t&-l_
rearing. Briefly, the baby tender was intended to initiated by businesses as early as the mid-1930s,
-7 B. F- Skinner's Technology of Behavior in American Life:
From Consumer Culture to Counterclrlture
Alexandra Rutherford
American academics ond intellectuals have, over
ihe years,t ienclered extensive critiques of B. F.
Skinner and his rvork, excoriating both his theory
and his technology of behavior (e.g., Chomsky,
1959; Krutch, 1954; Szasz, 1975). Writers for the
popular press and lay readers have also identified
Skinner as a figure worthy ofintense social debate
(see Dinsmoor, I992; Rutherford, 2000). Recently,
Bjork has suggested in his biography of Skinner
tlrnt the heated criticism he has evoked "is cul-
turally and intellectually significant, for such
generally negotive opinion suggests that Skinner
- regardlcss oI the truth or error of his position
- has touched sornething that . . . is n'orth
knorving {bout Anlqrican values, or more con:
r;retely, the American $redicanrerit" {Bjork, 1996,
p. 36). Thus, a complete historical analysis of
Skinner and his work must take into account
the cultural, social, and politicallmiiieu of mid-
nyg-Dtieth-centu ry Am erica.
In this pape1, I explore some of the relation-
ships benveen popullr portray'als of Skinner and
Arnerican social values from the 1940s to rhe
t970s. Specifically, I explore horv popular cover-
age of ,Skinner's work lvas influenced by a
ccrmpl'ei host of cultural factors, as rvell as some
endu gi ng',freii til\ of the America n predicament.
Although Bjbrk (1996) has suggested that public
opinion of Skinnc.r's work has been generallv
ne(dtive, I argue tlrat public opinion (or in this
case, popular portrayals) rvas more highly
nuanc?d,rhan is rypically acknowledged. These
nuirnies cirn be untlerstoocl, at least in part, bv
examining the complexiry of the .A,merican cul-
tural landscape in rvhich Skinner's rvork rvas
ploduced and received.
Jounnl ol-History ol tlrc Bclnviorul Stierres, 2003, 39( I ),
l*23. Reprinted by permission of rvViley-Blackwell.
lVhile othcrs have rvritten about the cffect of
social and political factors on Skinner's work
itself (e.g., Bjork, 1993, 1996; Capshew, 1996),
and on the development of behaviorism in
American culture (e.9., Bakan, 1966, I998), in this
paper I analyze the effect ofthese factors on rhe
popular reception of Skinner using popular press
coverage and responses from readers as a rvindow
on his public image. From the baby tender to
teaching machines to Beyond Freedom anil
Digniry, Skinner's rvork rvas part of the popular
- as rvell as the academic - culture of mid-
n!'entieth-centurl' America. Thus, presentations
ofhis rr'ork have been highly context dependent,
that is, the;'have ranged rr'idely deperrding on the
particulat social discourses in t'.hich they were
l'embedded. In no instance has the popular recep-
tion of Skinner's rvork been either straightfor-
ward or clear-cut. Because so mony aspects. of '
his rr'ork fell at the crossroads of conflicting I
American social values, presenting him simply as ,:
a maligned behaviorist or as a controversial social '
scientist signific:rntly obscures the complexiw of
his relationship rdth American culture. ,.
B. F. Skinner and "Better Living" i I
in le5os America l#;it I
the I
contributions to
,r
popular press rvas an article in rhe Ladies Home .f.l 1I
]orirnal enritled "Baby in a Box," a catchy title li$: ,l
chosen b,v the editors to replace Skinner's origina ;ii I
title, "Bab1'Care Can Be i\[odernized" (Skinner' i;:
',{H-'I*
1915). In this arricle, Skinner introduced a new
invention he called the baby tender (later, the air lffij j.S
. crib). Desienecl on the eve of the birth of his :#'tt
!..o,id do.f ht.r, the brrby render was Skinneis ;.!lit$
solution to his n'ife Eve's concerns about the ;ffii*
drudgerv associated rr'ith the tasks of child '1rSI'#
ffi
'r.{*,
be a replacernent for the ordinary crib. It con-
sisted ofan enclosed, hurnidity and temperature-
controlled space in which the baby could sleep
comfortably, unencumbered by clothes and blan-
kets. The tender had a Plexiglas front, rvhich
allowed thc baby an unobstructed view of the
surrounding environrnent. Arnong thc advan-
tages of the nclv crib were less laundry for the
parents, as well as less exposure to noise and
germs and more mobility for the baby (for more
details see Benjamin & Nielsen-Garnmon, 1999;
Skinner,1979).
Reactions to the baby tender were mixed.
This diversity of opinion was reflective of several
ongoing cultural debates of 1950s America, such
as the proper role for technology in the life of
the modern family, and appropriate parenting
methods - among others. In this section, I con-
textualize coverage of the baby tender by con-
necting it to these public debates and areas of
ongoing social concern.
The "Nav Look" in 1950s parenting
Culrural historians have described distinct trends
in entertainmelrt, fashion, design, and architec-
ture during the late I940s and early 1950s that
rvere collectively termed the "New Look" (e.g.,
)ackson, 1998; Steele, 1997). The "New Look,"
a reaction against the frugaliry, efficiency, and
austeriqi of the war years,.expressed the posrwar
. optimism and ebullience of a new era of peace
I
and increasing economic abundance. lt empha-
sized appearance and glamour
- the "outsides of
things" (Marling, 1994, p. t4) -horv things
I l:oked, not necessarily horv they ltorked. The
adage "form follolvs function" was replaced by
"tbrm is function," as designers embraced the
idea that holv something looked rvas jr,rst as
important as what it did. After the economic
hardship of the 1930s and the turbulence of
World War II, Americans seemed ready to enjoy
themselves again - to attend to the comfort and
aestheric of their surroundings (tbr cultural his-
tories of the 1950s, see Foreman, 1997; Hart,
I!82; lvliller & Norvak, 1975a).
-=-'tn
addirion to rhe aesrheric ofthe "Nerv Look,"
a palpable trend torvards better living also char-
acterized the late 1940s and 1950s. Bird (t9J9)
has argued that the "better living campaign" ivas
:f
to counteract Franklin Delano Roosevelt's anti-
corporate, New Deal agenda. 'fhis better living
campaign focused on clairns of "nelv," "nrore,"
and "better" as business attempted to reclaim the
public's con6dence and its consumer market, and
to capitalize on the public optimism created by
, Roosevelt's dynamic leadershipl Better living
meirnt increased consumption. At'the sanre time,
major technological innovations, such as the
automobile, the television, and the airplane, rvere
assimilated into the changing patterns of
American ljfe. Bjork (1996, p. 46) has noted that
in this period "Skinner's America , . . not only
accepted the automobile, the airplane, and the
electrification of cities as progressive moderniza-
tion; it assumed as a matter of course that humans
could control their environment through the
eftbrts of inventors and industrial scientists."
Skinner's inr.ention of the baby tender
occurred in this era of gror*ine public emphasis
on better living, the cultural aesthetic of the "Nerv
Look," and the erorving populariry ofhonsehold
technology. The lvidespread adoption of this
technology resulted both in Lretter livinq and
increased control ofdomestic space, Advances in
household technology also sen'ed a politically
symbolic function. The 1959 Kitchen Debare
'benveen
Richard Nixon and Nikita Khrushchev
rvas held in the RCA Whirlpool "miracle kitchen"
created for rhe American Exhibirion in N.loscorv.
The appliances, including "mechnnical maid" that
rvould r.yash the tloor and then put itself arr'ay,
sent a strong mcssage about Amer.ican national
identiry. lvlarline ( 1994) has rvritren:
In the 1950s, the United States bought fullv
three-fourths of all the appliances produced in
the rvorld. Along rvith cars and Levittowns...
they stood for solnething fundamental to the
posnvar understanding of national identitl': ;r
of treedonr, of
sense ef-fortless ease, oi techno-
logical masren., modernity, and access to con-
veniences formerly reserved for the verv rich.
(p.255)
Inasmuch as the labor-saving firnction of the
babl' tender matched the ethos of better livine
through household technologv, reflected an
emphasis on'the "outsides of things" (that is, the
baby"s environment), and itsel[embodied maste4'
4D0
16d
of ti:ris environment, one might have €fpected
fairly positive popular coverage ofthe baby tender
in this period. In fact, a number of encouraging
articles appeared in the popular press after the
announcement of the baby tender in the pages of
the Ladies Home Journal f c.g-, "Baby box," 1947;
"Boxes for babies," 1947; "Box-reared babies,"
1954; "Heated, air-conditioned baby box," 1948;
"How a tech professor rriises his youngsters,'
1954; Schur, 1946). By and large, these articles
rvere enthusiastic about the tender and high-
iighted its advantages over traditional critrs.
For example, "Boxes for Babies," an article
appearing in 1947 in Life magazine, pictured one
infant, alert and content in his tender, with the
capiion "John Gray Jr- plays happily in his box.
Like Debby Skinner he has never had a cold or a
stonrach upset, is smarter than the average child"
(p. 73). Although acknor'ledging concerns about
ilck ofcontact conrfort for clrildren in the tender,
the article nevertheless concluded that "the
Skiuner boxes have proved successful thus far and
ivill be put on the market commercially next
)'eir ([r. -.\/J/.'
l
Babies," appea ring in 7'irre maga-
" Box - lteared
zine in 1954, inforn-red reaclers that aptly named
Roy and Ray Hope, a pair of Six-yerr-old "bright-
eyed twins" had spent "the first l8 months of their
lives inSkinner babybox" (p. 66). These "disarm-
a even dinner could not lure people arva,v from
ingly normal" young boys lvere presented as pic-
tures of physical and psychological health. The
mother oI the trvins expressed her enthusi-
asm about the device, reporting that "the box
is a boon to nrothers Lrecause it cuts dorvn rrn
latrrrdry and bathing" (p. 66). Similar sentiments
r''ere exFressed in a N*r' 1'orJier article: "Skinner is
the inventor {of the mechanical baby tender,
colrntecl on td revolutionize the rearing of chil-
dren and enornrousl,v diminish parental strain"
("Baby box," 1947, irp. l9-20). This article con-
cluded rvith an optimistic assessment oIthe "excel-
lent results" achieved tlrus far with the tender.
Thesc and other largely upbeat portrayals in
the popular press of this period certainly indicate
that the pu[[is image ofthe baby tender bene{ited
from the better living campaign of the 1950s.
Skinner rgrote that he received hundreds ofletters
requestinll instructions on holv to build a tender,
rlcl thlt, b;'and large, the results seemed to have
bcer, high.lu satisfirct,)iv. FIe aptly expressed the
nto'-'ii n! tlrr iiutes i hen ht',vrote; "lt is quite in
the epirit of the 'world of the future' to
make favorable conditions ar.a.il&le eveqrrhglq
throggh rimple mechanical rheans" (Skinner,
l9.ls, p. 136).
' Another popular development in thir period
no dsubt *ffected r€sponse to Skinner's inven-
tion. Although some have cited the baby tendei's
sirnilarity to an erperimental Skinner box (and
even to a cofhn) as a liability to its public image,r
the fact remains that many oi these early assess-
nrents ignored these unfortunate parallels.
Perhaps the populaliry and appeal of another
qpe of box mitigated critical assessment of the
baby tender in this period. As .\mericans became
economically secure and advances in technologv
streamlined the rvork-place, the question of how
to spend norr'-ample leisure time loomed large on
the cultural horizon. It rvas during this period
that television - entertainment in a box - became
a national phenomenon (for accounts of the
impact of television on 1950s culture, see trliller
& Norvak, l97ib; Nervcomb, 1997; Spigel, I992).
The grorving leisure class norv spent large
portions of their free time glued to the antics
of Lrrcille Ball rnd Desi Arnrz, or absorbed in
H,trvdy Doody, Disneyland, ai Fdther Krtorrs Besf.
- ln 1952, the T\'-tray table frrst appeared in
national advertising, attesting to the fact that
their television sets. The problem of rvhat to eat
in front of the TV rvas quickly solved rvhen
Srvanson's introduced the 6rst TV dinner in
October of 1933, making the square meal a snap
for 1950s houservives and rvorking rr'omen
(lv{arling, 1994). Dinner-in-a-box became the
natural companion to entertainment-in-a-box.'
In 1957, a gioup of architects at the Nlassa-
chusetts Inititute of Technologl designed the
"lvlonsanto House of the Future" for Disne,vlald
(ivlarling, 1994). Perched on some rocks over-
looking a pond at the country's most famous
theme park, the \lonsanto Hr:use rr'as in fact a
life-sized, stvlized, TV set. The lady of the house
could be seen peering out ofher picture rt'indow
"screen," which in appearance rvas tlot unlike the
Plexiglas front of the Skinners' babi' tender. Life
inside a box, for many Americans, rras associated
ivith the glamorous, exciting, and invariabl,v bliss-
ftil lives of their tavorite television characters.!
despite some early misgivings, and later
$So,
criticisms, of the nrechanical bab,v tender, many
artic,les in this period were positive and optimistic
about the potential of the new device. It had
become a matter of social respectability to keep
up with the numerous technological innovations
transforming the home. As Spigel (1992) has
rvritten, "in the postwar years it appeared that
tomorrow had arrived . . . living without an array
of machines meant that you were anachronistic,
unable to keep pace with tomorrow" (p. 46).
Finally, in rvhat may have been a nrore subtle
but nonetheless pervasive cultural attit.ude of
posh\:ar, 1950s America, the emphasis of the
"Ner* Look," the focus on the "outsides of things,"
provided a much-needed antidote to almost
*vo decades of deprivation and political unrest.
Americans visited Disneyland, embarked on
home improvement projects,{ and rvatched their
television sets. Skinner's emphasis on creating a
better environment for the baby, and his concen.
tration (both technoiogically and philosophi-
cally), on the "outsides of things," was closely
aligned with this aspect nf the popular mindset.s
lvfechanical nothers invade the nlrscry
\\'hile nranl' readers of Skinner's 19.15 article
praised the baby tender for its labor-saving poten-
tial, other readers censured the device. Specifi-
cally, they argued that raising a child in the baby
tender ryas a sign of parental (especially mater-
nal) neglect, and that it would cause significant
ph1'sical and emotional problerns in the clrjl{.
ilan,r, critics noted the potential lack of cofrfft
comfort available to children brought up in tem-
perature-controlled bo-res ( e.g., lvlcKean, I 945 ).
In a letter to Skinner upon receipt of his Ladies
Home lounnl article, the editor of the magazine
expressed concern about rvhether parents rvould
be able to hear children crying in the box and
then respond to them accordingly. She also asked
rvhether the reduction in the number of baths
rvould not cut into the tinre mothers rvotild spend
having fun with their babies (Page, 1945). Some-
rvhat later, rumors developed concerning the fate
of Skinner's daughter Delrorah, the first bab,v-in-
;1,:l
a-box, suggesting that she had become psychotic,
or perhaps even killed herselfas a result ofbeing
raised in the tender. Julie Skinner Vargas has
reported that she still hears stories about
her father "raising his kids in boxes like rats"
rir
.i
(\/argas, 2000 i.
.jfir
In 1945, Dr. Bcnjarnin Spock publishe<i Bcl.ry
antl Child Care, which inspired renerred iiicial
debate on the issue of permissiveness in chilci
rearing, .and influenced thousands of parents
eagerly looking for expert advice on pargnturg.
Spock's ireatisE'debunked nruch of the extant
behaviorist litetature that had generallv aclvo-
cated a firm and somewhat detached approach
to "bringing up-Care'
baby." In 1928, fohn I!. !\'a1spr-r's
nsychologicil of lt{dnt and Cnita i-ra
exhorted'parents to trear their offspr.ing lik9.,s;pall
adults; to dqrlrtS.gf" the cod-d[ing that, in Wnt-
son'! vierv, protract-dd the child's dependence and
immaturity. In contrast, Spock recontnrended
that parents be more affectionate, lvarnr, and
available to th€ir children. Unfortunately for
Skinner, the image of the baby box seemed ilrcon-
gruent rvith this more permissive and affectionate
approach to child rearing. Although Skinner
repeatedly emphasized that the child would
renrain in the tender no longer than in a tradi-
tional crib (i.e., only rvhile sleeping), and that
parents rvould have more cualiry tirne to spend
rvith their infants rvhen much o[ their rvork rvas
reduced, rnan\'.parents nonetheless iejected the
tender in the beliei that it rvould inhibit iurpor-
tant parent-child interactions.
The 1950s also rvitnessed a rise in thg, i1rflu-
ence of psychoanalytic ideas on popular culture,
including popular writing, theatre, television, and
cinema (see Hale, 1995; Wallier, 1993). As part of
this influenqe, theories emphasizing the impor-
tance of verv early infancv and infant attach-
ment on subsequent development (speciiically,
the appropriate care and nrinistrations of the
mother) became ividely acceptecl. This undoubt-
edly exacerbated cultural an"tiery about the baby
tender, fuelling the beliefthat a child rvith a defi-
cient early attachntent lvould face serious and
lifelong nrental health problenrs, In the late 1950s,.
psychologist Harry Harlorr"s rvork on the impor-
tance of contact conlfort in the attachment of
infant monkei.5 wds also publicized (see Harri-
son, l9i8), further substantiating the public's
conviction about the irnportance of p;rrental
rvarmth and availability, both of which seenred
thrvarted by the tender.
Finally, the shifting roles crf the rnother and
houselvife preoccupied tbe national ps,vchc. in
the 1950s, tvomen lvere often faced rvith specific
contradictiln meji:rq,es and social expeciiltions.

.$ Spigel has explained, "Although middle- and
' working-class rvolnen had been encouraged by
popular media to enter ftaditionally male occu-
pations during rhe lvar, they were norv told to
return to their homes where they could have
babies and ntake color-coordinated meals"
(Spigel, 1992, p. 4l). Confusingly, in addition to
the expectation that w,orking women rvould
retreat subserviently to their dornestic spaces and
resunle their roles as rvives and mothers, the
emphasis on material consumption brought an
added financial burden that was often eased only
bv having rvomen rr.ork outside the
horne.
Thus, middle'class rvomen in post-World War II
Anrerica were thrust into a maelstrom of often
contradictory cultural expectations,
Popular reprerun,n,tott, of the baby tender
ret'lected this set of cultr"rral anxieties about the
proper roles of women, both at work and at
honre. lVas the mother of a box-raised child
shirkirrg her prinrarv role as caregiver and house-
Oue anonl'mous rvriter to Skinner remarked
r.r'ife?
of the tender, "lt is the most ridiculous, crazy
invention ever heard of. Caging this baby up like
nn nninral, jr-rst to relievi the lvlother of a little
nrrrre ryork" [Anonumous, 1945). Or u'as she
pl,v strearll i n i n g her domestic- respo nsibilities
si nr
in order to do nrore and do it better? Unlike other
household technologies, such as the dishrr,asher,
that prornised to streamline mundane tasks,
the baby tender ttfected the most sacrosanct of
dornestic tasks - parenting. The 1950s lvas an era
inundated ruith "rohot nurses" and "mechrrnical
nroth,lrs" * ilorn the television screen to the
batrv box.
Teaching by Machine: The Promise and
Peril oI the r\utornated Classroom
Although the Lraby tender \vas Skinner's first
n'idelv publicized invention, he rvas perhaps
better knr:rvn fbr the teirclring machine (for a dis-
cussion of Skinner a.s social inventor, see Bjork,
996). 'l hlcrughout lhe ldte 1 950s antl early 1960s,
1 education, and society. fiale magazine reported
Skinner's elforts to develop teaching machines
and proqrarnmed instruction received extensive
co,.'erirqe in the propulns press. Skinner's interest
in designing a machine that could teach began
rvith a visit to his daughter's fourth-grade math
clirss, rvhere he qtrickly s:rrv horv the pr:inciples of
operant analysis could be used to make teaching
more effective, and lcarning more successfir.l
(Skinner, 1983i for histories of the teaching
machine see Benjamin, l98B; Vargas & Vargas,
te96).
The teaching machine quickly became one of
the focal points ofa lvidespread educatirinal tech-
nology movenrent that received its fullest expres-
sion in the errly-to-mid 1960s (see, for example,
Boroff, 1963; Cuban, 1986; "What's happening in
education?," t967), Throughout the 1950s, film,
television, and other audiovisual devices made
their way into classrooms across the country.6 In
1953, the lirst educational television netrvorkwas
established (Packer, 1963). A decade later, there
rvere 62 educational television stations serving
the students ofthe United States (Boroff, I963).
In Hagerstorvn, Maryland, 18,000 children in
forty-eight public schools received some instruc-
tion by television by the late 1950s as part of a
project supported by the Ford Fund for the
Advancement of Education (Seligman, 1958).
indeed, the Ford Fund poured millions of dollars
into the education industry in this period,
respronding in port to a perceived teacher short-
age, and to the need to improve educational
practices for students across widely ranging
ability levels.
A number of articles in the mid-1950s
announced Skinner's lr.ork with the machines
(see, for example, "lvlechanicaI teacher," 1954;
"Miracle gadget," 1954; "Teaching by machine,"
1954; Ubetl, 1954). These articles were undoubt-
edly rvritten in response to Skinner's first public
demonstration of a machine for teaching spelling
and arithmetic at a conference entitled "Current
Trends in Psychology" held at the University of
Pittsburgh in the spring of 1954 (Skinner, t954).
A ferv years later, in the early I960s, Skinner's
teaching rrrachines and programmed instrucfion
rvere proclaimed by some to be the most radical
ofthe new educational technologies. It was antic-
ipated that the machines and the programs fed
into them rvould completely change the face of
that programmed learning "prornises the first real
innovntion in teaching since the invention of
movable tlpe in the 15th century. . . . Conceiv-
.
ably, programing might change school design and
the entire soCial ltructure of U.S. youth" ("Pro-
gramed learning," 1961, p. 36). Fortune ma.gazine
r:l;*i
similarly enrhused that programmed instruction
i,li
:,;ti
jja "could, in the next decade or two, revolutionize
education. ,.. Conceivabli' it could upset the
rvhole social structure of American youth,'
:
(Boehm, 1960, p. 176).
The revolutionary potential of programmed
teaching rvas also noted bv a *.riter for Science
Digest: "A felv months ago, thousands of school
children from coast to coast were quietly sub_
jected to what may turn out to be the greatest
educational rer.olution in history. They began the
first large-scale experiment in learning, not f.om
human teachers, but fronr teaching nrachines"
(Gilmore, 196t, p.77).
In I, resrifying to the perceived importance
I 96
and potential impact of the nerv technoiogv, the
American Psl.chological .{,ssociation (ApA), the
funerican Educational Research Foundation,
and the Depanment of Audiovisual Instruction,
collaborated to issue a
statement on self_
instructional materials and devices. It rr.as noted
that: "The use of self-instructional pro.qramed
Isic] learning materials in teaching machines and
similar devices represents a potential contribu-
tion of great importance to American education"
i,\PA, 1961, p. 512). The statement presented
guidelines fbr the use of the materials, as rvell as
suggestions on how to select and evaluate instruc_
tional programs.
Obviously, there rvas rvidespread hope rhat the
implementation of programmed instruction
rvould greatly impror.e education at the elenen-
tary, secondan', and postsecondary levels. This
hope extended to other forms of etlucariona.l
technology as rgell. Birt rvhile many were enthu-
siastic and optimistic about teaching machines,
the ne.'ct "revotution in education" 1\.as not
regarded enrhusiasrically bv all. To \.hat set
of national concerns can this opposition be
connected?
Benjamin ( l98S) has consitlered this question
and has ruled out several areas o[ possible con-
tention, such as high cost and lorv efficacv. He
rborved thar the nrachines rvere usuallv qrrite
inexpensive (although rhe progrlms rrere
more
soj, and that numerous studies touted lr.idelv
in
the popr,rlar press dernonstrateci their etiectir.e-
ness, not onlv in boosting grades, but also
in
tmproving morale and increasing motivation
ie.g., Beli, l96l7. Despire early cJncerns about
lrck ot programs for the machines (e.g., Terte,
4> t
1961), Benjamin reported that by the late
1960s,
there were thousands of avaiiable prog.*n.,,
covering.a wide range ofsubjects. H" iuggested
instead that cultural ipertia, resistance ti'tech-
nology, or "simply old-fashioned resistance to
change" (p. 7ll) contributed to the machine's
faiiure to thrir.e. He also notecl the general
failure of educational technologies (the teaching
machine among them) that appear to invalidnte
the student-teacher bond _ a bond thar hds
rraditionally been seen u, on ..r.niinl ineredient
in the learning process.
Some further considerations can be added to
Benjamin's analysis. The appenrance of conrput_
ers in the late I960s may have made the hardware
of the teaching machine obsolete and redireoecl
energ,y away trrrm its develol.ment tolvards
more
sophisticated machines. Cognitive and inforrna_
tion-processing theories rvere also changing the
rt'ay researchers nrodeled thought processes
and
thus learning, rendering Skinneis behavioral
theories less fishionable.#lou,.u.r, the develop_
ment ot cornputers in and of itself cannot exphin
rvhy the technique of programmed learninq
rua.s
all but ab:rndtned. Certainly, if the technique
rr'ere deemed revolu1i6n1r1,, and the pt,blic
n'hoieheartedl), accepted the benefits
of pro_
grammed instruction, then interest in rvriting
complrter progroms using the technique slrould
have been high. Iulie Skinner Vargas has remarked
that as the popularity ofteaching machines
began
to increase, program rvritinq rvas taken o1-by
people rvith lirrle or no rraining, resulting"iii
e-ttremely dull prosran)s thar did n't lvork (\'argu,
?000). Geiser (1976) noted sinrilirrly (an.i cotr-
tully) that in the hands of inexpert programmers,
"some of rhe programs had all the
inheient inter-
est of three-dar.-old dead fish" (p. 105).
I rvould suggest thnt apprehension about the
teaching machine rvts also rootecl in the
grorr,irirl
cultural unease toivards rvhat Theoclore -Rorr"i
in the late 1950s, termed..the technocraori
t998/tc)5S) Pop'tar articles in the eaily
1l?:t.f.
1960s, besicles notine rhe rev6!u1i6p..rry ,-.
pot.ntiii
of programrned instruction, also repeatedl,v
reported the public's concern about the dehu-
mlnizltiqn of educarion through .r.t,in'e 1i.n_
nology. Teachers and parents rvere especially
sensitive to this issue. Boehnr, u.riting for
Forarrre
magazine in 1960, noted these concerns: ,,Orhers
argue that the netr, method.dehumanizes'
educa_
ca)
't
tion by breaking the personai bond between
reicher and student. But lvhat bothers most
opponents is that programs seem to chem basi-
ceily moie appropriate to an anjg3l Ps.vrhology
Ieboratory tlr.,n io a school" (3oehnr, i950, p.
i77)"
The social andnrie'of the late 1950s, rvith the
siibsequent rise of the counterculture and
the development of the humanistic novement'
clearly signal.'d an increlsingly pervasive social
apprehension about dehumanization, alienation,
conformit,v, and loss of agency (Herrnan, 1992).
In essence, the public's specific concerns about
the teaching nrachine revealed an important and
significant t-act about the nature of the historical
moment in rvhich the machines rvere introduced.
An invention that could be perceired as a (Skinner, 196i, p. 98).
rncchanical antidote to hunan inefficienc,v, along
rrilh Skinner's emphasis on using the nrachines
not to "teach" in the troditional sense, but to
bring the student's beharior under the control of
the environment, may har"e met resistance in any
period. Horr'ever, the likelihood of the public
embracing progranrmed initrttction r.'as perhaps
trrticul,rrlr lort at the preiise lristorica.l nto:nent
in rvhich it appeared. Tire teaching machine,
perhaps rnoie than .arl other educational
iechnology, cirme to ePitomize the t)?e of auto-
41,ild nrass-socieQ to rvhich ParticiPants in the
counterculture moYement \v€re so vehemently
... opposed.
Specificalll', popular articles about pro-
sranrnred instruction touched on thenles of
iontro[, alien.rtion, an.i corliormit], even though
ii-,e ,:trjective benefit:; of the technique 1\'ere
acknorvleciged and ercn praised. Sorne of these
reactions highlighted the public's ambivalence
torvurd achieving better educational results
rhiough the more rigid conirol of human behav-
ioi. For e xarnple, a reporter fbr Pop ular trleclnnics
renrilrked on his orvn sense of unease about the
FrfJgtn ri-ls:
Onc tiuestion in particuiar kept nagging at me as
I taiked r.'ith the people \vho {re proPagating
niactine r:ir:hing. The problem was aiticulated
b' t"'a":hing-machine e.xpert Hugh .{nderson,
nho told me, "Mv rsife sas going through a pro-
ilrirntr:ring sequerrce the other day in rrhich the
',soirr, 'response' .,t.rs souaht repeatedlv as rhe
.,r;ri{i tetnlini,ii',:{....5he wanttd to sa,v
'ansrver' instead. She resisted for a while, but
soon she rvas automatically suPPlying the correct
lvord so she could move on to the next Point.
Thus the programming had already shaped hcr
behavior pattern." (Bell, 1961, p. 157)
Skinner made no secret of the fact that pro-
grammed material rvas designed to shape verbal
behavior, rather than "teach" in any traditional
sense of the rvord (i.e., to impart knowledge or
skills). In his 1958 article for Scierce, for exanrple,
he wrote: "Teaching spelling is mainly a Process
of shaping complex forms of behavior" (Skiriner,
I95S, p. 971), and in his 196l Scientifc American
article, "Knorving how to read nteans exhibiting
a behavioral repertory of great complexity"
Popular rriters picked up on this nuance, and
often compared Skinner's technique (referred to
as linear prograrnming) with the multiple-choice
branching method developed and advoc1ted
by Norman Crorvder. Crorn'der, a psychologist
employed bv the United States lndustries Western
Design Dir"ision in Santa Barbaia, California,
Jevised a teaching nrethod in rvhich lrrrge chtinks
of information were Presented to the student,
rvho rras then tested rvith a multiple-choice ques-
tion. If the student responded correctly, he/she
rvould proceed. Ifnot, the machine lvould branch
to another frame that $'ould give more details,
explain wh1'the response was incorrect, and then
test again. It rvas acknorvledged that Skinner's
method, unlike Crowder's, was one of "condi-
tionirrg" a resPonse' One reporter for Time
ret'erred to Skinner's method as "Orrn'ellian"
("Programed learning," 1961' p. 38).
The question ofrvho rvould control the tyPes
ofbehar,iors and responses thanvould be elicited
ior conditioned) inevitably emerged. A writer for
Pnret$s' trIagazine, began her article: "I'd been
reading educational journals which questioned
many aspects of atitomated instruction, not to
mention ne\rsPaper lrarnings about robots taking
oyer classrooms. . ' . Was the dehunranized Brave
\ew \Vo*id rediy rvith us, I rvondered- ie it i984
alreadv?" (Kreig, 1961, p.45). Later, she quoted a
''leading authority" on audio-visr-ral instruction
rvho noted, "Teaching machine programming is
a social problem. . , . He \vho controls the pro-
gramnring heartland controls the edr.rcational
i'istem" (P. 80).
* ..
Not on 1'our lifclA child neeo, n":": ""fl'
:ill
lull Clearly, mass automated instruction based
t{ir
rili' on the principles of operant conditioning (p. 102).
Conformity in thinking rvas also cited as a
r,4.ji
oliir was perceived as Potentially powerful. This led
potential problem of programmed instruction'
directly to concerns about control. Not only
rvas the public uncertain about the desirability
kreig (1961) noied, "What rvill happen to the
nurturing of creativity, inragination, and the
of controlling individual student behavior, they
intangibles of learning? \\till reliance on Programs
rr,ere also alarmed by the notion that the rvhole
discourage independent thinking and result in
educational slstem might come under some
stultif,ving conformity among students and teadl-
kind of centralized authority, more porverful
ers alikql; (p. 80). It was especially in the nridtto-
than any individual teacher in a couventional
classroom. As Anthoiry Oettinger of Harvard .late 1960s that the values of conformit)' and
passive acceptance of authoriry lvere seriously
University noted in an article for Today's Health,
questioned. Sonre felt that programmed instruc-
"To understand the seriousness of the problem,
tion discouraged the development ofthe capacitl'
one need. only picture the use a Flitler or a
to question, think critically, and consider multi-
Stalin could have made of a national educational
ple ansrvers to a particular problem' A writer for
information Pool" ("The critics speak," 1967,
Fortune magazine wrote' "[T]he rigidity ot struc-
P' 56).
Issues of freedom and control were in the ture that seems to be inherent in prograrned [ric]
forefront of the American psyche as the 1960s instruction may imply to students that there is
indeed only one approach, one anslveri 1'et rvhat
unfolded. Programmed instruction, more than
the students may need to learn most is that some
any other educational technology, rvas premised
questions may have more than one answer or no
on the control olstudent behavior. Its behavior-
istic underpinnings were obvious' As Crrrti ansrver at all" (Silbernran, 1966, p' 198)' This
'
rvriter also noted, "If programing [-;ic] is used too
(i980) has noted, "llr'lluch that lvas done in
extensivel)', tnoreover, it ma1'prevent the devel-
appli'ing behavioral theorl'seented to limit cxpe-
opment of intuitive and treative thinking or
,i*.. o, to control it in questionable ways' lhis
destrov such thinking rvhen it appears" (p' 198)'
seemed evident in programmed instruction,
A ivriter for Harper's Nlagnzine, himself a
teaching machines, and in time, the manage-
ment. . . of youths by behavior modification developer of progranrmed texts for Harper &
Row Publishers, reported the opinion held by
iechniques" (p. aOO;.
some critics that the learning offered bv pro-
Parents rvere also worried about the potential
for social alienation through the use of machine grammed instruction actually helPed no r:ne. but
ih. progru--.r. The sti'rdent, according to these
teaching. One parent at the Collegiate School for
critics, rvirs reduced to Siving "sonre final resFonie
Bo.vs in Nerv York Cit,v, the site of one of the first
that the Progrnnlmer considers advantageous"
experirnental trials of the teaching mathine,
(Bender, lvos,p. sz1.
remarked, "lf they're just going to stick our boys t
behind machirres, they might as well be in classes As the 1960s progressed' more popiilar rtritcrs
addressed the need to consider value's, purpose,
of50 or er.en a 100 instead ofa dozen" (as cited
and merning in education. In |anuniy oi i967'
in Kreig, 1961, p. 76). William Ferrn president of
Satrtrtlny Relierv published a series ofarticles iq-
the center for the Study of Democratic Instittl-
a section entitled "Changirrg Directions in Ameri'
tions, rvrote that the teaching machine trend was
can Education." One rvriter noted, "ln a society
responsible for the adoption ofthe "totally rvrong
that feeds on a rapidly advancing and sophisti-
noiion that an educational systern is like a factory
cated technology, the tailure to have clear and
for prodr"rcing steel plate or buttons. ' ' ' The
central claim il efliciency. Mals education, it it f-otgrtul purposes and viable entls could be disas-
trms. l\re could beconre the creators of a te{hno-
said, requires maos producti,on. The resr'rlt ie
alrtady discernible, and may be called technica- logical order in rvhich our ends r"ould be defined
tion" ("The critics speak," 1967, p' 56)' Luce and established by the instruments tha( lvere
fashioned to serve us rather than by consider-
( 1960), in an article for the Sarrrr,lny EveningPost,
of human value" (N{civturrin,
reported one parent's reaction to the idea of ations 1967,
p.'tO).
machine teaching: "r\ nrachine teach rny child?