Case Western Reserve University

The Improper Use of Operant Conditioning in Glass House

Kevin Echelberry

FSSO 185S: Social Science and Science Fiction

Professor Justin Buchler

7 October 2019
 Operant conditioning is the process by which a certain behavior is either repeatedly

rewarded or repeatedly punished to increase or decrease, respectively, the probability of that

behavior occurring again. It is a specific method of learning that results from strengthening the

association between an action and its consequence (Skinner, 1957). In the context of Glass

House, YFH-polity is ostensibly using the points system to reward behaviors that are consistent

with their idea of society, and therefore causing the participants to engage in these behaviors

more often. They use the reduction of points in the same way but with the opposite effect --

eliminating behaviors which are contrary to their vision. In this way, the experimenters are using

operant conditioning to control the actions of the subjects; however, the model that Stross creates

does not conform to the established psychological theories regarding this process, and, as a

result, he fails to demonstrate the powerful effects social norms can have on individuals.

In Stross’s world, the purpose of the points system is to fill the void where social norms

would exist. From the moment we are born, we are subject to the power of operant conditioning.

We commit an action, and then the consequences of that action either encourage or discourage

repetition of that behavior. Over time, we learn what we ought to do as a result of continual

operant conditioning from birth through adulthood. This process occurs in all aspects of life,

including social interaction, as the decision to engage in a certain social behavior is strongly

determined by past reward and punishment (Franklin, 1971). In the glass house the test subjects

were not raised in the society they are portraying, so they have not been conditioned to act in

socially acceptable ways; therefore, they need another system to shape their behavior. Stross

attempts to use the points system as a substitute for the social norms that we learn as we mature;
however, the system is flawed because it is not given adequate time to create changes in behavior

and the results are not proportional to the incentive offered.

One significant difference between established social scientific theory and Stross’s

depiction is the lack of a learning curve. Newquist and Gradner (2015) argue that if a behavior is

acquired immediately and a learning curve cannot be distinguished, than operant conditioning

can not have occurred. Conditioning must result from multiple repetitions of rewards or

punishments. Inside the glass house, the experimenters are attempting to condition the

participants behavior through the addition or subtraction of points. The crucial error in the

manner in which the mock society develops is that the desired actions occur immediately, rather

than slowly over time. For example, by the second day of the experiment, Mick has already

started abusing Cass for the sake of gaining points. Moreover, Reeve is the only one Fiore

singles out at church the first week, so it appears that no one else made any errors worthy of

losing more than a few points. The likelihood of such perfection decreases even more because

the specific criteria for gaining and losing points is not explicitly defined. Reeve is repeatedly

surprised when her netlink notifies her of a change in her point value. Ultimately, for operant

conditioning to have occured, there would have to be some period of trial and error where the

participants learn the association between socially acceptable behavior and gaining points. Since

this does not occur, it can be inferred that such social behaviors are a result of our very biology.

Another discrepancy in the experimental design results because the behaviors are not

proportional to the incentive that is applied. Given that the society that exist outside of the glass

house has the ability to eliminate scarcity, money plays a diminished and rather insignificant role

in their lives; however, the points that the participants acquire are promised to lead to higher
payoffs at the end of the experiment. This incentive is rather small, especially compared to the

rather grotesque actions that some of the subjects engage in. For example, after just a few

months, Mick brutally handicaps and repeatedly rapes Cass because he ostensibly wants a baby

to increase their score. Stross sets it up so that his behavior can be seen as a result of the high

number of points associated with reproducing; however, the small sum of money that this may

gain him cannot account for such violent behavior. Thorndike’s Law of Effect explains simply

that behavior that results in a favorable outcome will be repeated (Postman and Adams, 1954),

and in this instance, there are two factors to consider: the guilt of harming another person and the

dopamine boost from gaining points. Assuming that Mick is a rationale and morally upright

individual, it is not logical that the latter would outweigh the former, no matter how strong the

assosiation between sex and points is. The behavior will always result in a negative outcome

because of the stong moral objection Mick should have to rape. Thus, since the behavior is

committed and repeated anyways, the only explanation is that Mick would engage in this

behavior regardless of the points system. Therefore, Mick’s actions do not show that society can

turn normal people into monsters when constructed in certain ways, but that some people are

monsters, and society simply does not do enough to stop them.

Another example of Stross’s overstatement of the power of operant conditioning is the

lynching of the two adulterers, Esther and Phil. Stross aims to show that the huge loss of points

these individuals incurred on cohort three caused them to murder them in rage; however, the

lynching could not be an act of self-interest to ensure that Esther and Phil never had the chance

to cost them points in the future, or even to deter others from making similar mistakes, because

those motivations rely on the idea that the people of cohort three care more about the points than
the lives of two humans, and that cannot be true. As explained above, the moral opposition

people should have to murder would outweigh the potential money gain they might see years

later. Therefore, there must be a stronger force driving this behavior from within. External

factors fail to explain this level of violence, meaning something inside our genes caused this

heinous action. Ultimately, Stross fails to make his argument about the power and perversion of

society but instead makes an argument about the innate immorality of human nature.

Ultimately, Stross sets up Glass House as an argument about the destructive power of

social influence. He aims to demonstrate how we allow ourselves to be dominated by the forces

of conformity and engage in behaviors we know our wrong because our society encourages

them. However, YFH-polity fails to support this argument because of the inconsistencies

between the theory of operant conditioning and the established social scientific theories. The

points system is supposed to replace the influences of society, but the points are an insufficient

motivator for the kinds of behaviors that are performed inside the glass house. Moreover, the

behaviors are adopted far too quickly. Therefore, the behaviors must be an ingrained aspect of

human nature rather than a conditioned response to societal pressures. This is not the argument

Stross was attempting to create, and therefore his display of operant conditioning fails.
 Works Cited

Franklin, Clyde W. "Operant Concepts and Social Interaction." The Pacific Sociological Review 14,

no. 1 (1971): 5-19. doi:10.2307/1388250.

Newquist, Gunnar, and Gardner, R. Allen. "Reconsidering Food Reward, Brain Stimulation, and

Dopamine: Incentives Act Forward." The American Journal of Psychology 128, no. 4 (2015):

431-44. doi:10.5406/amerjpsyc.128.4.0431.

Postman, Leo, and Adams, Pauline Austin. "Performance Variables in the Experimental Analysis of

the Law of Effect." The American Journal of Psychology 67, no. 4 (1954): 612-31.

doi:10.2307/1418485.

Shoesmith, Geoffrey. "Principles of Operant Conditioning." In Psychology: A New Complete GCSE

Course, for AQA Specification 4180, 192-97. Cambridge: Lutterworth Press, 2015.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1cg4mcd.34

Skinner, B. F. "The Experimental Analysis of Behavior." American Scientist 45, no. 4

(1957): 343-71. http://www.jstor.org/stable/27826953.