The S-R issue: its status in behavior analysis and in Donahoe and Palmer's learning and complex behavior.

Zigman et al. (1997) wrote a theory paper. They used computer models to test an old idea.

The idea: reinforcement does not make a response stronger. It makes the world better at cueing that response.

They call this view environmental control.

The models showed that environmental control explains learning better than simple response strength.

In plain words: the context, not the muscle, gains power when a reinforcer arrives.

Kuroda et al. (2018) later ran rats in a lab and got the same picture. They proved that the response-reinforcer correlation, not just quick pairing, drives behavior.

Neuringer (2023) picked up the thread. He asked if voluntary acts are just operants under environmental control. His answer: yes, but theorists still argue about the details.

Gibbon (1967) had already shown that even heart-rate-like responses can come under operant control. That early lab work quietly supports the environmental-control claim.

Stop asking 'Did I make the behavior stronger?' Ask 'Did I make the cues stronger?' Check your schedules, your timing, and your setting events. Shift more attention to what the learner sees, hears, and feels right before the reinforcer. When you next program a skill, build rich, clear cues and keep the reinforcer tied to them. The context will do the heavy lifting.