This was different from the Pavlovian theory since the rat's response was not a respondent behavior but an operant behavior. Skinner does not reject that the subjects learn the behavior. In Skinner's box, rats learn that pressing the bar gets them food. However, this is different from Pavlov's classical conditioning where the dog salivates for food by associating the stimuli (the bell, the sight of food, or the sound of the attendant) with the actual eating. Skinner's operant conditioning occurs because rats are rewarded for pressing the bar. In Skinner's experiment, there is no stimulus associated with the bar in the box. The rat's behavior is spontaneous. By spontaneously pressing the bar and getting the food, however, the rat learns the consequences of it. In this experiment, the consequence is the delivery of food which serves as reinforcement. In Pavlov's theory, the external environment exerts little influence on the reflexive behavior of the dog's organism, whereas in Skinner's experiment, behavior is controlled by its consequences conditioned by the environment.

Skinner theorized that behaviors were controlled by consequences such as reinforcement and punishment. Both the reinforcement and punishment could be positive or negative. For instance, in Skinner's box, positive reinforcement would be giving something pleasant (e.g. food), while positive punishment would be giving something unpleasant (e.g. electrocuting the rat). Negative reinforcement would be taking away something unpleasant (stopping the electric shock), whereas the negative punishment would be taking away something pleasant (taking away food). However, Skinner had a negative view of the punishments. Punishments, he believed, could not yield lasting changes in unwanted behavior. They would lead to unwanted side effects such as anxiety and anger toward the punisher, or may lead to avoidant behavior such as lying. Skinner was in favor reinforcements. He believed that his own...

His whole life was the outcome of past reinforcements and he believed that his life could be traced back to stimuli in the environment. Later in his life, he began to build a disciplined lifestyle by rewarding himself with positive reinforcements (for example, by listening to music in the afternoons).
Pavlov would most likely reject such theorizing because he did not pay much attention to the psychological aspects of behavior. He focused on physiological aspects of it. However, he would agree about the effects of positive reinforcements in general. Skinner agreed with Pavlov by insisting about the primacy of data and on the importance of scientifically studying the behavior of individuals to understand the behavior of larger groups, but Skinner rejected the Pavlovian suggestion about the primacy of neurological processes that controlled the behavior of living organisms. For Skinner, a science of behavior was more important and therefore he developed a theory different from Pavlov's, demonstrating that the stimuli response method proved the primacy of the science of behavior. Theories of Pavlov and Skinner had fundamental limitations. Both of them mostly experimented on animals and made their conclusions about human behavior. However, the importance of their contributions is undeniable since they pioneered the scientific approach to studying behavior and the limitations of their methods could be fixed with further research and study.

Pavlov and Skinner made key contributions to behavioral science. Pavlov's contribution was important because he explained the conditioned reflexes of the organisms, while Skinner's contribution was important because he explained that behavior was not necessarily respondent but also operant. The works of both theorists were similar in terms of using stimuli response methods to explain behavior, but their works differed because Skinner took Pavlov's theory to a new level.