Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Novelty, stimulus control, and operant variability

  • Published:
The Behavior Analyst Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Although behavior analysis has been criticized for failure to account for response novelty, many common behavior-analytic concepts and processes (e.g., selectionism, the operant, reinforcement, and stimulus control) assume variability both in the environment and in behavior. The importance of the relation between variability and novelty, particularly for verbal behavior, is discussed, and concepts used to account for novel behavior are examined. Experimental findings also are reviewed that suggest that variability in behavior can come under discriminative control, and these findings are applied to describe novel instances of behavior that may arise during problem solving. We conclude that variations provided and selected by the terms of the three-term contingency are powerful means for understanding novel behavior.

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

References

  • Alessi, G. (1987). Generative strategies and teaching for generalization. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 5, 15–27.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Alessi, S. M., Roll, J. M., Reilly, M. P., & Johanson, C. E. (2002). Establishment of a diazepam preference in human volunteers following a differential-conditioning history of placebo versus diazepam choice. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 10, 77–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Andronis, P. T., Layng, T. V. J., & Goldiamond, I. (1997). Contingency adduction of ‘‘symbolic aggression’’ by pigeons. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 14, 5–17.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Antonitis, J. J. (1951). Response variability in the white rat during conditioning, extinction, and reconditioning. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 42, 273–281.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Balsam, P. D., Deich, J. D., Ohyama, T., & Stokes, P. D. (1998). Origins of new behavior. In W. T. O’Donohue (Ed.), Learning and behavior therapy (pp. 403–420). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker, W. C., Engelmann, S., & Thomas, D. R. (1975). Cognitve learning and instruction. Chicago: Science Research Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bhatt, R. S., Wasserman, E. A., Reynolds, W. F., Jr., & Knauss, K. S. (1988). Conceptual behavior in pigeons: Categorization of both familiar and novel examples from four classes of natural and artificial stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 14, 219–234.

    Google Scholar 

  • Birch, H. G. (1945). The role of motivational factors in insightful problem-solving. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 38, 295–317.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Catania, A. C. (1973). The concept of the operant in the analysis of behavior. Behaviorism, 1, 103–116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Catania, A. C. (1998). The taxonomy of verbal behavior. In K. A. Lattal & M. Perone (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in human operant behavior (pp. 405–433). New York: Plenum.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Chase, P. N., & Bjarnadottir, G. S. (1992). Instructing variability: Some features of a problem-solving repertoire. In S. C. Hayes & L. J. Hayes (Eds.), Understanding verbal relations (pp. 181–193). Reno, NV: Context Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chase, P. N., Johnson, K. R., & Sulzer-Azaroff, B. (1985). Verbal relations within instruction: Are there subclasses of the intraverbal? Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 43, 301–313.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, N. (1959). Review of B. F. Skinner’s Verbal Behavior. Language, 35, 26–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cook, R. G., Katz, J. S., & Cavoto, B. R. (1997). Pigeon same-different concept learning with multiple stimulus classes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 23, 417–433.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Donahoe, J. W., & Palmer, D. C. (1994). Learning and complex behavior. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

  • Eisenberger, R., & Armeli, S. (1997). Can salient reward increase creative performance without reducing intrinsic creative interest? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 652–663.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ellenwood, D., & Chase, P. N. (1995, May). Developing syntax and meaning. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Behavior Analysis, Washington, D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  • Engelmann, S. E., & Carnine, D. (1982). Theory of instruction: Principles and applications. New York: Irvington.

    Google Scholar 

  • Epstein, R. (1983). Resurgence of previously reinforced behavior during extinction. Behavior Analysis Letters, 3, 391–397.

    Google Scholar 

  • Epstein, R. (1985). Extinction-induced resurgence: Preliminary investigations and possible applications. The Psychological Record, 35, 143–153.

    Google Scholar 

  • Epstein, R. (1987). The spontaneous interconnection of four repertoires of behavior in a pigeon (Columba livia). Journal of Comparative Psychology, 101, 197–201.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Epstein, R. (1996). Cognition, creativity and behavior. Westport, CT: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galbicka, G. (1994). Shaping in the 21st century: Moving percentile schedules into applied settings. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, 739–760.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Goetz, E. M., & Baer, D. M. (1973). Social control of form diversity and the emergence of new forms in children’s blockbuilding. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 6, 209–217.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Guttman, N., & Kalish, H. I. (1956). Discriminability and stimulus generalization. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 51, 79–88.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, G. A., & Chase, P. N. (1991). The relationship between stimulus equivalence and verbal behavior. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 9, 107–119.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, G. A., & Sundberg, M. L. (1987). Teaching mands by manipulating conditioned establishing operations. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 5, 41–53.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, S. C. (1991). A relational control theory of stimulus equivalence. In L. J. Hayes & P. N. Chase (Eds.), Dialogues on verbal behavior (pp. 19–40). Reno, NV: Context Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herrnstein, R. J. (1979). Acquisition, generalization, and discrimination reversal of a natural concept. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 5, 116–129.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Herrnstein, R. J. (1990). Levels of stimulus control: A functional approach. Cognition, 37, 133–166.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Herrnstein, R. J., & Loveland, D. H. (1964). Complex visual concept in the pigeon. Science, 146, 549–551.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Herrnstein, R. J., Loveland, D. H., & Cable, C. (1976). Natural concepts in pigeons. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 2, 285–302.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horne, P. J., & Lowe, F. (1996). On the origins of naming and other symbolic behavior. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 65, 185–241.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Huber, L., Troje, N. F., Loidolt, M., Aust, U., & Grass, D. (2000). Natural categorization through multiple feature learning in pigeons. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 53B, 341–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joyce, J. H., & Chase, P. N. (1990). Effects of response variability on the sensitivity of rulegoverned behavior. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 54, 251–262.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Keller, F. S., & Schoenfeld, W. N. (1950). Principles of psychology. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kohler, W. (1925). The mentality of apes (E. Winter, Trans.). New York: Harcourt & Brace.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lamarre, J., & Holland, J. A. (1985). The functional independence of mands and tacts. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 43, 5–19.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Layng, T. V. J. (1991). A selectionist approach to verbal behavior: Sources of variation. In L. J. Hayes & P. N. Chase (Eds.), Dialogues on verbal behavior (pp. 146–150). Reno, NV: Context Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • LeFrancois, J. R., Chase, P. N., & Joyce, J. H. (1988). The effects of a variety of instructions on human fixed-interval performance. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 49, 383–393.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Lowenkron, B. (1998). Some logical functions of joint control. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 69, 327–354.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Lubow, R. E. (1974). Higher-order concept formation in the pigeon. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 21, 475–483.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • MacCorquodale, K. (1970). On Chomsky’s review of Skinner’s Verbal Behavior. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 13, 83–99.

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Machado, A. (1997). Increasing the variability of response sequences in pigeons by adjusting the frequency of switching between two keys. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 68, 1–25.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Maltzman, I. (1960). On the training of originality. Psychological Review, 67, 229–242.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Meisch, R. A., & Carroll, M. E. (1987). Oral drug self-administration: Drugs as reinforcers. In M. A. Bozarth (Ed.), Methods of assessing the reinforcing properties of abused drugs (pp. 143–160). New York: Springer-Verlag.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Page, S., & Neuringer, A. (1985). Variability is an operant. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 11, 429–452.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pryor, K. W., Haag, R., & O’Reilly, J. (1969). The creative porpoise: Training for novel behavior. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 12, 653–661.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Samson, H. H. (1986). Initiation of ethanol reinforcement using a sucrose-substitution procedure in food- and water-sated rats. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 10, 436–442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schoenfeld, W. N., Harris, A. H., & Farmer, J. (1966). Conditioning response variability. Psychological Reports, 19, 551–557.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sidman, M. (1986). Functional analysis of emergent verbal classes. In T. Thompson & M. D. Zeiler (Eds.), Analysis and integration of behavioral units (pp. 213–245). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sidman, M. (2000). Equivalence relations and the reinforcement contingency. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 74, 127–146.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Sidman, M., & Tailby, W. (1982). Conditional discrimination vs. matching to sample: An expansion of the testing paradigm. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 37, 5–22.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Skinner, B. F. (1935). The generic nature of the concepts of stimulus and response. Journal of General Psychology, 12, 40–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skinner, B. F. (1937). Two types of conditioned reflex: A reply to Konorski and Miller. Journal of General Psychology, 16, 272–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Skinner, B. F. (1969). Contingencies of reinforcement: A theoretical analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skinner, B. F. (1981). Selection by consequences. Science, 213, 501–504.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Staddon, J. E. R., & Simmelhag, V. L. (1971). The ‘‘superstition’’ experiment: A reexamination of its implications for the principles of adaptive behavior. Psychological Review, 78, 3–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stokes, T. F., & Baer, D. M. (1977). An implicit technology of generalization. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 10, 349–367.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Wasserman, E. A., & Bhatt, R. S. (1992). Conceptualization of natural and artificial stimuli by pigeons. In W. K. Honig & J. G. Fetterman (Eds.), Cognitive aspects of stimulus control (pp. 203–223). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wasserman, E. A., Kiedinger, R. E., & Bhatt, R. S. (1988). Conceptual behavior in pigeons: Categories, subcategories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 14, 235–246.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watanabe, S., Sakamoto, J., & Wakita, M. (1995). Pigeons’ discrimination of paintings by Monet and Picasso. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 63, 165–174.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Weiner, H. (1969). Controlling human fixed-interval performance. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 12, 349–373.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Wetherby, B. (1978). Miniature languages and functional analysis of verbal behavior. In R. L. Schiefelbusch (Ed.), Bases of language intervention (pp. 397–448). Baltimore: University Park Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wetherby, B., & Striefel, S. (1978). Application of miniature linguistic systems or matrix training procedures. In R. L. Schiefelbusch (Ed.), Language intervention strategies (pp. 318–356). Baltimore: University Park Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, Conant Hall, University of New Hampshire, 03824, Durham, New Hampshire, USA

    Timothy A. Shahan

  2. Department of Psychology, West Virginia University, P.O. Box 6040, Morgantown, West Virginia, 26506-6040, USA

    Philip N. Chase

Authors
  1. Timothy A. Shahan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Philip N. Chase
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Timothy A. Shahan or Philip N. Chase.

Additional information

We thank the members of the verbal behavior lab group of West Virginia University for their helpful discussions and Amy Odum for her comments on a previous version of this paper.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Shahan, T.A., Chase, P.N. Novelty, stimulus control, and operant variability. BEHAV ANALYST 25, 175–190 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03392056

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03392056

Key words

Search

Navigation