Belief, its inconsistency, and the implications for the teaching faculty.

Fraley (1984) treats the word "belief" as a behavior, not a ghost in the machine. The paper says beliefs are verbal responses that can be strengthened or weakened by what happens after them.

It tells teachers to spot when a learner says two things that clash. Then use praise, points, or other reinforcers to shape talk that lines up with itself and with facts.

The article is pure theory, so there are no new data. It simply maps belief on to Skinner's account of verbal behavior and shows how differential reinforcement can make beliefs more consistent.

Dougan (1992) and Crosbie (1993) echo the same tune: behavior analysis already owns a science of teaching and needs to sell it. They push the 1984 idea outward, urging the field to market behavioral pedagogy and to study verbal behavior more.

Carr et al. (2002) give you a ready-made classroom tool called Interteaching. It turns the 1984 advice into a script: students talk in pairs, the teacher reinforces clear accurate talk, and inconsistent beliefs get corrected on the spot.

Lerman (2024) brings the idea up to date. Her blueprint tells you how to package differential reinforcement training so teachers, nurses, or cops who never took a behavior course can still shape consistent beliefs in their clients.

When a student says "I can't do math" yet solves problems fine, treat the sentence as a verbal response, not a trait. Catch the clash, then reinforce accurate self-talk like "I solved three in a row; I can do this." Over time the inconsistent belief fades. The paper reminds you that shaping beliefs is no mystery—you already have reinforcement, extinction, and modeling in your kit.