Short-
term evaluation of a randomized trial. Journal of
American College Health, 57(4), 445–454. doi:10.3200/
JACH.57.4.445-454
Durkin, K. F., Wolfe, T. W., & Clark, G. A. (2005). College
students and binge drinking: An evaluation of the social
learning theory. Sociological Spectrum, 25(3), 255–272.
doi:10.1080/027321790518681
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017530
https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191
http://www.cdc.gov/HomeandRecreationalSafety/pdf/HHS_Pres
cription_Drug_Abuse_Report_09.2013.pdf
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-013-0391-9
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-013-0391-9
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0040275
https://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/fact-sheets/binge-drinking.htm
https://doi.org/10.3200/JACH.57.4.445-454
https://doi.org/10.3200/JACH.57.4.445-454
https://doi.org/10.1080/027321790518681
Ford, J. A., & Arrastia, M. C. (2008). Pill-poppers and dop-
ers: A comparison of non-medical prescription drug use
and illicit/street drug use among college students.
Addictive Behaviors, 33(7), 934–941. doi:10.1016/
j.addbeh.2008.02.016
Fournier, A. K., Hall, E., Ricke, P., & Storey, B. (2013).

Alcohol and the social network: Online social networking
sites and college students’ perceived drinking norms.
Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 2(2), 86–95. doi:
10.1037/a0032097
Garnier-Dykstra, L. M., Caldeira, K. M., Vincent, K. B.,
O’Grady, K. E., & Arria, A. M. (2012). Nonmedical use
of prescription stimulants during college: Four-year
trends in exposure opportunity, use, motives, and sour-
ces. Journal of American College Health, 60(3), 226–236.
doi:10.1080/07448481.2011.589876
Hahm, H. C., Kolaczyk, E., Jang, J., Swenson, T., &
Bhindarwala, A. M. (2012). Binge drinking trajectories
from adolescence to young adulthood: The effects of peer
social network. Substance Use & Misuse, 47, 745–756.
doi:10.3109/10826084.2012.666313
Kitzinger, J. (1994). The methodology of focus groups: The
importance of interaction between research participants.
Sociology of Health and Illness, 16, 103–121. doi:10.1111/
1467-9566.ep11347023
Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2015). Focus groups: A
practical guide for applied research (5th ed.; pp. 18–23).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Maggs, J. L., Williams, L. R., & Lee, C. M. (2011). Ups and
downs of alcohol use among first-year college students:
Numbers of drinks, heavy drinking, and stumble and
pass out drinking days. Addictive Behaviors, 36(3),
197–202. doi:10.1016/j.addbeh.2010.10.005
Martinez, H. S., Klanecky, A. K., & McChargue, D. E.
(2018). Problem drinking among at-risk college students:
The examination of Greek involvement, freshmen status,

and history of mental health problems. Journal of
American College Health. doi:10.1080/07448481.2018.
1432625
McCabe, S. E. (2008). Misperceptions of non-medical pre-
scription drug use: A web survey of college students.
Addictive Behaviors, 33(5), 713–724. doi:10.1016/
j.addbeh.2007.12.008
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data
analysis: An expanded sourcebook (pp. 98–101).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
National Institute on Drug Abuse. (2017). Medical conse-
quences of drug abuse. Retreived Dec 6, 2017 from
http://www.drugabuse.gov/related-topics/medical-conse-
quences-drug-abuse.
O’Connor, R. M., & Colder, C. R. (2005). Predicting alcohol
patterns in first-year college students through motiv-
ational systems and reasons for drinking. Psychology of
Addictive Behaviors, 19, 10–20. doi:10.1037/0893-
164X.19.1.10
O’Hara, R. E., Armeli, S., & Tennen, H. (2015). College stu-
dents’ drinking motives and social-contextual factors:
Comparing associations across levels of analysis.
Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 29, 420–429. doi:
10.1037/adb0000046
Peralta, R. L., & Steele, J. L. (2010). Nonmedical prescrip-
tion drug use among US college students at a midwest
university: A partial test of social learning theory.
Substance Use & Misuse, 45, 865–887. doi:10.3109/
10826080903443610

Read, J. P., Wood, M. D., Kahler, C. W., Maddock, J. E., &
Palfai, T. P. (2003). Examining the role of drinking
motives in college student alcohol use and problems.
Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 17(1), 13–23. doi:
10.1037/0893-164X.17.1.13
Schultz, P. W., Nolan, J. M., Cialdini, R. B., Goldstein, N. J.,
& Griskevicius, V. (2007). The constructive, destructive,
and reconstructive power of social norms. Psychological
Science, 18(5), 429–434. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
9280.2007.01917.x
Sher, K. J., Bartholow, B. D., & Nanda, S. (2001). Short-
and long-term effects of fraternity and sorority member-
ship on heavy drinking: A social norms perspective.
Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 15(1), 42–51. doi:
10.1037//0893-164X.15.1.42
Stappenbeck, C. A., Quinn, P. D., Wetherill, R. R., &
Fromme, K. (2010). Perceived norms for drinking in the
transition from high school to college and beyond.
Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 71(6), 895–903.
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration. (2006). A comprehensive plan for pre-
venting and reducing underage drinking. Retrieved Dec
29, 2017 from: http://www.stopalcoholabuse.gov/media/
pdf/underagerpttocongress.pdf.
Tanner-Smith, E. E., & Lipsey, M. W. (2015). Brief alcohol
interventions for adolescents and young adults: A system-
atic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Substance Abuse
Treatment, 51, 1–18. doi:10.1016/j.jsat.2014.09.001
Tyler, K. A., Schmitz, R. M., Ray, C. M., Adams, S. A., &
Gordon Simons, L. (2017). The role of protective behav-

ioral strategies, social environment, and housing type on
heavy drinking among college students. Substance Use
and Misuse. doi:10.1080/10826084.2017.1363235
Wechsler, H., Lee, J. E., Kuo, M., & Lee, H. (2000). College
binge drinking in the 1990s: A continuing problem
results of the Harvard School of Public Health 1999
College Alcohol Study. Journal of American College
Health, 48(5), 199–210. doi:10.1080/07448480009599305
Wechsler, H., Nelson, T. E., Lee, J. E., Seibring, M., Lewis,
C., & Keeling, R. P. (2003). Perception and reality: A
national evaluation of social norms and marketing inter-
ventions to reduce college students’ heavy alcohol use.
Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 64(4), 484–494. doi:
10.15288/jsa.2003.64.484
Wesley Perkins, H., Haines, M. P., & Rice, R. (2005).
Misperceiving the college drinking norm and related
problems: A nationwide study of exposure to prevention
information, perceived norms and student alcohol mis-
use. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 66(4), 470–478. doi:
10.15288/jsa.2005.66.470
White, A., & Hingson, R. (2013). The burden of alcohol
use: Excessive alcohol consumption and related conse-
quences among college students. Alcohol Research:
Current Reviews, 35, 201–218.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2008.02.016
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032097
https://doi.org/10.1080/07448481.2011.589876
https://doi.org/10.3109/10826084.2012.666313

https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9566.ep11347023
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9566.ep11347023
https://doi.org/10.1080/07448481.2018.1432625
https://doi.org/10.1080/07448481.2018.1432625
http://www.drugabuse.gov/related-topics/medical-consequences-
drug-abuse
http://www.drugabuse.gov/related-topics/medical-consequences-
drug-abuse
https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-164X.19.1.10
https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-164X.19.1.10
https://doi.org/10.1037/adb0000046
https://doi.org/10.3109/10826080903443610
https://doi.org/10.3109/10826080903443610
https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-164X.17.1.13
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01917.x
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01917.x
https://doi.org/10.1037//0893-164X.15.1.42
http://www.stopalcoholabuse.gov/media/pdf/underagerpttocongr
ess.pdf
http://www.stopalcoholabuse.gov/media/pdf/underagerpttocongr
ess.pdf
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsat.2014.09.001
https://doi.org/10.1080/10826084.2017.1363235
https://doi.org/10.1080/07448480009599305
https://doi.org/10.15288/jsa.2003.64.484
https://doi.org/10.15288/jsa.2005.66.470
Copyright of Substance Use & Misuse is the property of Taylor
& Francis Ltd and its content
may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a
listserv without the copyright
holder's express written permission. However, users may print,

download, or email articles for
individual use.
AbstractSocial learning theoryDifferential association and
reinforcementMethodFindingsParticipating in college
cultureExperimenting is expectedIgnoring risk-takingResisting
peer pressureDiscussionTheoretical implicationsPublic health
implicationsLimitationsDeclaration of interestReferences
The Rise and Fall of Behaviorism:
The Narrative and the Numbers
Michiel Braat, Jan Engelen, Ties van Gemert, and Sander
Verhaegh
Tilburg University
The history of 20th-century American psychology is often
depicted as a history of the rise
and fall of behaviorism. Although historians disagree about the
theoretical and social factors
that have contributed to the development of experimental
psychology, there is widespread
consensus about the growing and (later) declining influence of
behaviorism between
approximately 1920 and 1970. Because such wide-scope claims
about the development of
American psychology are typically based on small and
unrepresentative samples of histor-
ical data, however, the question arises to what extent the
received view is justified. This
article aims to answer this question in two ways. First, we use
advanced scientometric tools
(e.g., bibliometric mapping, cocitation analysis, and term co-
occurrence analysis) to quan-
titatively analyze the metadata of 119,278 articles published in

American journals between
1920 and 1970. We reconstruct the development and structure of
American psychology
using cocitation and co-occurrence networks and argue that the
standard story needs
reappraising. Second, we argue that the question whether
behaviorism was the “dominant”
school of American psychology is historically misleading to
begin with. Using the results of
our bibliometric analyses, we argue that questions about the
development of American
psychology deserve more fine-grained answers.
Keywords: behaviorism, American psychology, bibliometric
mapping, cocitation
analysis, co-occurrence analysis
The history of 20th-century American psychology is often
depicted as a history of the rise and
fall of behaviorism, the view that psychology should become “a
purely objective experimental
branch of natural science” (Watson, 1913, p. 248). Although
early 20th-century psychologists
aimed to redefine their discipline as a science of behavior, the
popularity of behaviorism
declined from the late 1950s onward, when psychologis ts,
linguists, and computer scientists
joined forces and developed empirical approaches to the study
of mind and cognition.
This article was published Online First March 19, 2020.
Michiel Braat, Tilburg School of Humanities and Digital
Sciences, Tilburg University; Jan Engelen, Depart-
ment of Communication and Cognition, Tilburg School of
Humanities and Digital Sciences, Tilburg University;

Ties van Gemert, Tilburg School of Humanities and Digital
Sciences, Tilburg University; Sander Verhaegh,
Tilburg Center for Logic, Ethics, and Philosophy of Science,
Tilburg School of Humanities and Digital Sciences,
Tilburg University.
All authors contributed equally to this work. This research is
funded by the Tilburg School of Humanities and
Digital Sciences Research Traineeships Programme. In addition,
Verhaegh’s research is funded by The
Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (grant 275–20
– 064). We would like to thank Nees Jan van
Eck, members of the History of Behavior Analysis mailing list
(especially Nicole L. Banks and François
Tonneau) and audiences at conferences at the University of
Amsterdam, the CEU Institute for Advanced Study
Budapest, and the Tilburg School of Humanities and Digital
Sciences for their valuable comments and feedback.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to
Jan Engelen or Sander Verhaegh, Tilburg
School of Humanities and Digital Sciences, Tilburg University,
Warandelaan 2, 5037 AB, Tilburg, the
Netherlands. E-mail: [email protected] or [email protected]
T
hi
s
do
cu
m
en
t

is
co
py
ri
gh
te
d
by
th
e
A
m
er
ic
an
P
sy
ch
ol
og
ic
al
A
ss

oc
ia
ti
on
or
on
e
of
it
s
al
li
ed
pu
bl
is
he
rs
.
T
hi
s
ar
ti

cl
e
is
in
te
nd
ed
so
le
ly
fo
r
th
e
pe
rs
on
al
us
e
of
th
e
in

di
vi
du
al
us
er
an
d
is
no
t
to
be
di
ss
em
in
at
ed
br
oa
dl
y.
History of Psychology

© 2020 American Psychological Association 2020, Vol. 23, No.
3, 252–280
ISSN: 1093-4510 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/hop0000146
252
mailto:[email protected]
mailto:[email protected]
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/hop0000146
Although historians of science disagree about the theoretical
and social factors that have
contributed to the development of experimental psychology
(Cohen-Cole, 2014; Greenwood,
2009; Leahey, 2001), there is a widespread consensus about the
growing and declining
influence of behaviorism in 20th-century American psychology
(DeGrandpré & Buskist,
2000; O’Donohue & Kitchener, 1999; Staddon, 1999; Zuriff,
1985).
From a methodological perspective, these claims are
contentious, because wide-scope
claims about the development of American psychology are
rarely backed up by representative
empirical data. Although nobody will deny that many of today’s
best-known behaviorists
produced their most influential work between 1920 and 1960, it
is unclear what proportion of
American psychologists embraced a behavioristic conception of
psychology both during and
after the heyday of behaviorism. Similar worries can be raised
about the historians’ conclu-
sions about developments internal to behaviorism. Although
most scholars identify Watson,

Hull, Tolman, and Skinner as the most influential (neo-
)behaviorists,1 these claims are seldom
supported by balanced empirical evidence. In general, it is
unclear to what extent the list of
psychologists who have been most extensively studied by
historians of behaviorism forms a
faithful representation of the scholars that actually influenced
the development of behaviorism
in the first half of the 20th century.
The problem that wide-scope claims about the history of
American psychology are rarely
backed up by balanced empirical data is especially pressing
because it seems likely that
historians overestimate the influence of canonized schools and
scholars (whether it is behav-
iorism in the 1930s or cognitive psychology in the 1970s). Not
only do historians tend to
ignore psychologists who did not belong to any school (Green,
Feinerer, & Burman, 2013); in
studying the histories of influential schools and scholars,
historians also tend to limit them-
selves to the writings “of a few known authors that are
transmitted from generation to
generation [. . .] as the authors to read” (Betti, van den Berg,
Oortwijn, & Treijtel, 2019,
p. 296). More particularly, historical claims about the
development of American psychology
are often based on corpora that are (a) not clearly specified
(which texts exactly did the
historian study in arriving at their conclusions?), (b) very small
(how many of the tens of
thousands of texts produced by psychologists did the historian
actually read?), and (c) not
representative (how can the historian guarantee that the texts he
or she studied form a

representative sample of the total body of texts produced by
psychologists?). Although
in-depth text analyses and archive studies can provide historians
with a first indication of the
influence of a psychologist, a method, or a school of
psychology, their conclusions will always
be shaped by the texts and archives they choose to study.
In this article, we aim to transcend the received view about the
development of 20th-century
American psychology in two ways. First, we use advanced text
analysis tools (e.g., biblio-
metric mapping, cocitation analysis, and co-occurrence
analysis) to quantitatively analyze the
metadata of 119,278 articles published in American psychology
journals between 1920 and
1970. We analyze both the citations and the title terms of these
articles and generate cocitation
and co-occurrence networks for every consecutive decade
between 1920 and 1970 to recon-
struct the structure and development of mid-20th-century
American psychology and the
structure and development of behaviorism. Second, we argue
that the question whether
behaviorism was the “dominant” school of American
psychology is historically misleading to
begin with. Using the results of our bibliometric analyses, we
argue that questions about the
development of American psychology deserve more fine-grained
answers.
This article is organized as follows. After a brief outline of
what might be called the received
view about the history of behaviorism, we explain the main
methodological challenges

1
See, for example, Boakes (1984, p. 237), Smith (1986, pp. 21–
22) and Mills (2012, pp. 104 –108). Most
historians paint a picture of the development of behaviorism in
which first Watson and later Hull and Tolman
offered the “dominant orientation in American departments of
psychology until after the end of the Second War,
when it was displaced by [Skinner’s] radical behaviorism”
(Greenwood, 2009, p. 477).
T
hi
s
do
cu
m
en
t
is
co
py
ri
gh
te
d
by
th

e
A
m
er
ic
an
P
sy
ch
ol
og
ic
al
A
ss
oc
ia
ti
on
or
on
e
of
it

s
al
li
ed
pu
bl
is
he
rs
.
T
hi
s
ar
ti
cl
e
is
in
te
nd
ed
so
le

ly
fo
r
th
e
pe
rs
on
al
us
e
of
th
e
in
di
vi
du
al
us
er
an
d
is

no
t
to
be
di
ss
em
in
at
ed
br
oa
dl
y.
253RISE AND FALL OF BEHAVIORISM
surrounding quantitative representations of the development of
American psychology. Next,
we describe our data and methods and provide an overview of
our findings about the structure
and development of American psychology between 1920 and
1970. Finally, we discuss the
implications of our findings and argue that the standard story
about the development of
American psychology needs reappraising.

Behaviorism: The Narrative
Behaviorism is a complex of methodological, epistemological,
and sometimes ontological
assumptions about the foundations of psychology. Where
psychology is traditionally defined
as the study of mental phenomena, behaviorists typically argue
that psychology should
become a science of behavior. More specifically, most
behaviorists agree that (a) psychology
is or should become a branch of natural science, (b)
psychologists should study behavior
instead of mental phenomena, and (c) a science of behavior
should be built exclusively on
publicly available evidence (thereby dismissing the use of
introspection in psychological
research). Usually, behaviorists combine this view about the
nature of psychology with a set
of empirical assumptions—for instance, the assumption that the
behavior of an organism is
determined by the organism’s reinforcement history. Outside
these shared philosophical and
empirical commitments, behaviorists also strongly disagree
about a wide range of issues. Most
importantly, they disagree about the domain for psychology
(should a study of behavior
include or exclude physiological variables?), the nature of the
observation language (should
behaviorists tolerate intensional descriptions or purposive
language?), and the types of theo-
retical concepts allowed in the construction of behaviorist
theories (are intervening variables
or hypothetical constructs acceptable?).
Historians often distinguish between two types of behaviorism
in psychology: meth-

odological and radical behaviorism (Day, 1983; Mills, 2012;
Moore, 1981).2 Method-
ological behaviorists view (a)–(c) as a set of methodological
prescriptions; they do not
believe that psychologists should say something about the
ontological status of mental
states. According to the methodological view, psychologists
should aim to scientifically
describe and explain behavior without referring to mental states,
images, or processes.
Radical behaviorists, on the other hand, deny that mental
entities exist and argue that
private events should be included in the analysis of behavior —
that is, that private events
should be analyzed in terms of the same principles that have
been used to study overt
behavior (Day, 1983; Ringen, 1999; Skinner, 1974).
Although behaviorism is generally viewed as a distinctively
American psychology,
most historians recognize that its roots can be traced back to the
work of the Russian
objective psychologists or reflexologists (Boakes, 1984; Fuchs
& Milar, 2003; Hergen-
hahn, 2005).3 Ivan Sechenov, often credited as the founder of
this school, worked on the
(excitatory and inhibitory) mediational role of the cerebral
cortex in reflex actions and
extrapolated his findings to the concepts of psychology. In
Reflexes of the Brain, Sechenov
(1863/1965) defended the view that every mental process is
reducible to a physiological
reflex: “only physiology holds the key to the scientific analysis
of psychical phenomena”
(p. 351). Ivan Pavlov and Vladimir Bekhterev extended
Sechenov’s work by indepen-

dently discovering the principles of classical conditioning.
Indeed, Sechenov’s call for an
objective psychology seems to have played an important role in
Pavlov’s conclusion that
2
We include the qualification “in psychology” because the
present overview excludes the role behaviorist
theories played outside psychology (e.g. philosophy, economics,
and sociology). See, for example, Pooley and
Solovey (2010) and Hauser (2015).
3
In addition, historians generally recognize that behaviorism also
affected the development of psychology
outside the United States. See, for example, Ardilla (2009).
T
hi
s
do
cu
m
en
t
is
co
py
ri

gh
te
d
by
th
e
A
m
er
ic
an
P
sy
ch
ol
og
ic
al
A
ss
oc
ia
ti
on

or
on
e
of
it
s
al
li
ed
pu
bl
is
he
rs
.
T
hi
s
ar
ti
cl
e
is
in

te
nd
ed
so
le
ly
fo
r
th
e
pe
rs
on
al
us
e
of
th
e
in
di
vi
du
al

us
er
an
d
is
no
t
to
be
di
ss
em
in
at
ed
br
oa
dl
y.
254 BRAAT, ENGELEN, VAN GEMERT, AND VERHAEGH
his experimental results (dogs salivate in response to food
stimuli at a distance) could be

Description of Dataset for HW1 Each month the Bureau of

Description of Dataset for HW1 Each month the Bureau of

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Description of Dataset for HW1 Each month the Bureau of

Similar to Description of Dataset for HW1 Each month the Bureau of (18)

More from LinaCovington707

More from LinaCovington707 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Description of Dataset for HW1 Each month the Bureau of