# Operant Conditioning in the Classroom: Praise, Token Economies, the Good Behavior Game, and What the Evidence Says

> Operant conditioning in the classroom: what the evidence says about praise, token economies, the Good Behavior Game, PBIS, and Skinner's teaching machines.

- Source: https://operantconditioning.com/classroom/
- Author: Ryan Martinson (https://operantconditioning.com/about/)
- Publisher: Operant Conditioning Inc.
- Published: 2026-09-09 · Updated: 2026-09-10
- License: https://operantconditioning.com/terms/#copyright (quote with attribution and a link; free to reproduce for non-commercial teaching)

---

*Applications · Education*

Schools were the first institutions to use operant conditioning at scale, and they still produce some of its best evidence. What works — praise, tokens, the Good Behavior Game, school-wide systems, feedback-driven teaching — and what quietly backfires.

> **Definition**
>
> **Operant conditioning in the classroom** is the deliberate arrangement of antecedents (rules, cues, task design) and consequences (attention, praise, tokens, feedback, lost privileges) so that learning-related behavior increases and disruptive behavior decreases.
>
> Every classroom already runs on consequences; the question is whether they are arranged on purpose. The first controlled demonstration that a teacher's attention could switch a child's studying on and off appeared in the first issue of the *Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis*.[1]

**In brief**

- Every classroom already runs on consequences; operant conditioning in the classroom arranges antecedents and consequences on purpose so learning behavior rises and disruption falls.
- Contingent, specific praise is the cheapest reinforcer in the building, and the Good Behavior Game is one of the most thoroughly studied classroom management procedures there is.
- A consequence is whatever the behavior says it is: a reprimand can be attention, and removal from class can reinforce misbehavior that escapes work.

## Why classrooms adopted operant conditioning first

Skinner's interest in education began on a school visit. In 1953 he watched his daughter's fourth-grade class work identical arithmetic problems at the same pace, with results returned a day later — feedback so delayed that, by everything he knew from the laboratory, it could hardly teach. His 1954 lecture "The science of learning and the art of teaching" diagnosed education's failures as failures of reinforcement: too few reinforced responses, too long a delay, no program of small steps.[2] Psychiatric wards ran the earliest behavior-change programs, but classrooms were where the technology first spread widely; the early issues of the *Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis*, launched in 1968, were full of schools.[1][3][4] The reasons are structural: one adult controlling most of the consequences, behavior that is visible and countable, a fixed schedule, twenty-five learners at once — the operant chamber with the roles reversed. And discipline was a problem everyone agreed on: measurable, urgent, and public.

## The four quadrants in a classroom

| Procedure | What happens | Classroom example | Effect |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Positive reinforcement | Something is added | A student raises her hand instead of calling out; the teacher calls on her: "Thanks for raising your hand." | Hand-raising increases |
| Negative reinforcement | Something is removed | Students who get the first ten problems right are excused from the last ten. | Careful work increases |
| Positive punishment | Something aversive is added | A student shouts across the room; the teacher gives a quiet, immediate reprimand. | Shouting decreases — unless, for this student, a reprimand is attention |
| Negative punishment | A reinforcer is removed | A student pushes in line and loses two minutes of recess (response cost). | Pushing decreases |
| Extinction | The maintaining reinforcer stops | A student blurts out answers for the teacher's reaction; the teacher stops reacting and calls only on raised hands. | Blurting rises briefly, then declines |

Two rows deserve a second look. For a student who gets little adult attention, a reprimand *is* attention, and the shouting will go up. And extinction works only on the reinforcer actually maintaining the behavior; if the class is laughing, the teacher's silence changes nothing. A consequence is whatever the behavior says it is. [More examples for every quadrant ›](https://operantconditioning.com/examples/)

## Praise that works and praise that doesn't

Teacher attention is the cheapest reinforcer in the building. When teachers attended to six elementary pupils only while they studied, studying rose; when attention went back to dawdling, it fell; when contingent attention returned, it rose again.[1] In a companion study, posting rules did little, adding ignoring did little, and disruption fell only when the teachers added praise for appropriate behavior — probably, the authors concluded, the key to classroom management.[3] The reverse holds too: withdraw approval from a well-behaved class and it turns disruptive; add disapproval and it gets worse.[5]

Yet most classroom praise is not reinforcement. Jere Brophy's review found that teachers praise infrequently, often without regard to what the student has just done, and often as a management reflex; vague, non-contingent praise changes nothing.[6] A later review added that praise supports intrinsic motivation when it is sincere, names effort or strategy rather than ability, and sets a reachable standard — and undermines it when it compares students with one another or gushes over easy work.[7]

| Praise that reinforces | Praise that doesn't |
| --- | --- |
| Contingent and specific: "You showed every step of the working" | Global or vague: "good class today," "nice job" |
| Credible: matched to the difficulty, in a normal voice | Effusive praise for trivial work, which signals low expectations |
| About effort, strategy, and improvement on the student's own past work | About ability ("you're so smart") or rank against classmates |
| In a form the student can accept — privately, for many adolescents | Public praise that embarrasses, which functions as punishment |

Quantity matters too. A three-year observational study of elementary classrooms found that the higher a teacher's praise-to-reprimand ratio, the more time students spent on task, with no ceiling.[8] Many programs recommend at least four praise statements per reprimand; most classrooms run far below that, because misbehavior is more salient than quiet work, so the ratio has to be engineered — a tally on the desk, a timer that prompts a scan of the room.

## Token economies: how to build one that works

A [token economy](https://operantconditioning.com/glossary/#token-economy) delivers points, stars, or chips contingent on target behaviors and lets students exchange them later for backup reinforcers. Ayllon and Azrin developed it on a psychiatric ward in the early 1960s,[9] and classrooms adopted it almost immediately: in a 1967 program, a public-school class of seventeen children with serious behavior problems earned ratings exchangeable for small prizes, and disruption dropped sharply and stayed down.[4] Tokens work because they are [generalized conditioned reinforcers](https://operantconditioning.com/positive-reinforcement/#generalized-reinforcers): instant to deliver, slow to satiate, exchangeable for whatever each student values. Alan Kazdin's reviews, from 1972 to 1982, judged the evidence strong across schools, wards, prisons, and homes, and named the recurring weaknesses: gains faded when tokens were withdrawn, did not transfer to settings without tokens, and depended on staff who often stopped delivering them.[10][11] A well-built system anticipates all three.

1. **Define three to five target behaviors as things to do.** "Start work within a minute of the bell," not "don't waste time."
2. **Deliver the token in a second, with specific praise every time.** Praise inherits the token's power and still works when the tokens are gone.
3. **Build the menu from what students do when free to choose,** start cheap, and exchange the same day. Long saving periods are a schedule most children have not yet learned to work on.
4. **Keep fines rare and small.** [Response cost](https://operantconditioning.com/negative-punishment/) works only while students have tokens to lose.
5. **Plan the fade from day one.** Raise prices, space the exchanges, shift from points to praise to natural consequences — and count the target behavior weekly.

## The Good Behavior Game

The **Good Behavior Game** is one of the most thoroughly studied classroom management procedures there is, and it costs nothing. In the 1969 original, a fourth-grade class was split into two teams during math and reading; a mark went against a team whenever any member left their seat or talked out; and teams finishing under a set number of marks — both could win — earned privileges such as end-of-day free time and lining up first. Out-of-seat and talking-out behavior fell dramatically and returned when the game was withdrawn.[12] It is an *interdependent group contingency*: each student's behavior affects the team's outcome, so peers prompt and reinforce one another.

The follow-up is what makes it remarkable. In the mid-1980s Sheppard Kellam's group randomly assigned first-grade classrooms in Baltimore public schools to the game, to a curriculum intervention, or to standard practice, and followed the children into adulthood. At ages 19 to 21, the men who had been the most aggressive first-graders and had played the game showed lower rates of drug and alcohol disorders, regular smoking, and antisocial personality disorder than their counterparts from control classrooms.[13]

> **How to run the Good Behavior Game**
>
> 1. **Pick two or three rules** stated as visible behaviors: in your seat, hand up to talk, hands to yourself.
> 2. **Split the class into teams** of roughly equal difficulty, and announce when the game is on — one short period a day at first, in the lesson that suffers most.
> 3. **Mark violations calmly and visibly,** with no lecture, and keep teaching.
> 4. **Let every team under the criterion win,** immediately at first — five minutes of a preferred activity — then at the end of the day, then the week.
> 5. **Expand slowly,** stop announcing the start, and give a deliberate saboteur a team of one.

## School-wide PBIS

**Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports** (PBIS) applies the same logic to a whole building: three to five expectations, taught explicitly in each setting; tickets or praise for meeting them; a predictable response to violations; monthly review of office-referral data; and tiered support, from the universal system up to individual plans built on a functional behavioral assessment. The evidence is respectable rather than spectacular: in a randomized trial of 37 Maryland elementary schools, the 21 trained in PBIS showed reductions in office discipline referrals and suspensions relative to the 16 that were not.[14] PBIS is not a product. It is the adults in a building agreeing on what they will reinforce, and then doing it.

## Skinner's teaching machines, precision teaching, and Direct Instruction

Skinner's own contribution was to instruction. His **teaching machine** presented a frame of material, required a composed answer, revealed the correct one immediately, and moved on through steps so small that the student was nearly always right.[2][15] He credited Sidney Pressey's devices of the 1920s for scoring answers automatically; what was new was the program. **Programmed instruction** named the principles — small steps, active responding, immediate feedback, self-pacing — so that the reinforcement of being right arrives thousands of times a semester rather than a few dozen. The machines are gone; the principles survive in mastery learning and adaptive tutoring software.

**Precision teaching**, developed by Skinner's student Ogden Lindsley, kept the laboratory's measure: rate. Students do brief timed practice and chart correct and incorrect responses per minute, and the teacher changes the teaching when the curve flattens. The target is *fluency* — accuracy plus speed — and the rule is that the child knows best: if the child is not learning, the program is wrong.[16] **Direct Instruction**, Siegfried Engelmann's scripted, fast-paced lessons with choral responding, immediate correction, and mastery before advancement, is the most evaluated instructional program of the past half-century; a 2018 meta-analysis of more than 300 studies found consistently positive effects across subjects and across five decades of research.[17] All three share what Skinner saw in 1953: many responses, immediate consequences, a program that keeps the learner succeeding.

## The negative-reinforcement trap: misbehavior that escapes work

The commonest classroom mistake is not a failure of punishment but a misreading of function. A student who finds the work aversive — too hard, too long, humiliating in front of peers — discovers that acting out makes it go away: the lesson stops, the worksheet is put aside, the student is sent to the hallway or the office. Each of those is [negative reinforcement](https://operantconditioning.com/negative-reinforcement/), and the behavior that produced it will happen more. The intended punishment is functioning as a reward.

In functional analyses of problem behavior, escape from demands is the single most common maintaining consequence identified — 38% of 152 cases of self-injury in the largest series,[18] and time-out is the classic casualty: in a pair of experiments it reduced problem behavior when the environment the child left was rich, and *increased* it when leaving offered an escape.[19] Since 1997, U.S. special-education law has required a functional behavioral assessment when a student with a disability is removed from school for behavior that turns out to be a manifestation of the disability, for exactly this reason. The escape-maintained student needs work pitched where success is likely, an acceptable way to ask for a break that is honored every time, and — where safe — the demand kept in place so that acting out no longer ends it. [Escape extinction vs. ignoring ›](https://operantconditioning.com/extinction/#extinction-is-not-ignoring)

## Extinction and planned ignoring: what they can and can't do

**Planned ignoring** — withholding attention from a behavior that attention has been maintaining — is [extinction](https://operantconditioning.com/extinction/), and it fits exactly one class of behavior: attention-seeking aimed at the teacher. It is the wrong tool for behavior maintained by peers' laughter, for escape, and for anything dangerous. Even where it fits, it works slowly, produces an [extinction burst](https://operantconditioning.com/extinction/#what-is-an-extinction-burst) first, and on its own did little in the classic experiment; combined with praise for the behavior wanted instead, it worked well.[3] The professional version is differential reinforcement: the blurt is ignored and the raised hand is called on within seconds, every time.

> **Ignoring is a decision, not a default**
>
> Ignore a behavior only after answering three questions: is my attention what maintains it, can I withhold it every single time, and can I outlast the burst? Ignoring for four minutes and reacting on the fifth puts the behavior on an intermittent schedule and makes it stronger.

## Do rewards kill intrinsic motivation? The overjustification caveat

The objection every teacher hears is that rewards turn learning into work. The evidence is real but narrow. In the classic study, preschoolers who liked drawing were promised a certificate for drawing with markers; a week or two later they drew less in free play than children given the same certificate unexpectedly, or none at all.[20] A meta-analysis of 128 experiments found that *expected, tangible* rewards for an already interesting activity reduced later free-choice engagement, while praise did not — it raised it in college students and had no reliable effect in children; a competing meta-analysis found the effect small and confined to narrow conditions.[21][22] So: use tokens and tangible rewards for behavior students do not already do, fade them as the behavior meets its natural reinforcers, use praise and progress feedback freely, and never pay students for what they already do for pleasure. [The intrinsic-motivation evidence in detail ›](https://operantconditioning.com/positive-reinforcement/#does-positive-reinforcement-undermine-intrinsic-motivation)

## Before you reach for consequences: an antecedent checklist

Consequences are the last third of the [ABC model](https://operantconditioning.com/abc-model/). Most persistent classroom problems have an antecedent solution that costs less than any reward or penalty.

- **Taught, not just posted?** Rules alone change little.[3] Model, practice, and reinforce each one where it applies.
- **Doable?** Work that is too hard is the antecedent for escape; work that is too easy, for everything else.
- **Transitions signaled?** A two-minute warning and a visible timer are discriminative stimuli for stopping.
- **Enough chances to respond?** Choral responses, whiteboards, and turn-and-talk multiply the opportunities for reinforcement; a lecture offers almost none.
- **Motivating operations?** A hungry, tired, or anxious student values escape more and praise less.
- **A cue for the behavior you want?** A voice-level chart, a first–then card, a checklist on the desk: [stimulus control](https://operantconditioning.com/stimulus-control/) is cheaper than consequence control.

## Common mistakes with operant conditioning in the classroom

- **Reprimanding the attention-starved.** For some students a scolding is the richest attention of the day. If the behavior rises, the reprimand is reinforcing it.
- **Sending the escape-maintained student out.** The hallway, the office, and in-school suspension all end the lesson. Check function before removing anyone.
- **Praising the class instead of the behavior.** "Good job, everyone" reinforces nothing in particular.
- **Announcing consequences you will not deliver.** Unenforced threats teach that the rule is inactive. Small consequences every time beat large ones occasionally.
- **Never fading.** Tokens are scaffolding. If the system is the same in June as in September, the behavior belongs to the system, not the student.

The through-line is the same as everywhere else: identify the behavior, find what actually reinforces it, make the right behavior easy, reinforce it immediately and often, and let the data decide. [All applications of operant conditioning ›](https://operantconditioning.com/applications/) · [Operant conditioning in parenting ›](https://operantconditioning.com/parenting/)

## Key takeaways

- Every classroom already runs on consequences; the question is whether they are arranged on purpose. Skinner diagnosed education's failures as failures of reinforcement: too few reinforced responses, too long a delay, no program of small steps.
- Teacher attention is the cheapest reinforcer in the building, but most classroom praise is not reinforcement. Praise works when it is contingent, specific, credible, and about effort or strategy, and the praise-to-reprimand ratio has to be engineered because misbehavior is more salient than quiet work.
- Tokens are generalized conditioned reinforcers and the evidence for token economies is strong, but gains fade when tokens are withdrawn unless the fade is planned from day one. The Good Behavior Game, an interdependent group contingency, costs nothing and has randomized trials with benefits into adulthood.
- A consequence is whatever the behavior says it is. A reprimand can be attention, and sending an escape-maintained student out of the room is negative reinforcement, so function has to be checked before anything is removed or ignored.
- Expected, tangible rewards for an already interesting activity can reduce later free-choice engagement; praise and informational feedback do not. Use tangible rewards for behavior students do not already do, fade them, and fix antecedents first: rules taught, work doable, transitions signaled.

### Check yourself

**A teacher gives a quiet reprimand every time a student shouts across the room, and over the month the shouting increases. What is going on?**

For a student who gets little adult attention, a reprimand is attention, so the intended punishment is functioning as positive reinforcement. The behavior is the evidence: if it rises, the reprimand is reinforcing it. A consequence is whatever the behavior says it is, not what the teacher meant it to be.

**A student acts out during long worksheets and is sent to the office each time, yet the acting out gets worse. The teacher concludes the office is not a harsh enough punishment. What is the better analysis?**

The behavior is escape-maintained. Being sent out ends work the student finds aversive, so each trip to the office is negative reinforcement, and the behavior that produced it will happen more. The fix is antecedent and functional: work pitched where success is likely, an acceptable way to ask for a break that is honored every time, and, where safe, the demand kept in place so that acting out no longer ends it.

**A teacher decides to ignore a student's blurting, holds out for four minutes, then reacts on the fifth. What has happened to the blurting?**

It has been put on an intermittent schedule, which makes it stronger and more persistent. Planned ignoring is extinction, and it works only when the teacher's attention is the maintaining reinforcer, only when it is withheld every single time, and only when the teacher can outlast the extinction burst, ideally while calling on raised hands within seconds instead.

**Two classes run token economies. In one the system is identical in June and September; in the other, tokens have been faded toward praise and natural consequences. Which class's behavior is more likely to survive the end of the year, and why?**

The faded one. Kazdin's reviews found that gains faded when tokens were withdrawn and did not transfer to settings without tokens, so a system that never fades leaves the behavior belonging to the system, not the student. Pairing every token with specific praise lets praise inherit the token's power and keep working when the tokens are gone.

**Explain it to a friend.** Explain why sending a disruptive student to the hallway can make the disruption worse, without using the words "positive" or "negative."

## Frequently asked questions

**Does positive reinforcement work in the classroom?**

Yes; it is the best-supported classroom-management tool there is. Contingent teacher attention and specific praise reliably increase on-task behavior, and token systems and the Good Behavior Game have decades of controlled studies behind them. It fails when praise is vague or non-contingent, when the "reward" does not actually reinforce that student, or when it arrives too late.

**What is a token economy in the classroom?**

A system in which students earn tokens — points, stamps, chips — immediately after target behaviors and exchange them later for privileges, activities, or small prizes. Good systems start with cheap, same-day exchanges, pair every token with specific praise, keep fines rare, and fade the tokens as praise and natural consequences take over.

**What is the Good Behavior Game?**

A classroom procedure, first published in 1969, in which the class is split into teams, a mark is recorded against a team whenever a member breaks a posted rule, and every team finishing under a set number of marks wins a small privilege. Randomized trials in Baltimore found that first-graders who played it had lower rates of substance-use disorders and antisocial personality disorder as young adults.

**Do rewards kill intrinsic motivation?**

Only under specific conditions. Expected, tangible rewards for an activity students already find interesting can reduce their later free-choice engagement with it; praise, informational feedback, and rewards for behavior students would not otherwise do generally do not. Use tangible rewards to establish behavior that is not happening, fade them, and rely on praise and feedback for the rest.

**What is planned ignoring?**

Deliberately withholding attention from a behavior that attention has been maintaining, so that it extinguishes. It works only when the teacher's attention is the reinforcer, only when applied every time, and only alongside reinforcement of the behavior you want instead. It is the wrong tool for behavior maintained by peers, for behavior that escapes work, and for anything dangerous.

**How do I use operant conditioning in my classroom?**

Start with antecedents: teach the expectations, make the work doable, signal transitions. Raise your ratio of specific praise to reprimands well above four to one, ignore minor attention-seeking while reinforcing the alternative, and add the Good Behavior Game or a simple token economy for the periods that need it. Before punishing persistent misbehavior, ask what it is getting the student; if the answer is escape from work, removal will make it worse.

## References

1. Hall, R. V., Lund, D., & Jackson, D. (1968). Effects of teacher attention on study behavior. *Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1*(1), 1–12.
2. Skinner, B. F. (1954). The science of learning and the art of teaching. *Harvard Educational Review, 24*(2), 86–97.
3. Madsen, C. H., Jr., Becker, W. C., & Thomas, D. R. (1968). Rules, praise, and ignoring: Elements of elementary classroom control. *Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1*(2), 139–150.
4. O'Leary, K. D., & Becker, W. C. (1967). Behavior modification of an adjustment class: A token reinforcement program. *Exceptional Children, 33*(9), 637–642.
5. Thomas, D. R., Becker, W. C., & Armstrong, M. (1968). Production and elimination of disruptive classroom behavior by systematically varying teacher's behavior. *Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1*(1), 35–45.
6. Brophy, J. (1981). Teacher praise: A functional analysis. *Review of Educational Research, 51*(1), 5–32.
7. Henderlong, J., & Lepper, M. R. (2002). The effects of praise on children's intrinsic motivation: A review and synthesis. *Psychological Bulletin, 128*(5), 774–795.
8. Caldarella, P., Larsen, R. A. A., Williams, L., Downs, K. R., Wills, H. P., & Wehby, J. H. (2020). Effects of teachers' praise-to-reprimand ratios on elementary students' on-task behaviour. *Educational Psychology, 40*(10), 1306–1322.
9. Ayllon, T., & Azrin, N. H. (1968). *The Token Economy: A Motivational System for Therapy and Rehabilitation*. Appleton-Century-Crofts.
10. Kazdin, A. E., & Bootzin, R. R. (1972). The token economy: An evaluative review. *Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 5*(3), 343–372. See also Kazdin, A. E. (1977). *The Token Economy: A Review and Evaluation*. Plenum Press.
11. Kazdin, A. E. (1982). The token economy: A decade later. *Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 15*(3), 431–445.
12. Barrish, H. H., Saunders, M., & Wolf, M. M. (1969). Good behavior game: Effects of individual contingencies for group consequences on disruptive behavior in a classroom. *Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 2*(2), 119–124.
13. Kellam, S. G., Brown, C. H., Poduska, J. M., et al. (2008). Effects of a universal classroom behavior management program in first and second grades on young adult behavioral, psychiatric, and social outcomes. *Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 95*(Suppl. 1), S5–S28.
14. Bradshaw, C. P., Mitchell, M. M., & Leaf, P. J. (2010). Examining the effects of schoolwide positive behavioral interventions and supports on student outcomes: Results from a randomized controlled effectiveness trial in elementary schools. *Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 12*(3), 133–148.
15. Skinner, B. F. (1958). Teaching machines. *Science, 128*(3330), 969–977.
16. Lindsley, O. R. (1992). Precision teaching: Discoveries and effects. *Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25*(1), 51–57.
17. Stockard, J., Wood, T. W., Coughlin, C., & Rasplica Khoury, C. (2018). The effectiveness of Direct Instruction curricula: A meta-analysis of a half century of research. *Review of Educational Research, 88*(4), 479–507.
18. Iwata, B. A., Pace, G. M., Dorsey, M. F., Zarcone, J. R., Vollmer, T. R., Smith, R. G., Rodgers, T. A., Lerman, D. C., Shore, B. A., Mazaleski, J. L., Goh, H.-L., Cowdery, G. E., Kalsher, M. J., McCosh, K. C., & Willis, K. D. (1994). The functions of self-injurious behavior: An experimental-epidemiological analysis. *Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27*(2), 215–240. The method itself: Iwata, B. A., Dorsey, M. F., Slifer, K. J., Bauman, K. E., & Richman, G. S. (1994). Toward a functional analysis of self-injury. *Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27*(2), 197–209. (Reprinted from *Analysis and Intervention in Developmental Disabilities, 2*, 3–20, 1982.)
19. Solnick, J. V., Rincover, A., & Peterson, C. R. (1977). Some determinants of the reinforcing and punishing effects of timeout. *Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 10*(3), 415–424.
20. Lepper, M. R., Greene, D., & Nisbett, R. E. (1973). Undermining children's intrinsic interest with extrinsic reward: A test of the "overjustification" hypothesis. *Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 28*(1), 129–137.
21. Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1999). A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. *Psychological Bulletin, 125*(6), 627–668.
22. Cameron, J., & Pierce, W. D. (1994). Reinforcement, reward, and intrinsic motivation: A meta-analysis. *Review of Educational Research, 64*(3), 363–423.


## About the author

Ryan holds a master's degree from UCLA, where he studied animal behavior in Daniel Blumstein's lab and was part of the university's Evolutionary Medicine Program, which applies findings from evolutionary biology and animal behavior to human health. He founded Operant Conditioning Inc. and built the Operant habit app (https://operantconditioning.com/app/). Every page here is written from the primary literature and cites it. How pages are checked: https://operantconditioning.com/about/#editorial-standards

## Related

- [All applications](https://operantconditioning.com/applications/): ABA, health, work, animals, technology, and more — with the evidence rated.
- [Operant conditioning in parenting](https://operantconditioning.com/parenting/): Tantrums, time-out, sticker charts, and what the evidence says.
- [Positive reinforcement](https://operantconditioning.com/positive-reinforcement/): What a reinforcer is, what makes it work, and why so many attempts fail.