Week #7 Online Day Assignment (due Thursday)

The Baby in a Box invention by B.F. Skinner is fascinating. I had never heard of this invention before, but it is definitely a genius idea that turned out to be very successful in his attempts to modify the typical techniques of mothering.

The first sign of behavior modification that stuck out to me throughout the reading was when Skinner would lower the temperature of the bed to reduce the fussing and crying of the baby. This little change in the environment had a huge impact on the aversive behaviors that the child would emit.

The second sign of behavior modification that I noticed was how Skinner and his wife strategically placed a music box above the bed. The music box was conditioned to the child in that every time the baby would pull the string music would play (Conditioned Stimulus) and the baby's attention was held (Conditioned Response) which put ease on the parent's in that the baby was kept from being bored which decreased the likelihood of the baby emitting the aversive response of crying.

The third sign of behavior modification was when Skinner talked about how they dropped the baby's feeding from 4 times a day down to 3. At this particular point, Skinner was using extinction to decrease the likelihood of an aversive behavior from being emitted. This extinction reduced the number of times Skinner and his wife had to feed the child. The child was learning that she would not be fed when crying in the morning by not being reinforced with food when she would cry at that time.

As for my thoughts about this, it kind of made me feel empathy for the baby and anger towards Skinner and his wife, but I also see a positive out of this experiment as well.

I feel as if in a way this experiment is not good for the baby in that the affection and love that the baby desires at such a young age is not being met. I think that it could have negative impacts on the child, and the attachment style that she forms. I feel as if this is in a way a selfish act on the side of Skinner and his wife. It was all done to their convenience, but when a child is in the picture, your convenience shouldn't matter anymore, it should be all about what is best for the child.

On the other hand, I see how this could be beneficial to the interaction between the mother and the child when interactions do occur due to the decreased level of stress that the mother is dealing with.

Overall, I think this was a pretty genius experiment and it was very interesting to read about. I think overall Skinner accomplished what he set out to do by decreasing the likelihood of the aversive target behaviors and increasing the likelihood of the more desirable behaviors. This is a great example of behavior modification at its best!

While emitting the behavior of reading, about the baby in the box invention, I was shocked and elicited to write about how I believed this invention to be neglectful and bad parenting. Although, as I read on I understood how it was a good invention. The baby may have less contact with the mother/father but the time it gets to spend with them it will be a pleasant interaction. Due to the lower anxiety and stress levels they are bound to have because the baby isn't causing such emotions. The baby is safe from harmful teratogens from the environment. It may not be the best option for babies but it seems to be an option none the less.
These parents wanted to do less work while caring for this child. Therefore, they decided to build this "box" to keep the baby in that would elicit less work for them. This box is related to what we learned about the ABCs. The target behavior is less time spent taking care for the baby. The antecedent would be the baby being in the box. The behavior is not having to wear constricting blankets or clothing. Lastly, the consequence is the baby functioning accordingly to others.
There is a great amount of manipulation coming from the parents for their child. They are eliciting to get the baby to do as they please. For example, getting the baby to eat three times a day as opposed to four is their way of manipulation. They merely had to raise the temperature of night in order for the baby to be warm enough at night not to wake up early and become hungry. (This also could be seen as the ABCs)
Another aspect that relates to behavior modification is operant conditioning. As the baby was lying down, there was a modified music box and at seven months the baby showed operant conditioning here. The conditioned stimulus would be the baby pulling on the string with her toes; which would elicit the box to play music, the conditioned response.

What are my thoughts about Skinner's Box, or the baby box?

The only time that I have heard about this invention is from a different Psychology class. I have never seen one in person, or heard from another parent that has used this baby box with their own children until now. I personally would never use this box on my own children. I want my child do explore everything there is to explore around the house, it helps them learn, and I want my child to have a similar childhood to their friends that they will have once they go to school.

What is the Skinner box?
B.F. Skinner invented this air crib to help his wife cope with the day-to-day tasks of taking care of a child. This box is easily cleaned, temperature and humidity-controlled, and is used to assist in the raising of their children. Originally this air crib was designed because he thought that it would help parents who were awakened by their crying babies at night due to cold temperature's, and a need for essential clothing or sheets. This was used as an operant conditioning chamber. This did not last long however.

Well...the first thing that runs through my mind is, is it ethical? Yes the baby is in a clean and sterile environment most of its infant and toddler years, so they are healthy and happy, for the most part. I just don't understand how a parent could just let their child sit in this box and watch them from afar. This could be like a different version of a play pen but for them to spend most of their day's in this box seems off to me.

Advantages of the Skinner box “baby box”.
The infant is free of germs.
The infant is safe from all smothering objects (pillows, blankets, etc.)
It is a climate controlled box.
The infant can learn to self soothe, if the child is still to wake up in the middle of the night.
You have less laundry and it is easier to get your child out of their cribs.

Disadvantages of the Skinner box “baby box”.
Is this completely ethical?
Does the child feel like a prisoner?
Does the child grow up socially “normal”?
What if this is used as a permanent room and is hardly ever taken out of the box?
What if the child needs to get out and is trapped?
What if the room becomes too hot or too cold?

What are the behavioral principles behind the Skinner box?
Basically this was invented to make parenting easier on the parents. This box was “training” children to be in a perfectly climate controlled room so that the clothing on their bodies or sheets would not get in the way of their sleeping patterns. Other ways this has been used is as an operant conditioning chamber, which is completely unethical because it has been known that the children were treated as the rats were in his previous experiments. I do believe this was a good idea in its day, it was virtually germ free and a very safe environment but I would never believe it unless I saw it in today's generations. I just don't think its, right, I would recommend sticking with the standard baby crib!

Reading about the Baby Box was an interesting experience because I had never heard of such an idea before. I am surprised this has never been brought to my attention seeing how I am often lectured about B.F. Skinner. However, this strange idea is not surprising considering some of Skinner’s theories.

There were several things regarding the Baby Box that demonstrated principles of Behavior Modification. Firstly, extinction was demonstrated when the feeding started at four times a day and was reduced to three times a day. This can be called extinction because it would reducing the likelihood of an aversive event happening; the number of times the parents had to put effort into feeding their child was reduced.

econdly, the music box that was placed above the baby’s bed demonstrated the conditioned reflex. If the baby would pull the string, music would start playing. The music playing could be considered the CS (conditioned stimulus) and the baby listening/paying attention to the music could be considered the CR (conditioned response).

Thirdly, the changing temperature of the baby box demonstrated behavior modification principles. Skinner would lower the temperature of the baby box to reduce the amount the baby would cry and protest. By lowering the temperature of the baby box, Skinner was decreasing the likelihood of aversive behaviors being emitted.

Lastly, and most obviously, the term “manipulation” can be used to describe basically everything in regards to Skinner’s Baby Box. Everything surrounding this experiment was manipulative. The constant changing of environmental factors to alter the child’s behaviors and to reduce the responsibilities of the parents was all possible due to manipulation.

Personally, I can see both sides to this “experiment”. I think it demonstrates so many things in Behavior Modification and was probably very useful in drawing new conclusions about behavior, which was clearly important to Skinner. However, it is very evident this type of experiment would be considered completely unethical in the modern world. Naturally, people would call this bad parenting, laziness, selfishness, stupid, etc. I would not advocate for an experiment like this today because the effects placed on the child may be far too detrimental to consider it “worth it”. I do believe Skinner could have come to these same conclusions about behavior and the principles of behavior modification by conducting a variety of experiments. Therefore, I do not think this is just. I do believe Skinner and his wife probably should not have had a child.

These were very interesting articles for me to read, because I had never heard of this before. At first I felt very positively towards it, but the more I read the more adversive I felt towards it.

There are defiantly a few positive things about this experiment. It was good because it gave the mother some free time, it kept the child free from everyday illness, it kept the child warm, they had no sleeping problems, and she seemed to still be a happy child. I think these things are defiantly positive, but now if you look at the negatives that come with each of them.

To me I would never want to do this to my child. I need to shower my child with love and affection. Even though the child was taken out to be fed and changed, that doesn't seem like enough to me. I need to comfort my child or else they'll develop a negative form of attachment, and that is not something I want. I want my child to know I am right there and I want to be the kind of mother who plays with her child. I want to be able to show her positive reinforcement, even at a young age. Another thing I do not agree with is how healthy the box is. I need my child to be exposed to everyday illness so their ammune system grows. If their immune system doesn't grow, than when they're an adult they will be more prone to bad diseases. Although it's good to prevent disease when the child is growing up, overall for their health I don't think it's smart.

Finally, I think my child needs to have interaction with other children. I think that's a very important part of growing up. If my child doesn't have that interaction how are you to know how they will react with other children when they're finally around them. Will they share? Will they be mean? Will they be anti-social? I don't think risking that is worth it. I do love though how the children are protected from the harm of sleeping, and also how they learned not to pee during the night. I love how it made potty training easier, but I think as a parent all of these difficulties a parent goes through is what a parent is supposed to do. If one parent can make it through all of these challenges just fine, than so should another.

I have never heard of this “baby in the box” research that was done by B.F Skinner. At first the research was aversive to me, but as I kept reading and understanding what kind of research he was emitting I found it very interesting. The fact the baby was used as a experiment was hard to grasp, but I couldn’t figure out who benefitted from it the most? The parents who’s parenting job got a little easier or the baby’s life as a baby was a little happier then the typical baby.

There are many behavioral principles that are being emitted in this experiment that would have something to do with a lot of the terms we have learned. These are just some examples that I found interesting:
Some of the behavioral principals that Skinner tested that I found in the study one of them being the experiment with temperature. He would lower or raise the temperature according to how the baby felt. If the baby was crying and upset he figured it was because the temperature was aversive to the baby and as a consequence for the baby crying he lowered the temperature. Not only was that reinforcing for the baby but also the caretakers since it was a fairly easy tactic which allows them to enjoy their child more as a baby instead of having to do a lot of the care that this research eliminated.

I also think this research is a example of establishing operation, because the experiment with no clothes, not frightened by loud or sudden noises, not frustrated when toys are out of reach. Because everything she was introduce to be in a controlled environment with slightly or no aversive feelings, a lot of her behaviors were reinforced.

When she played with the toy with her feet the music was a reinforcer to hear the music, which she became conditioned to know that when she pulled the string down with her foot she would hear the music play. This is a example of positive reinforcement, by adding music when she emitted a pulling behavior with her toes on the string.

Overall this experiment was something I think should be tested again or have an article that tells us how the baby turned out later in life, if the experiment had any long-term effects good or bad. I know at first the experiment was aversive but I think it was a needed experiment to show how adding or taking something away can change the overall behavior of the child.

B.F. Skinner’s “Baby in a Box” emitted the mother to not have to tend to the baby as often and was designed to have a more pleasurable outcome because of not having to emit as much work and more time for freedom and relaxation. The box seemed pleasurable for the baby as well because it elicited baby to not have the discomfort of wetness, or wearing clothes, or having an abundance of blankets, and temperature control. Baby emitted happiness when playing and also only emitted crying when the temperature was not at the right level, was hungry, or had a soiled diaper. I also noticed that with using behavior modification, the process of extinction was used when wanting to change the eating habit of 4 times per day to emit eating to 3 times. With several variables like crying and getting up earlier in the morning, were extinguished by simply changing the temperature. With also having the air filtered it eliminated any aversive diseases or bacteria from the baby.

As a parent, when first emitting to read this all I could think about was this poor child not receiving any affection and no holding other than changing and feeding. When I brought my child home from the hospital all I wanted to do was emit to hold her and be sure she was comforted at all times. I actually did not emit my daughter to sleeping in a crib, ever. I believe we are one of the only societies that separate our children at birth from the mother by placing them in their own room. My daughter slept in a basinet in my room for quite some time. Even to this day, at the age of 5, if she’s ever uncomfortable sleeping in her room alone, she comes to me. I personally do not see this as a problem. It has worked for our family. I find this experiment aversive for my own self and would not emit having my child in this apparatus.

I found Skinner’s air crib to be extremely interesting and shocking. Even though Skinner invented this crib in the 1940’s, I had never heard of such a thing, and was intrigued by the articles that I emitted a reading behavior on. From the articles, I learned that the Skinner box is a temperature controlled enclosed crib that requires no bedding in which the child only wears a diaper while in this enclosure. The main idea for this crib was to reduce labor for the parents. The crib reduced the time it took to do laundry, because the child is not wearing any clothing or using blankets. This allows the mother to spend more time with her child. Many feel that this box is inhumane for young children, but have many advantages. Skinner’s child, Deborah, who was raised in this box, crying and fussing was reduced by just slightly lowering the temperature in the box. Also, she had rapid physical development, because she was free to exercise more than she would in a an ordinary crib. One cumbersome obstacle that parents have to overcome in the childrearing is potty training. Skinner eliminated this process with the air crib, because the wet diaper punished Deborah into holding her pee until the morning.

Even though this crib seems to have many benefits, I am weary of placing my child in such a thing. Attachment is crucial in this stage of a child’s life, and I feel that physical contact with a young baby is very important in forming attachment styles, and the lack of physical contact can elicit attachment problems for the child later in life. Even though Deborah grew up successfully, this does not mean that it is right for every child. One major question that has yet to be answered is which of the variables of the box are contributing to its success. It could be the lack of clothing, the lack of blankets, the large enclosed space, or even the regulated temperature.

Behavioral Principles:
When I read these articles I saw behavior modification in nearly every sentence I read. Everything from operant conditioning to punishment stood out as I read. The first thing that jumped out at me was operant conditioning. When Doctor Skinner built the toys into the Baby Tender the baby became reinforced every time she pulled the ring by hearing tones. Not only that, but the poor baby was also being punished. Although I agree that this was a great experiment to see if potty training could be made easier, it seems rather cruel. The theory was that babies who wet their diapers get reinforced by the warm feeling that follows. Without wearing a diaper to bed, there is no warm feeling, simply a wet and cold one. This punishment would help elicit the child to control their bladder. Although I’ve never heard of potty training as being harmful to a child, psychologically, I agree that this could be a great way of conditioning your children to control their bladders.

A question that I have about the Baby Tender is its ability to be ethical? It is moral to put a baby into an “experiment” like this? I have split feelings, but feel that it’s definitely not ethical to do tests like this on a baby that has no control over what goes on in his/her life. How can we force a child to live in this box and then grow up with positive or negative consequences? It’s something to really think about.

My Thoughts:
When I first took a look at the Skinner Baby Tender I was slightly horrified. I had heard of the device before, but had never actually seen a picture of it. It looked as if your baby was being put in a cage or habitat, only to be seen like he/she was an animal at the zoo. I thought that it was a simple sign of parental laziness and inhumanity. However, after I read the articles and thought about what Skinner said, the Baby Tender seemed to make a lot more sense. What parent doesn’t want to protect their baby from people with dirty hands? I’m not sure exactly what parental chores the Baby Tender helped with, but I was also glad to read that they did pick up the baby and take her out of the Baby Tender at times. It was nice, though, that baby Deborah didn’t get sick for a long time and that she had much more room to play. I think the Skinner Baby Tender could be a very great product, but I would be reluctant to always see my child behind glass.

Before being elicited to read the articles posted about Skinner's baby box, I had never heard of the invention. Basically he made the box to better keep the baby and provide more free time for the mother and father and reduce stress in the parents as well.
The warmer air in the crib elicited a sleeping behavior that lasted through the night. Because the baby didn't wear clothes besides a diaper, the baby rarely emitted a fussing noise. They also could reduce the fussing by simply lowering the temperature in the box. By only lowering the temperature the baby's aversive behavior of crying was subsided.
One consequence of having the baby in the box was that the air was completely filtered and the sheets were simple to change, giving more time to the mother and father to do other things. Another consequence of this behavior would be that they baby is not exposed to diseases, allergens, dust, or anything of that matter, keeping the baby extremely healthy.
I noticed that Skinner and his wife used extinction in order to reduce the number of times they would fed the baby. He stated that she began waking up and hour before she was to be fed and would cry. By raising the temperature at night, she would sleep longer and therefore postponing her want for food.

My original thoughts about the baby in the box was that I was very disturbed. Just the thought of keeping a baby in a box all day and night bothered me. As I read the articles, I found that the results proved to be beneficial for the baby and had no negative side-effects but I still can't grasp the idea of keeping a baby in a box. I think Skinner's thoughts behind the box were for good intentions; it would be great to have more time as a parent, I'm sure!
As he stated in one of his later paragraphs of the first article, people criticized his idea because they thought the baby would be raised as a "softie"
and I could definitely see where people would think that. I, personally, would never think of using this method for my children but I don't think I would criticize other parents for using them.
It would be interesting to find out how the daughter grew up in terms of socially. I would think she would be the type of girl to keep to herself but who knows?! Also - the second link wouldn't open on my computer so maybe that information was in there?

I have never heard of this "baby in a box" before reading this article. I thought it was pretty interesting that Skinner came up with this invention. Obviously it wasn't too advanced since it didn't make it into the twenty first century. It was designed to help parents raise a baby and to control the baby by the environment and what to put in the so called "box." Skinner put a lot of thought into making the box just right for the baby. He even thought about the warmth aspect and how the baby could stay warm without harming it with lots of layers and heavy blankets. I found it really interesting that Skinner could regulate the temperature of the baby's living environment and the baby was perfectly content depending on the temperature, those are things we just don't think about in depth, today. This invention is very convenient for the mother and father. If they both have full time jobs they can use this invention to do their other things at home and still keep their baby happy. I think this invention is a really good ide and has a good concept but the baby still needs to be out of the box and to interact with the world in order to develop right.

I don't think that I would ever use this box for the development of my own child. It has a lot of positive purposes, but there is no social interaction with the mother and father and to me, that's what a newborn baby needs most. It's pretty cool that this box is completely livable and good for the baby. But I feel as if the baby will grow up to be antisocial or have bad social skills because it got no interaction with people when it was first developing. I also don't like that the baby is closed in. It's good that the box saves a lot of time and extra work for the parents, but being a new parent is a lot of work and if you're not willing to do all the work that comes with a newborn baby then maybe parenting is for you. I want my baby to be with me at all times when I'm a new parent. I wouldn't want to keep it locked up in a box while it's growing up, I want to be able to watch and observe as much as possible. The invention is a good idea for some people, but would not be for me.

Prior to reading this I have never heard of The Skinners “Baby in a box” crib. The “baby in a box” experiment is a crib that was enclosed with insulated climate controlled walls, adjustable heat, and with a clear glass window to be able to see into. The bed would blow warm air through the bed so that clothes and blankets were not needed to keep warm. This environment is germ free and provides a clean air to the baby as well. The canvas can rotate so that the baby will have a clean fresh surface to sleep on.

I have a really hard time buying into this crib, because I find it to be unfair to the child. The reason I think its unfair to the child is because I think it deprives the baby from social contact, could cause social stigmas in the future, lacks nurturing from the parents, and I could go on. I understand that he didn’t run into any of these issues when he did it, but like he even stated that was just one child. Also you have no idea if that child faced any social or any other type of aversive effects in the future. I think it could be a good idea, but I just found it a little disturbing the amount of time they left the child in the bed. I think this would be a good way to help parents be able to sleep through the night, but after their done sleeping I don’t think they should be left in there all day except to get fed or changed. All in all I think that the intentions were good, but I find this to be a very strange way to raise a child.

I found Skinner’s invention of a Baby Box very interesting. Skinner has been discussed in several of my other psychology courses but this invention had never been brought up. Although I would never do this with my own child, I think Skinner was very creative in coming up with this contraption.

The ABC’s of behavior modification can easily be applied to what was happening in this situation. When in the baby box (antecedent), the baby would not cry often (behavior), and as a result the mother could relax (consequence). The mother found this consequence pleasurable so in order to get the behavior to occur more often, the mother would keep the antecedent the same and emit the behavior of putting the baby in the baby box.

Skinner and his wife used trial and error learning when they first brought their daughter home from the hospital to discover that 86 degree was the perfect temperature for her. They did not know this right away so they had to manipulate the temperature in different ways until they found one that worked well.

Skinner and his wife found it very aversive when the baby would cry. They soon discovered that slightly lowering the temperature would cause the baby to stop crying. This would be an example of trial and error learning on the parents’ part because I am sure that they tried many different things before they realized that adjusting the temperature would solve their problem.

There were examples of reinforcement in this reading as well. When the child would cry it would be reinforced by getting fed or changed. This increased the frequency with which the baby cried when it needed one of these things.

Operant conditioning was also visible with regards to the music box located in the baby box. While in the baby box, the baby was reinforced for pulling a ring down with her toes. When she did this the song Three Blind Mice would play. After doing this a few times she realized that she would be reinforced with music each time she emitted that target behavior. This is an example of positive reinforcement because music was added and it increased the frequency of the baby emitting the behavior again in the future. This is also an example of continuous reinforcement because the baby was reinforced with music each and every time.

Extinction was also evident in this reading. In order to drop the number of feedings from four down to three, the parents stopped reinforcing the behavior of the child waking up earlier than they wanted to feed her. Instead they just raised the temperature in the baby box. This was extinction because the baby was not actually punished in the process, but the parents were still able to reduce the unwanted behavior of the baby waking up early.

Even though the readings made the baby box seem like a very positive thing, I actually found it a bit disturbing. I mean it does sound like a good idea at night but I do not think a child should stay in there for like 21 hours a day. That seems a little like neglect to me. Babies need a lot of social interaction, even at a very young age, to develop language skills. By staying in a box all day they do not get that interaction time that is so crucial to their development. A child in a baby box would not learn how to share with others because they would always have their toys to their self. Some people, like Skinner, seem to have thought that this was a great idea but I would never do this with my own child. I know parenting is very hard and this lightens the burden, but I believe that the child is also being harmed developmentally in the process. I also think that keeping a child in a baby box until they are two or three years old is way too long. I can see maybe keeping them in there until they are one, but after that a child needs to be able to run around a large portion of the day and explore. The baby box prevents that from happening.

The Baby in the Box invention interests me a lot. I have never heard of this before and it seems to have a lot of support and it seems like it works.

The behavior modification techniques were everywhere and were easy to pick out. First Skinner manipulated the temperature of the bed to decrease the occurrence of fussing and crying. The music box was another major sign of modification. The box would turn on when the child pulled the string the box would start to play and the child's attention would be caught and held, preventing it from becoming bored and crying out. The string is a conditioned stimulus because the baby understands that pulling it elicits a desired response. Skinner also used extinction to decrease the number of late-night feedings by decreasing the amount of times the child was fed by refusing to reinforce the child's crying with food.

I think this is an awesome way to ease the worries of parents, especially first time parents. I also see how this could prevent children from coddling the baby and stunting its development. I though it is cool that not only does this seem to decrease stress of the child but also the parents--especially the mother. This allowed for a better attachment and relationship to form between mother and child because the mother was not stressed and tired. It is interesting and something I may consider when I decide to have kids.

On the other-hand I think there can be seriously aversive consequences if this experiment is done wrong or used for the wrong reasons. By not coming when the child cries it might lead to an aversive attachment style. Although there has yet to be any long-term side-effects I think it's important for parents to know exactly what they are doing and to also know the difference in their child's crys.

Before emitting to read this article, I had never heard of Skinners "Baby in a Box" before. Once I heard the title, I was intrigued to reading and knowing more.

In this reading, there were many principles of behavior being used. The first was trial and error learning. Skinner and his wife experimented with the temperature of the box, manipulating the temperature either lower or higher. This allowed them to discover what temperature the baby was comfortable at.

Another behavioral principle that was used was extinction. Skinner talked about reducing the number of meals for the baby from four to three. In order to do this, everytime the baby cried in the morning for food, Skinner and his wife would stop reinforcing her/him and eventually the baby learned when she/he was going to be fed.

There were also some examples of reinforcement as well. One example was when the baby would cry, one or both parents would come to either feed him/her or change him/her. The baby was being reinforced that it increased the behavior that everytime he/she was hungry or needed a change, he/she would cry. Another example of reinforcement was when the baby would use her toes and play with the hanging ring. Everytime she used her toes to pull down the ring, the song Three Blind Mice would play. This seemed to be desirable for the baby, and so everytime she/he pulled down, he/she was reinforced with a song!

I admit that I did find the reading to be interesting, but I don't like the idea of putting a baby into a box. Skinner claims that it is like a crib, but in a crib, you actually have open air where in this case, you are stuck behind four walls. Although in this case the baby seemed fine and there were many positives that came from the baby box, I still would not object my baby or anyone elses into a box. I understand that it was created for the purpose of giving the mother some free time and allowing her to have a fixed scheudle, but people have been doing that for years without a box. I think it is selfish. The final thing I didin't like about this article was that it was all pursumtion that the baby would be taken care of by the mother and not the father. If both parents were there to take care of the baby, then both the mother and the father would get time to relax because the other one could take over!

This invention by B.F. Skinner was a big step in the field of psychology. I can understand why he created such a thing but personally I thought that this was a bad choice in parenting. I also think it would be interesting to see how such an invention would fare in a study that measures the physiological and psychological aspects of the baby box.
There are many behavioral terms behind the baby in the box. The one that really stood out to me was that of extinction. The article talked about how they wanted to drop the baby down from 4 to 3 meals. To do this, they would have to remove the aversive behavior by using the process of extinction. In their version of extinction they raised the temperature and ignored the babies cries when it woke in the morning and wanted food. Eventually the baby stopped the aversive behavior of wanting food early in the morning.
My thoughts about this are a little on the fence. It sounds like a great idea because it keeps the baby safe from the variety of germs and dangers of the real world. But on the other hand, you are raising this baby in an unconventional way that seems to deprive it of a lot of human contact. Whether or not the baby turned out normal or not is unknown but I would assume that her development was a little different than other children of the time.

Before emitting the behavior of reading the article and Skinner and his wife, and their invention, I had never heard of the 'Baby in a Box'. What Baby in a box was, was a compartment in which parents would keep their child so they would have less responsibility and more free time from their child.The invention was pretty shocking to read, but there was many ideas that can be applied to behavior modification.
Reinforcement was something that was very reoccurring through the article. when the baby would cry at night and stir around, Skinner would end up just changing the temperature. This would make the baby stop crying and sleep throughout the night. When the baby would fuss, Skinner would usually make the baby box a little warmer, which reinforces the baby's behavior until they are comfortable. The baby box was also reinforcing for the family too. The family can put the baby into the baby box, which can relieve them of taking care of the baby.
Extinction was also involved in the baby box. This happens when the baby is crying for no reason they would simply put him or her in the box, which is not punishing the crying but also not reinforcing the behavior either. Another example of the extinction is when the baby would wake up to early for breakfast, which would wake up Skinner and his wife. So instead of punishing the child, they would turn up the heat of the box a little bit which would emit longer sleeping behavior of the child and decrease the aversive waking up of Skinner and his wife.
My thoughts of this baby in a box is that it is a little bit extreme. I can see how revolutionary it would be and how helpful it could be especially for single mother who may be going to school or working or both. I feel like it is a little unnatural. It seems odd to me that someone wouldnt want all of that time with their child. Yes being a parent is extremely frustrating at times but later in life I would feel like I would be missing out.

Skinner developed the idea for this box after his first born. Having children is a joy, but is extremely hard work. Especially, for the first few years. Skinner made the baby boxes to help his wife and himself spend more time with the children and less time on actually labor. The bed he designed made more for the children would have freedom and air holes so the child didn't have to where pi's or any type of clothing. But, they could sleep very comfortable throughout the night. They messed with the temperature and they figure out that if they raised the temperature the child would sleep a little bit longer. The box was sound proof, which helped during the day if the doorbell rang or telephone. Which I think was genius, but kind of dangerous if something went wrong, you would here the child.

Some other discoveries were that the child never had diaper rash, never had a stomach ache, never missed a bowel movement. Since, It's all in closed the child has also never been exposed to different chemicals, air-borne infections, dust or any allergic substances.There were complaints about this experiment that the child wouldn't get enough affection from the parents and the child would become a softie. However, this has been proven not accurate at least with Skinner's child. "She turned out normal." The parents wouldn't have to worry about laundry from the bedding or extra clothes like pjs. So less labor which was the initial target.

My initial thoughts when I started reading these articles of Skinner was that this experiment was creepy and wrong. After reading the multiple articles I still have mixed feelings about the "baby box." I desire on not having a lot of extra labor with laundry, but not found of the whole box. I feel it would del like your child is trapped. I also desire having children not get diseases or allergies, but you can't shield them forever. Wouldn't you want your child to become immune to the harmful diseases and allergies. You could be in your teens when you could develop any allergies or disease. You can't stay in the box forever-it's not a life. Also, cuddling up with your baby, while watching a movie is showing affection. But, according to the box theory you wouldn't do that. I feel the babies wouldn't get enough affection to me.

I believe to was a very insightful experiment has many good points, but somethings concern me after when the child grows up and no longer stays in the box.

After reading about B.F Skinner's baby box I was kind of disturbed. Though Skinner proved that this box was nothing but beneficial to the baby and the parents, I am still hesitant to even consider this for my future children. I look at how I was raised in a crib and playpen which was not temperature controlled or air filtered and I turned out normal. I look at how Skinner did try to extinct behaviors such as feeding their child at a time that suited them. The parents manipulated the temperature in the baby box to increase the amount of sleep-positive reinforcement. It's positive because they are adding the heat to increase the amount of sleep of the child.

I personally would not put my child in the baby box. It may have been proven with Skinner's child, but until reading the article on it, I have not heard anything about using one. Maybe it's due to the cost of building one or finding one, but until further research or better found reviews I think I'll stick to the methods my parents used.

I think it encloses the child and could possibly makes them feel trapped. Plus I think exposing a child to the world and letting them run free and explore would do them some good. I also think that not all mothers would love this idea. Though I can't speak from experience, I feel like through the first few months or even years of a child's life are more crucial. Children desire the attention of their parents and will emit any such behaviors to cause reinforcement of their parents', especially mother's, affection. I know that some mothers like their space and don't have time for the attention of their child 100% of the time, but I think keeping a child in a box where you wouldn't even be able to hear them is kind of cruel.

The baby in a box invention was interesting and yet disturbing at the same time. I can see how people would be against the idea because my first thought was either that these parents were just plain lazy or neglecting their child. But once they started explaining in detail what the invention did and how it benefits both the baby and the mom it was obvious that it was only working to the greater good of the whole family.

The box was helpful in which it kept a clean and safe environment for the baby to play and sleep in. The parents were pretty much in control of every aspect of this baby's life. They manipulated the temperature in the box to ensure a good night's sleep along with strict eating and play time. Besides the few hours that the baby was out of the box to eat or be changed and play, she spent the majority of her time in the box alone. To me I feel like this would lead to social problems in the future along with sleeping issues. The baby has been "trained" to sleep in specific temperatures and for a certain amount of time. The few hours she spent outside of the box she was nurtured, but the countless hours spent alone will have to have some kind of long term affect on her social well-being.

I personally would not introduce my child to this exile. It may have worked for this particular family but is not something I personally would be interested in trying with all the many ways that it could possibly go wrong. I would much rather stick with the traditional parenting skills. Although those skills were not completely forgotten in the box method, they were not the center of the procedure. It is a parent's job to offer nurturing and care for their baby. No matter how exhausting it may become or if your attention is else where. You r children should always come first.

After emitting the behavior of reading,The baby in the box invention, by Skinner, was actually very interesting to me, and somewhat mindboggling. I am a nanny for 4 children and I started watching the kids when the youngest was just 5 months old, he is 2.5 now, so I have been doing it quite some time. In other words I know what it takes to take care of a newborn and how aversive and tiresome the responsibilities can be.
One thing that pertains to behavioral modification would be the ABC’s in general, by putting a baby in a premade environment (the baby boy) the baby no longer emitted some of the averse behaviors such as crying that other babies would, therefore reducing the parents stress.
Something else would have been the parents target behavior of specifically trying to get the temperature right inside the box, because if it was one degree higher or lower then what the baby liked, the baby would emit a crying behavior. Therefore the target behavior had to be right one the exact degree in order for there to be no adverse behavior emitted.
Something else emitted would have been when Skinner emitted the behavior of decreasing the babies feeding from 4 times a day, down to 3. This would have been an example of extinction, because he was decreasing the likelihood of an aversive behavior from occurring. By taking away the feeding early in the morning, the parents reinforced that child by increasing the temperature during the night because that proved to keep the baby asleep, and or content longer.
Another conditioned response that was present would have been the music inside the box, every time the baby would play with the strings hanging down(conditioned stimulus), she would be reinforced by the sound of music; therefore keeping her entertained( conditioned response). This technique is often used in today’s society because it is something that actually works, it reinforces the baby with something positive, so they don’t emit an aversive behavior.
At first, I was aversive to this idea because of the fact that a baby was essentially being kept inside a “glass box” and to me it just seemed that the baby spent so much time inside the box and may in turn result in the child not being social able because of the controlled environment. However, on the flip side it made me think, could this technique actually be more beneficial for children because their environment is constant, and the we as society see it as aversive because it’s not the “norm” in our society? It just had me thinking, is this actually a reinforcing and beneficial technique, but our society hasn’t or won’t grab the aspect of it because it’s not what we are use to.

In the "baby in a box" the baby is free to move about with virtually no undesirable consequences, such as smothering. This freedom of movement allowed the baby to exercise in a sense and become strong early on. The baby learned to hold its urine naturally, thus neutralizing the "wetting the bed" phase. This also sidestepped the psychological toilet training difficulties. The invention also kept the baby from the discomforts of having colds and the negative emotions that correlate with sickness. So far most of the characteristics of this invention are designed to prevent the baby from crying. In addition to everything so far, the "box" was sound resistant to block out undesired noises. This improves the baby's quality of life and should result in a happy child. Another encouraging aspect is that this happy baby is even more happy because without many of the undesired areas of having a baby, the parents are more likely and happy to spend time with the child. Everybody is reinforced.
The "Baby in a Box" title definitely gives the idea a bad connotation but after reading about it, this sounds like a great creation. In pretty much any case, lessening the strain on the parents in some way will increase the pleasure of the situation of raising a child making everybody happier. So considering that, plus the addition of the other perks: no bed wetting, easy toilet training, little to no sickness, I can't believe I don't hear more about this thing being used. I wish I had been raised in one.

Prior to reading this article, I had never heard of Skinner's Baby in the Box. I really liked the beginning of the article as it captured my attention right away; the question of wether a given practice important for the physical and psychological health of a baby seems like an important one and the fact that they address it so early on really grabbed my attention.

I do find it odd however that Skinner is so consumed with the idea of putting living things in boxes all the time; I mean he started with rats, but i had no idea that he had graduated all the way to his own children! There are many desirable effects that are provided by this invention, but i think that there is a reason while it still hasn't caught on with the general public.

This seems like the kind of thing you might see in "future setting" horror movies. Imagine it, a world renowned psychologist adapts his operant animal conditioning device to implement on new human generations. Its vast amount of conveniences and benefits are irresistible to the public and soon there is at least one in every house around the world. BOOM. Now these devises are not only doing all of the undesirable tasks associated with caring for an infant, they're pumping out children of the corn or something horrible of the like. The whole concept just gives me the willies, no matter how revolutionary it may have been.

I would be very interested to see the results of longitudinal follow up studies that tracked the development of children who were brought up with/ without the box: twins i think might be the most telling subjects. On the other hand, its exactly this human test subjection that gives me the creeps.

The baby in the box invention by Skinner was really interesting to read about, I had never heard of it before. The air crib elicited the behavior of less feeding through out the night, as the parents wanted by emitting the behavior of changing the temperature in the room to make the child more comfortable. I think Skinner found a great way to modify behavior in his era, however I don't think it would be ethical in our day in age.

I think the most important thing to do when looking at this invention is weighing out the pros and cons of this box. I think the advantages include:
1. The child is more comfortable and happy because their temperature is better regulated.
2. The "crib" is germ free and safer for the baby.
3. There is less laundry to do because you don't use extra blankets and clothing.
4. It keeps the baby safe from other objects that could be potentially smothering.
The disadvantages of this crib are:
1. It might not exactly be ethical, possibly neglect?
2. Does this lead to isolation later in life, or social awkwardness?

I think this plays easily into the ABC's of the chapter. For example:
The antecedent is the baby is in the box.
The behavior is you lower or increase the temperature in the room.
The consequence is less fussing from the baby.
This is a negative reinforcement for the parents because they do not need to attend to the child through out the night.

I think this is a pretty neat invention. Especially because it helped the parents to modify certain behaviors by simply changing the temperature in the room. By changing the temperature in the room, the child did not need a forth feeding for the night. However, I would not use this type of device because I don't think it is healthy for the child, as they would not be exposed to normal parts of growing up.

Terms: Baby in the box, Skinner, air crib, elicit, emitting, advantages, disadvantages, ethical, neglect, modify, antecedent, behavior, consequence, negative reinforcement.