The Harvard Pigeon Lab under Herrnstein.
The Harvard Pigeon Lab’s student-run culture produced the matching law and other math tools BCBAs still rely on.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Baum (2002) tells the story of the Harvard Pigeon Lab. The paper walks through how the lab grew, how it worked, and why it closed.
The author worked with Richard Herrnstein. He shows how students ran most day-to-day pigeon work. They built the matching law and other math rules we still use.
What they found
The lab’s open, student-led style let ideas move fast. Quick pilot tests turned into big findings like the matching law.
When funding and staff shrank, the lab faded. The story shows how a small group shaped today’s behavior analysis.
How this fits with other research
CATANIA (1963), Macdonald et al. (1973), and Aragona et al. (1975) give the raw pigeon data the review talks about. Each paper shows pigeons matching response ratios to reinforcer ratios. Together they form the bricks the lab stacked into theory.
Katz et al. (2003) came next. They showed pigeons still match when the payoff odds flip every few seconds. This extends the matching law into fast-changing worlds the original lab never tested.
Pierce et al. (1983) step sideways. They show humans also match on two-key tasks. The pigeon math holds for people, proving the lab’s rules travel beyond birds.
Why it matters
You use the matching law daily when you balance reinforcement across tasks. This history reminds you the law came from gritty lab work, not armchair theory. Share that story with new RBTs. It shows why data still beat guesswork.
Get CEUs on This Topic — Free
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ on-demand CEUs including ethics, supervision, and clinical topics like this one. Plus a new live CEU every Wednesday.
Tell your team one quick tale from the paper to show why data collection matters.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
The history of the Harvard Pigeon Lab is a history of two periods of remarkable productivity, the first under Skinner's leadership and the second under Herrnstein's. In each period, graduate students flocked to the leader and then began stimulating one another. Chance favored Herrnstein's leadership, too, because an unusually large number of graduate students were admitted in the fall of 1962. In each period, productivity declined as the leader lost interest in the laboratory and withdrew. Directly and indirectly, the laboratory finally died as a result of the cognitive "revolution." Skinner and his students saw the possibility of a natural science of behavior and set about establishing that science based on concepts such as response rate, stimulus control, and schedules of reinforcement. Herrnstein and his students saw that the science could be quantitative and set about making it so, with relative response rate, the matching law, and the psychophysics of choice (analogous to S. S. Stevens' psychophysics). The history might provide a golden research opportunity for someone interested in the impact of such self-organizing research groups on the progress of science.
Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 2002 · doi:10.1901/jeab.2002.77-347