Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Mechner’s Reply to the Commentaries on His Article, “A Behavioral and Biological Analysis of Aesthetics”

  • Reply to Commentaries
  • Published:
The Psychological Record Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The commentaries prompted my realization that it is more useful to view the core of the aesthetic reaction as composed of a set of Pavlovian respondents than as a quasi-emotional reaction. They also increased my confidence in the generality of my conclusion, based in part on my analysis of hundreds of instances, that aesthetic reactions (as well as many other types of affective reactions) are elicited by the conjunction of (a) synergetic (unusual and transformative) interactions among stimuli, (b) the behavioral history and current state of the reacting individual, and (c) circumstantial features of the prevailing situation, including social and cultural factors. Aesthetic reactions can never be predicted or explained based on stimulus properties only. An important mechanism by which originally neutral stimuli acquire the power to elicit aesthetic reactions is Pavlovian pairing, often early in life, with stimuli that already possessed eliciting functions. The commentaries support my contention that a full understanding of the behavioral and biological aspects of aesthetic reactions requires a phylogenetic analysis of their evolutionary origins. Such an analysis suggests that the development of aesthetic sensibility is an important milestone in human evolution. The reinforcing properties of aesthetic reactions are key to the maintenance of such cognitive competencies as language and the manipulation of concepts, learning and inquiry skills, mentalization skills like visualizing and other types of thinking, various social skills, and cultural cohesion. The domain of aesthetic reinforcers extends beyond the arts to the quality of artifacts like tools, implements, or vehicles, certain types of interpersonal activity, and displays of competency. All of these reinforcer categories have biological utilities that account for the selection, throughout evolution, of individuals who were susceptible to those reinforcers’ effects. Also discussed are implications for therapy and education.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. This approach may seem somewhat teleological, but teleological formulations can also be regarded as heuristics that can help make sense of complex evolutionary processes.

  2. I am using the term “intrinsic” in the sense of unlearned. The term does not apply to the types of activity-produced reinforcers that result entirely from learned associations, such as when activities like reading or being in someone’s company have become reinforcing. It is understood that even intrinsic reinforcers are susceptible to modulation by situational circumstances and learning.

  3. Behavioral contingencies are the if–then relations between instances of operant behavior, their agents, consequences, timing, probabilities, and the circumstances that occasion them (Mechner, 2008, 2010a, b, 2011),

  4. For a discussion of synergetic interactions and synergetic brews, and how elements of the brews produce transformative effects when they interact synergetically, see Sections 1.6–1.10 of the 2017 article. Briefly, synergetic interactions of elements have effects that are transformative and different in kind from the interacting elements (unlike synergistic interactions as when 2+2 = 5). Familiar examples of synergetic interactions are chemical reactions and biological phenomena like photosynthesis or fertilization. Synergetic brews are sets of simultaneously present synergetically interacting elements.

  5. I must thank Killeen for restating the devices succinctly by recasting them, very creatively, in information theory terms and am awed by the meticulous way he related them to specific aesthetic effects. I also thank him for the final sentence of his entertaining commentary.

  6. I am using the term “respondent-laden” to distinguish the classically conditioned respondent components of the reaction from the discriminative ones, which are usually also present.

  7. Barrett explains that it was John Dewey who formulated (and named) the James–Lange theory of emotion. She explains that the theory is actually antithetical to William James’s view, which was constructivist rather than essentialist: James said that emotions have “instances,” not stable well-defined categories. The name “Lange” was that of the contemporary physiologist Carl Lange, whose essentialist view agreed with Dewey’s.

  8. The term “audience” is used throughout to include listeners, viewers, readers, etc., as in the 2017 article.

  9. The term “state” is generally used in a variety of senses and contexts. Nonpermanence or transience is a common one. When a system is said to be in, for example, a state of oscillation, equilibrium, anxiety, decomposition, or euphoria, the implication is that this property is transient. If the term “state” were left out, the implication would be that the property is a permanent and inherent one.

  10. For discussions of “concept repertoire,” see Mechner (2017), Part 2, and Mechner (2008a), pp. 237–238. For a discussion of power amplification, see Mechner (2017), Sections 4.7–4.9.

  11. fMRI studies have shown that visualization involves some of the same neural pathways as seeing, and mentalized hearing as listening, but only some. Visualization also involves other pathways that exteroceptive seeing or hearing do not. Likewise, visualization is a type of mentalization that does not necessarily involve images or “internal seeing.” For a more detailed analysis of these issues, see Mechner (2010a, b).

  12. A related tour de force is Eric Kandel’s (2012) analysis of the Viennese figure painting scene of the early 1900s, with particular focus on Klimt and Schiele.

References

  • Barrett, L. F. (2017). How emotions are made. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blood, A. J., & Zatorre, R. J. (2001). Intensely pleasurable responses to music correlate with activity in brain regions implicated in reward and emotion. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 98, 11818–11823.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coulter, X., Collier, A. C., & Campbell, B. A. (1976). Long-term retention of early Pavlovian fear conditioning in infant rats. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 2(1), 48–56.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fields, L., & Arntzen, E. (2017). Meaningful stimuli and the enhancement of equivalence class formation. Perspect Behav Sci. (2018) 41:69–93. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40614-017-0134-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grewe, O., Nagel, F., Kopiez, R., & Altenmüller, E. (2005). How does music arouse “chills?” Investigating strong emotions, combining psychological, physiological, and psychoacoustical methods. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1060, 446–449.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hineline, P. N. (2005). The aesthetics of behavioral arrangements. The Behavior Analyst, 28, 15–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hineline, P. N. (2018a). Challenge of the ineffable: Concerning Mechner’s “a behavioral and biological analysis of aesthetics”. The Psychological Record, 68(3), 1–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-018-0309-9

  • Hineline, P. N. (2018b). Narrative: Why it’s important, and how it works. Perspective on Behavioral Science, 1–31.

  • Kandel, E. R. (2006). In search of memory: The emergence of a new science of mind. New York, NY: Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kandel, E. R. (2012). The age of insight. New York, NY: Random House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Killeen, P. R. (2018). A ludic appreciation of Mechner’s aesthetics. The Psychological Record, 68(3). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-018-0317-9

  • Kunst-Wilson, W. R., & Zajonc, R. B. (1980). Affective discrimination of stimuli that cannot be recognized. Science, 207, 557–558.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Layng, T. V. J. (2017). Private emotions as contingency descriptors: Emotions, emotional behavior, and their evolution. European Journal of Behavior Analysis, 18(2), 168–179. https://doi.org/10.1080/15021149.2017.1304875.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacCorquodale, K., & Meehl, P. (1948). On a distinction between hypothetical constructs and intervening variables. Psychological Review, 55, 95–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malott, M. (2018). What influences audience response to figure painting? The Psychological Record, 68(3).

  • Mechner, F. (2008). Behavioral contingency analysis. Behavioral Processes, 78, 124–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mechner, F. (2008a). An invitation to behavior analysts: Review of In search of memory: The emergence of a new science of mind by Eric R. Kandel. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 90, 235–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mechner, F. (2010a). Chess as a behavioral model for cognitive skill research: Review of Blindfold Chess by Eliot Hearst & John Knott. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 94, 373–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mechner, F. (2010b). Anatomy of deception: A behavioral contingency analysis. Behavioral Processes, 84, 516–520.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mechner, F. (2011). Why behavior analysis needs a formal symbolic language for codifying behavioral contingencies. European Journal of Behavior Analysis, 12, 93–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mechner, F. (2017). A behavioral and biological analysis of aesthetics: Implications for research and applications. The Psychological Record. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-017-0228-1.

  • Mechner, F., & Jones, L. D. (2015). Effects of repetition frequency on operant strength and resurgence of non-criterial features of operants. Mexican Journal of Behavior Analysis, 41, 63–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mellon, R. C. (2018). A technology of aesthetic appreciation: Tweaking the reinforcing potency of synergetic events. The Psychological Record, 68(3). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-018-0316-x

  • Palmer, D. C. (2018). A behavioral interpretation of aesthetics. The Psychological Record, 68(3). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-018-0306-z

  • Rescorla, R. A. (1988). Pavlovian conditioning: It’s not what you think it is. American Psychologist, 43, 151–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salimpoor, V. N., Benovoy, M., Larcher, K., Dagher, A., & Zatorre, R. J. (2011). Anatomically distinct dopamine release during anticipation and experience of peak emotion to music. Nature Neuroscience, 14, 257–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schlinger, H. (2018). A functional analysis of “aesthetic”: A commentary on Mechner. The Psychological Record, 68(3). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-018-0308-x

  • Shimp, C. P. (2018). Science shapes the beautiful: Shaping moment-to-moment aesthetic behavior. The Psychological Record.

  • Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior. New York, NY: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal behavior. New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, T. (2018). Behavioral functions of aesthetics: Science and art, reason and emotion. The Psychological Record, 68(3).

  • Verhaeghen, P. (2018). Once more, with feeling: The role of familiarity in the aesthetic response. The Psychological Record, 68(3). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-018-0312-1

  • Zatorre, R. J., & Salimpoor, V. N. (2013). From perception to pleasure: Music and its neural substrates. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 110(Suppl 2), 10430–10437.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Columbia University, 116th St & Broadway, New York, NY, 10027, USA

    Francis Mechner

  2. The Mechner Foundation, 200 Central Park South #18e, New York, NY, 10019, USA

    Francis Mechner

Authors
  1. Francis Mechner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Francis Mechner.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mechner, F. Mechner’s Reply to the Commentaries on His Article, “A Behavioral and Biological Analysis of Aesthetics”. Psychol Rec 68, 385–404 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-018-0310-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-018-0310-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation