Moving Beyond Reinforcement and Response Strength

Abstract

Behavior analysis has often simultaneously depended upon and denied an implicit, hypothetical process of reinforcement as response strengthening. I discuss what I see as problematic about the use of such an implicit, possibly inaccurate, and likely unfalsifiable theory and describe issues to consider with respect to an alternative view without response strengthening. In my take on such an approach, important events (i.e., “reinforcers”) provide a means to measure learning about predictive relations in the environment by modulating (i.e., inducing) performance dependent upon what is predicted and the relevant motivational mode or behavioral system active at that time (i.e., organismic state). Important events might be phylogenetically important, or they might acquire importance by being useful as signals for guiding an organism to where, when, or how currently relevant events might be obtained (or avoided). Given the role of learning predictive relations in such an approach, it is suggested that a potentially useful first step is to work toward formal descriptions of the structure of the predictive relations embodied in common facets of operant behavior (e.g., response-reinforcer contingencies, conditioned reinforcement, and stimulus control). Ultimately, the success of such an approach will depend upon how well it integrates formal characterizations of predictive relations (and how they are learned without response strengthening) and the relevant concomitant changes in organismic state across time. I also consider how thinking about the relevant processes in such a way might improve both our basic science and our technology of behavior.