Question

THEORETICAL ARTICLE

The Role of Contingency Adduction in the Creative Act

Nolan Williams1

Accepted: 8 October 2020 # Association for Behavior Analysis International 2020

Abstract This article discusses the potential role of contingency adduction in creative behavior. Some have characterized creativity as the study of generativity. Generativity is the investigation of procedures that result in the occurrence of untrained, often composite, patterns from earlier trained components. An increasing number of applied programs are attempting to apply generative proce- dures in their design. Headsprout Early Reading®, for example, explicitly employed generative procedures to teach reading. There remains a lack of understanding about the role contingency adduction plays in the generative process. Contingency adduction is defined when patterns shaped under one context are recruited by contingencies in another context for which the pattern was not originally shaped. Adduced patterns may be new sequences of repertoires, the combination of repertoires, or the repertoire may acquire a new function. The moment of reinforcement of these new patterns from previously established patterns marks the moment of adduction. Thus, procedures that make such selection more likely may be fundamental to encourage what might be called creative behavior. Examples and nonexamples of contingency adduction involving both verbal and nonverbal procedures in both animals and humans will be described, and their implications noted.

Keywords Adduction . Contingency Adduction . Creativity . Variability

Most societies value creative, novel, and innovative solutions in art, sport, business, entertainment, and science and technol- ogy. An adequate theory of human behavior must address all aspects of human functioning—including behavior called cre- ative. Of course, creativity is an important topic to behavior analysts. By extension, if behavior analysts could reliably en- gineer such behavior, the social value of our science would increase.

To guide behavior analysts’ efforts in developing proce- dures to encourage creative performance, behavior analysts must first determine what sorts of behaviors qualify as crea- tive. This determination may be aided by an analysis of the conditions which control the use of the tact “creative” in our society. To establish the boundary of the tact “creative,” it may be useful to first identify the conditions which do not occasion the tact’s use. When do verbal communities rein- force the use of tacts such as “uncreative,” “application,” or “derivative?” For example, saying dog in the presence of a

new dog, even though it has not previously occurred, is not typically considered creative.

Popular media provides numerous examples of uncreative behavior. Critics pan screenwriters for recycling plot lines. Fans of well-established bands, authors, and comedians groan when their favorite entertainers repeatedly produce material with similar sounds, themes, and punchlines. The electorate has little patience for politicians who persist in courses of action that have failed to produce solutions to major societal problems. Romantic partners often brandish the accusation of thoughtlessness and lack of creativity when a once well- received anniversary gift becomes an annual or predictable occurrence.

The common denominator in each example above is behavior or a repertoire that was reinforced under one set of conditions is simply repeated under new conditions. An additional commonality is that the repeat performance is emitted under contingencies where repetition is unlikely to be reinforced. These two conditions seem to define what it means to be uncreative. If behaviors that are extended to and repeated across sometimes novel situations are not creative behaviors, under what conditions do we use the tact “creative?” What follows is a discussion of perfor- mances the verbal community often tacts as creative. These examples serve as the basis of an attempt to abstract

* Nolan Williams [email protected]

1 University of North Texas, 103 East Park Place, Jeffersonville Indiana 47130, USA

https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-020-00440-z

/ Published online: 1 November 2020

The Psychological Record (2021) 71:543–551

what common features of these performances might con- trol that tact “creative.”

Artistic behavior is often called creative. Painters who em- ploy new brush strokes or who depict a subject in a novel way are often said to be creative. Musicians who create novel ar- rangements of notes are said to be creative. Writers who tell new stories, or who tell old stories in new ways are said to be creative. The behavior of scientists, engineers, and inventors stand out as creative, when those behaviors result in novel solutions to various problems.

Each of these instances of creativity seem to share an ele- ment of novelty. Each example involves a new topography or topographies of behavior. These novel topographies must also meet some criterion for reinforcement, and in so doing, meet the requirement in ways never directly reinforced. In addition, the label of creativity seems to be reserved for novel acts that meet criterion for reinforcement in a socially acceptable man- ner. That is, these novel behaviors do not also meet require- ments for punishment—such as hallucinations and other pat- terns considered pathological. The tact “creative,” therefore, is a pattern or patterns of behavior that meet criterion for rein- forcement and for which the individual has no direct history of reinforcement. And these patterns also fail to meet criterion for punishment.

Behavior analysts assume all behavior is the product of learning history, contingencies of reinforcement, and stimulus control. Given these assumptions, the emergence of novel topographies, or topographies that have never produced rein- forcement for the organism before, presents a real mystery for behavior analysts. The question that behavior analysts must answer is, what variables are responsible for the novel behav- iors that seem to be prerequisites for creative acts?

Variability is a critical component of any novel or creative behavior, and therefore any behavior analytic account of cre- ativity must address the sources of such variability. One strat- egy for understanding variability in operant behavior is exem- plified in the literature on the reinforcement of variability (Page & Neuringer, 1985; Neuringer, 2002). Others have sug- gested that extinction, rather than reinforcement, is the likely source of variability (Holth, 2012a; Kieta, 2017). In either case, the emerging behavior analytic account of creativity may benefit from considering the of role contingency adduc- tion in the generation of novel behavior and in acts of creation. This article reviews the concept of contingency adduction and provides examples of the role adduction plays in the produc- tion of novel instances of behavior.

What Is Contingency Adduction?

Contingency adduction describes a class of outcomes obtain- ed when patterns shaped in one context are recruited by con- tingencies in contexts different from the one for which the

pattern(s) was originally established (Andronis, Layng, & Goldiamond, 1997; Layng, Twyman, & Stikeleather, 2004). That is, when an organism is exposed to new contingencies of reinforcement, some aspect or aspects of the new context will occasion a response, or a combination of previously learned responses, that meets this new criterion for reinforcement, selecting this new stimulus control topography and/or pattern of behavior (Ray, 1969). This selection of new behavioral variants from previously shaped patterns may be a primary source of what might be considered creative behavior.

It is important to distinguish between contingency adduced behavior and shaped behavior. Shaping involves the selection from variation along a single dimension of behavior that has not been previously reinforced, and that occurs in the same context. Consider the task of shaping a dog’s approach behav- ior. Each step in the shaping plan involves the same dimension—the movement of the dog toward the trainer— and the criterion for reinforcement is changed gradually, re- quiring successive decreases in the total distance between the trainer and the dog.

Adduction describes the moment when “previously shaped” or “preestablished” behavior—often along multiple dimensions—occurs in a new context and meets a new con- tingency requirement. For instance, after a trainer shapes a dog to approach on the command “come” and then shapes the dog to raise its right paw in the presence of a lifted right fist, the responses may be combined or blended by presenting the stimulus for “come” along with a raised right fist that controls raising the right paw. The combined behavior may result in the dog limping towards the trainer. If the new behavior is reinforced, this first reinforcement of the new pattern repre- sents the moment of adduction.

Another important note, the prevailing contingencies are responsible for the adduction of behavior. Organisms do not adduce behavior. Organisms do not select their own physical traits; the organism’s ecology selects its physical traits via natural selection. Likewise, an organism is no more capable of adducing a new response into its behavioral repertoire than it is capable of evolving an extra arm.

Several different outcomes can be categorized as adduc- tion. Different component responses can blend to form new response topographies. New sequences of responses can occur and be established as new functional units. New antecedent variables can acquire control of the response. And new con- sequential and motivational variables can acquire control of the response. In summary, contingency adduction is charac- terized by:

& The recruitment of repertoires established under one set of conditions by contingencies operating under another set of conditions

& The patterns come “preshaped” or from species typical behavior

544 Psychol Rec (2021) 71:543–551

& May be a single pattern or combinations of patterns & Meets a new contingency requirement & May be derived from a variety of sources including

– Resurgence – Combining stimuli – Separating stimuli – Impossible discrimination – Schedule induced or adjunctive behavior (Andronis et al.,

1997; Layng et al., 2004)

Contingency Adduction as the Engine of Creativity

Given the generative nature of the outcomes of adduction, procedures that make adduction more likely could be pivotal to understanding and occasioning creative behavior. The role of adduction in creativity can best be illustrated using exam- ples of adduced, creative performances of both nonhuman animals and humans. In some cases, the organisms under study emitted previously learned responses in novel contexts (Andronis et al., 1997; Layng et al., 2004). In other examples, the organism emitted novel topographies (Schiller, 1957; Pryor, Haag, & O’Reilly, 1969; Epstein, 1985). In all cases, the responses met new contingency requirements. In each ex- ample, it is the first occasion where the previously established response or composite met the new contingency requirement that represents the moment of adduction. After the initial oc- casion, subsequent instances of the adduced response repre- sent a simple operant. Contingency adduction simply refers to the procedures used to induce novel performance and the mo- ment that such performances are selected via reinforcement and then become part of the organism’s repertoire. Adduction is a principle that may underlie much of the behavior consid- ered creative, and one that if overlooked makes the sources of creative performance seem mysterious.

Adduction in Nonhuman Animals

Creative Symbolic Aggression in Pigeons

The first laboratory investigation of adduction occurred at the Behavior Analysis Research Laboratory at the University of Chicago (Andronis, 1983; Andronis et al., 1997). Andronis et al. (1997) report procedures that effectively adduced novel symbolic aggression in pigeons from nonsocial component behaviors. Even though it had no effect on their own work schedule, pigeons came to peck keys that increased the work requirements for a bird in an adjacent chamber, visible through a transparent acrylic wall. By pecking a key, pigeons

produced a houselight change and increased schedule require- ments, from which they themselves had consistently escaped, for a bird in the adjacent chamber. Further, the birds would switch to whichever side key produced that change. This was achieved without direct training of the pattern and occurred as a novel recombination of earlier trained nonsocial component behaviors that involved:

1) Responding under three schedule values FR-10, FR-50, and FR-100 correlated with red, white, and green house- light colors, respectively (a three-ply multiple schedule) on a food key located above the food hopper;

2) Pecking transparent side keys mounted in a transparent acrylic wall to change the houselight color from white to red and lower schedule requirements

3) Switching between side keys when a peck to a side key produced a change to a green houselight that indicted an increased schedule requirement to FR-100

The investigators then placed the birds in a chamber adjacent to the one in which they were initially trained; the original training chamber was clearly visible and emp- ty. Food key pecking was initially maintained by a fixed- ratio schedule. Pecks to the side keys quickly extinguished once lights changed in the empty adjacent chamber but had no effect on their own work requirement. Side key pecking did not return when a bird was subsequently placed in the adjacent chamber. The food key schedule was changed to FI-40s, a reinforcement schedule that reliably produces ag- gression in pigeons when a conspecific is present. The birds attempted to physically attack the adjacent bird but were prevented from doing so by the acrylic wall. The complex symbolic social pattern arose not as a result of direct training or shaping. Instead, it was a function of existing nonsocial behavioral components being adduced into a symbolic, social pattern after the acrylic wall prevented physical attacks.

After 10 sessions, two clear patterns emerged. First, all four referent birds showed scalloping and earned food at the maxi- mum rates allowed by the FI schedules. Second, all four refer- ent birds consistently pecked whichever switching key raised the schedule requirement and changed the houselight color to green (the FR-100) for the conspecific pigeon. Further, the pigeons tracked changes in the switching keys so that when a key failed to produce the schedule increase, they switched responding to the other key. At no time did pecking the side keys change their own work requirements. Side key pecking was maintained by the change in houselight color and the sub- sequent increase in schedule requirement for another bird. Not aware of the experimental conditions, one might say the birds “creatively” used the experimental arrangements to deliver a novel attack they could not otherwise accomplish.

545Psychol Rec (2021) 71:543–551

Creative Problem Solving in Pigeons

Epstein (1985) provided another excellent example of adduc- tion in his famous box and banana study. This study demon- strates an example of adduction where the outcome is a new auto-chained sequence of responses that meets a new contin- gency requirement. In this study, pigeons learned to peck a banana to produce food. Once the pecking response was well- established, the experimenter attached the banana to the ceil- ing of the chamber, and pecks made while flying or jumping failed to produce food, resulting in the extinction of those responses. At the same time, the experimenter added a box to the chamber that was the right height for the pigeons to stand on and reach the banana. Epstein found that the birds did not make use of the box in their attempts to solve the problem. After these observations, he removed the banana. Then he trained the pigeons to move the box to specified points in the cage. In particular, the birds learned to move the box towards different colored dots in the chamber; placing the box on the dot was reinforced with food. Epstein also trained the pigeons to climb on top of the box to produce food. Once the birds reliably pushed the box and climbed on top of the box, the banana was reintroduced. This time, the pigeons pushed the box under the banana and pecked the banana.

In this example, pecking the banana was made highly po- tent by food deprivation. This allowed for the auto-chaining of the pigeon’s response. That is, the deprivation combined with the bird’s history with the banana resulted in the potentiation of reduced proximity to the banana as a conditioned reinforc- er. Thus, moving the box and then jumping atop was being adduced moment by moment; each time the pigeon moved the box and jumped on top, it resulted in a decreased proximity to the banana. Even though the initial movement did not bring the bird into contact with the banana, pushing and jumping were likely adduced by the reduction in proximity, and thus continued. With each push the bird got closer. Thus, adduc- tion selected the auto-chaining that eventually resulted in a “creative” solution to the problem, which was then reinforced, and so adduced, by the delivery of food.

Creative Porpoises

Contingency adduction may also have been an important component of the creative behavior reported by Pryor et al. (1969) in their report on the creative porpoise. In this study, the experimenters trained two porpoises to perform a novel response at the beginning of each new training session. The experimenters reinforced only one response per session. They began by reinforcing species typical responses, one at a time, until they had exhausted the animals’ repertoires. Each ses- sion, the porpoises tended to fall into stereotypic response patterns. When the animals became “stuck” on a response, the experimenters shaped a novel topography, usually a blend

of the previously reinforced topographies. Once a new topog- raphy was created, the trainers reinforced it several times to ensure that the response was “strong.” After 16 sessions under such contingencies, the experimenters observed the emission of novel responses from the animals (Pryor et al., 1969). From session 16 on, the criterion for reinforcement was the produc- tion of a novel response at the beginning of each session. Subsequent reanalysis of the experiment (Holth, 2012b) sug- gests that the variation or novelty in the pattern may not have been shaped, but instead occurred because of prolonged pe- riods of extinction. Once the variation occurred it was reinforced.

These criteria for reinforcement resemble the lag schedules in Neuringer’s research (Page & Neuringer, 1985) in so far as topographies reinforced in previous sessions were not candi- dates for reinforcement in future sessions, but variants are. This schedule differed in that each new session required a new variation, at no time (after session 16) did the trainers reinforce responses from previous sessions.

In general, novel responses appeared after a few of the previously reinforced responses underwent extinction. Once the novel response (i.e., standing on the tail and spitting water) was reinforced, that same response was emitted exclusively for the duration of the session. These novel responses often consisted of components that had been previously learned and recombined. The moment where the new response was rein- forced represents the moment of adduction. The new response combination was not shaped, it was “adduced” or selected from previously established patterns by reinforcement and became established as part of the organism’s repertoire. In this case, the key to establishing creative performance in the por- poise was to expand the repertoire, and to utilize extinction to induce variability in responding.

Creative Tool Building in Primates

Another example of contingency adduction comes from Paul Schiller’s (1957) work with apes and tool use. In these studies, the experimenter put chimpanzees into enclosures and placed food just out of their reach, on the outside of the enclosure. Inside the cages, the chimps had two hollow sticks that could be connected. The solution to the problem was to connect the sticks and use them to pull the food into the cage. Schiller (1957) conducted several experiments to isolate the require- ments for the chimps to be able to successfully complete the tool use problem.

Adult apes in such environments, with no specific training, invariably solve this problem. However, young primates ex- posed to the same situations invariably fail to solve the prob- lem. Schiller (1957) questioned this discrepancy and began searching for an explanation for why young primates struggled to solve problems that seemed easy for older ones. He formulated two general hypotheses. One hypothesis

546 Psychol Rec (2021) 71:543–551

suggested that the chimps needed some minimal set of experiences to solve the problem. The other hypothesis postulated that the problem solving was a product of some maturational factors interacting with instincts. Schiller (1952) was quickly able to rule out an explanation based upon the maturational factor. Thus, he began his search for what he called the “necessary general experiences” that were crucial for the final performance (Schiller, 1957).

Schiller described several behaviors that needed to be “readily available” to the apes before they could solve their problem. He discovered that many of these behaviors were species typical and developed during periods of free play, where the chimps manipulated the sticks in a wide variety of ways. Schiller found three critical components for producing a solution. First, the animals must learn to fluently connect sticks, one inside the other. Second, the animals needed to develop skills manipulating the stick side to side, up and down, and pointing the stick in various directions. Finally, the chimps needed to experience moving objects closer to them using shorter sticks within their enclosures. If the chimps failed to demonstrate any of these responses prior to being exposed to the problem, the final performance would not oc- cur (Schiller, 1957).

Schiller also noted the need to change contingency require- ments to adduce tool use. The chimps would consistently try to reach for the food with their hands, with shorter sticks, and would sometimes try throwing things at the food before the final solution emerged. If any of these operants succeeded, tool use did not emerge (Schiller, 1957).

In these studies, the first time the primates connected the sticks and pulled the bananas into the cage successfully marked the moment of adduction. This example illustrates a type of creative behavior where previously trained responses are resequenced. What Schiller described is analogous to re- quirements for some forms of generative behavior. That is, teachers must train component behaviors to fluency, make those behaviors potent at the same time, and extinguish or make unavailable previously established patterns.

Examples of Adduction in Human Animals

Creative Discovery in Headsprout Early Reading

The designers of the Headsprout Early Reading program used an oddity to sample and the combined stimulus procedure in a discovery exercise (Layng et al., 2004) to produce adduction of letter/sound combinations by children who could not pre- viously make such responses. In the oddity procedure, the experimenter trained the subject to respond away from a pre- viously learned stimulus. Once this stimulus consistently oc- casions responding to the “other” stimulus, novel “other stim- uli” may be introduced and the previously established

response can enter new contingencies with different anteced- ent and consequential stimuli. A learner who has previously learned to click on sn when hearing the phonetically pro- nounced “sn” using a computer mouse, is presented with the never before encountered letter n displayed alongside sn. The learner hears, click on the sound that is not “sn.” The learner clicks on n and hears yes “n” (phonetically pronounced). Next the learner sees n, sn, and another letter displayed and hears click on “n.” The learner clicks on n in the presence of “n” and hears yes “n,” which marks the moment of adduction. The spoken “n” now occasions selecting “n” from a three-letter array.

In the combined stimulus procedure, the experimenters first taught nine different single letter/sound combinations. In the next phase experimenters presented the single letters as two letter blends. During each trial, a narrator pronounced one of the four blends and asked the learners to click on the corre- sponding letter blend. Without any training or previous expo- sure to the blends, the students selected letter blends that corresponded to the sound. In this example, experimenters taught learners the needed components for the composite “blend” to occur. The resulting blends were adduced the mo- ment they produced reinforcement (Layng et al., 2004).

These examples demonstrate the important role that stimu- lus control can play in occasioning creative behavior. The researchers engineered either a response from a separated stimulus or produce a composite performance by combining stimuli that controlled the component responses. These proce- dures add to the behavior analytic account of the origins of variability in behavior.

Creativity at Morningside Academy

Morningside Academy is a laboratory school for typically developing elementary and middle school students with aver- age to above average intelligence test scores and who may or may not have a diagnosed learning disability. Morningside is not a school for students with significant emotional or behav- ioral problems or autism spectrum disorder diagnoses. Morningside Academy primarily serves students who struggle to acquire foundational skills in math, reading, and writing as well as critical thinking and problem-solving skills (Johnson & Street, 2020). Morningside Academy’s model of generative instruction is an example of a program utilizing adduction (Johnson & Street, 2004). Morningside Academy focuses on the identification of minimal repertoires or generative sets that are most likely to recombine when contingencies in the learn- ing environment change. In this model, educators identify the minimal components that make up more difficult composite tasks, and they introduce them using either Mathetics or Direct Instruction (Gilbert, 1962; Adams & Engelmann, 1996). Then, students practice the component material until fluent. Once students demonstrate fluency, teachers introduce

547Psychol Rec (2021) 71:543–551

application situations that are carefully designed to make each component likely, but that require more complex composites to meet the contingency requirement. These arrangements typ- ically result in the adduction of new patterns (Johnson & Layng, 1992; Johnson & Street, 2004).

Johnson and Layng (1992) provide an example of one of the programs from the model. Four students completed assess- ments of their ability to solve word problems involving frac- tions. None of the four students answered more than half of the 14 questions correctly on the assessment. Others answered as few as three questions correctly. Different assessments showed that the students also struggled with solving whole- number word problems as well as fraction computations. In the intervention program, the teachers focused exclusively on teaching component skills; the actual performance of solving fraction-word problems was not taught.

Once component training was complete, the students showed impressive gains. The worst performance of the four students on a follow up 14-item assessment of the fractional word problems was one incorrect response. These gains were achieved exclusively by strengthening component skills and were not the product of shaping by successive approximations (Johnson & Layng, 1992).

In this example, the experimenters identified two compo- nents (fractional computations and solving whole-number word problems) needed to produce a more complex composite (solving fraction-word problems) and taught them to fluency (for component and composite analysis, see Binder, 1993; Weiss, 2001). Then, in a situation where both components needed to be applied to solve a problem, the two components blended, and the resulting performance was adduced. This example is another reminder of the importance of having the proper component skills to encourage adduction. Much of the work regarding generative sets focuses on finding such com- ponents to accelerate the learning process via adduction.

Occasioning Creative Behavior

There are several practical applications for adduction proce- dures. Pursuits in education, art, athletics, and science repre- sent just a few of the areas where adduction procedures can be used to occasion creative performance. The final section of this report will review some of these procedures.

Robert Epstein has contributed enormously to procedures in this area. He lists four important competencies for improv- ing creative performances and making the adduction of novel repertories more likely (Epstein, 1999). The first of these com- petencies is capturing, which includes a variety of methods for recording new ideas as they come to you (a way to keep adduced behaviors in the repertoire). A second competency is to seek out tasks that require performance beyond your skill level. These situations make multiple behaviors probable at the same time, which increases the likelihood of new blends of

behavior being emitted. Some of these new blends may be useful and become candidates for adduction by the prevailing contingencies. Another of Epstein’s suggestions includes broadening skills and knowledge. This encourages adduction by adding components to your repertoire that could later re- combine into a novel, creative performance. Diversity in the repertoire increase the likelihood of interesting and creative blends that could then be adduced. Epstein’s fourth suggestion is to regularly change the physical and social environment, because new stimulus arrangements encourage new combina- tions of behavior to compete with one another.

Epstein’s four competencies increase the likelihood of the emergence and adduction of creative performance in any of the fields described previously. These represent excellent strategies for individuals looking to boost their own creative performance. What about strategies for those tasked with fos- tering creativity in others? Teachers, trainers, and coaches could modify Epstein’s competencies so that they expose their learners to such contingencies. But other strategies also exist.

Presentation of multiple cues was frequently cited in the previous examples of adduced creativity. This is a relatively easy way to produce new blends of behavior. Such strategies could usefully be employed to teach complex athletic skills. For example, a coach could teach two component skills to fluency, such as running a post route in football and catching a thrown football. Then, by combining the cues (i.e., “post” and a thrown ball) the young receiver would be more likely to successfully catch the pass while running the post route. This same strategy could be used for a variety of athletic endeavors. In addition, multiple instructional stimuli could be presented to an artist simultaneously, to induce novel brush strokes, color combinations, etc. Similar strategies could be imple- mented in music, dance, or even in scientific endeavors.

When teachers and trainers find themselves in situations where a creative response is essential, but they are unsure of what the outcome needs to be, strategies can be used to encour- age maximum creative performance. Along the lines of Epstein’s second and third competencies, creating environments where old patterns stop producing reinforcement may lead to variants that can be reinforced. Much like the attacking pigeons in the Andronis et al. (1997) experiment, the primates in Schiller’s studies, and the porpoises in Pryor et al.’s (1969) report, if humans continue to be reinforced for engaging in patterns that previously produced reinforcement they are unlikely to emit any novel behavior. In addition, new skill development must be en- couraged. Like Epstein and Andronis et al.’s pigeons, the limping dog, and the children at Morningside Academy, one must have the component skills needed for a creative perfor- mance in the repertoire before composite blends emerge (Epstein, 1985; Andronis, Layng, & Goldiamond, 1997; Johnson & Street, 2020). When those seeking to engender crea- tive performance in others do not know what the composite performance will need to be, they may be best served to seek

548 Psychol Rec (2021) 71:543–551

to expand the performer’s skills, providing as many behavioral components as possible. The more component skills in the rep- ertoire, the more likely a novel recombination will occur that meets the contingency requirement. This may come in the form of practicing new skills, not typically thought necessary, it may include trainings in the work places that focus on an unusual set of skills, it could come about by providing more opportunities for continued education, collaborations with others who ap- proach the same problem from a different perspective or a slight- ly different problem with key similarities, to name just a few possibilities.

Finally, those delivering reinforcement should establish contingencies that reinforce and capture any novel behavior that occurs. Each newly adduced pattern becomes part of the organism’s repertoire and in turn can blend with other re- sponses, which may lead to the creative solution needed.

Areas for Future Research

Contingency adduction remains a rich area of research for behavioral scientists. A few areas of investigation will be discussed in this section, with an emphasis on questions with implications for creativity. There are interesting questions for both applied and experimental investigators, the answers to which will extend our understanding of creative, novel, and generative behavior.

One interesting area of research is the investigation of the relationship between adduction, creativity, and fluency. Fluency is defined as the rate of performance that makes skills useful in everyday life and remembered, even after a signifi- cant period of no practice (Johnson & Street, 2020; Binder, 1987, 1988; Haughton, 1972). It has long been known that training component skills to fluency expedites the learning of composite behaviors made up of those components (Haughton, 1980; Gagne & Foster, 1949). But many questions remain in terms of fluency and its relationship to novel, gen- erative, and creative behavior.

One question that might be asked is whether there can be too much fluency. There are studies that suggest that in some circumstances, less firmly established performance might be preferable (Williams, Granzin, Engelmann, & Becker, 1979; Johnson & Layng, 1996). Is there a level of fluency at which a particular repertoire is less likely to be adduced into a new contingency, thus inhibiting creative performance? Could highly fluent repertoires block the adduction of less fluent repertoires? If so, under what conditions might these phenom- ena occur?

On the other hand, many questions remain about increased fluency and how it supports contingency adduction and crea- tive behavior. Precision teachers have reported fluency aims for several academic skills (e.g., Haughton, 1972; Binder, 1987). At these levels of fluency, such skills are more readily available for contingency adduction. This is exemplified in

Morningside Academy’s Model of Generative Instruction, which utilizes adduction extensively in its programming (e.g., Johnson & Street, 2020). However, such aims remain unidentified for athletic skills, artistic skills, and across a wide range of occupational skills to name but a few areas. Even in the field of education, work remains in defining fluency aims for certain skills. For any given composite skill, the relation- ship between the level of fluency of the components and the likelihood that these skills recombine into a more complex composite skills could be investigated. It could be that there is a sweet spot between too much and too little fluency at which recombination is most likely.

Another interesting area of research related to contin- gency adduction and creative behavior comes from Neves Filho, Assaz, Dicezare, Knaus, and Garcia-Mijares (2020). These investigators have replicated Epstein and colleagues’ 1985 box displacement problem, where pi- geons were taught two different behaviors, and a novel recombination of those behaviors was required to produce reinforcement. The replication was different in one key respect, the two component repertoires were established using two different reinforcers. The first repertoire, directional pushing, was established using food. The second repertoire, climbing and pecking, was established using water. The results revealed that pigeons that were taught the two component repertoires using the same reinforcer all quickly produced the novel response sequence necessary to produce reinforcement. On the other hand, the birds that received food for pushing and water for climbing and pecking failed to produce the novel response sequence required for reinforcement. Even after retraining using food to establish both repertoires, only half of the pigeons who initially failed to produce the solution went on to produce the novel response. Neves Filho et al. (2020) have demonstrated the importance of a common consequential element in establishing novel and creative behavior.

An interesting extension of Neves Filho et al. (2020) might explore the use of generalized conditioned reinforcers for teaching the repertoires to be combined. This would make each repertoire free from specific deprivations. Further, if the generalized conditioned reinforcers were of the same sensory modality, such as two different frequencies of tones or two different colors of lights, then the reinforcers wouldn’t involve different physiological systems nor produce different intero- ceptive feedback, which the authors suggest might account for the effects of the different reinforcers in disrupting the prob- lem solving behavior. The outcome of such a study would provide valuable insight into best practices for teaching creativity.

The investigators in the aforementioned study also con- ducted functional generalization tests with the birds who eventually passed the box displacement test. This test

549Psychol Rec (2021) 71:543–551

included two new boxes that differed in appearance from the initial box, and one which was not functional, that is, wouldn’t support the pigeons climbing on it. All four birds in this phase failed the test (Neves Filho et al., 2020). This raises another interesting question: is there a program history that would allow the pigeons to pass functional generalization tests? Perhaps a program similar to the concept teaching programs described by Layng and others might produce a history where novel and creative solutions generalize across functionally similar but phys- ically different stimuli (Layng, 2019; Tiemann & Markle, 1985). Developing these programs would shed light on the origins of creative performances as well as provide directions for those wishing to encourage creative behavior.

Conclusion

Adduction may play a critical role in the production of crea- tive behavior. Procedures that increase the likelihood of ad- duction may be harnessed to engineer creative performance. In situations where teachers do not know what the topography of the creative performance needs to look like, procedures can be used to encourage a variety of component responses that may combine to form a composite response that meets the new contingency requirement.

Response variability is vital to the process of adduction. Several procedures can be used to produce such variability (including the combined stimulus procedure, the oddity from sample procedure, the use of lag schedules, and ex- tinction). In situations where teachers are not sure of what the composite performance needs to look like, extinction induced variability may be the best way to produce the need variety.

The role of establishing component skills in encouraging adduction has also been noted. For known outcomes, we should conduct component analyses. For unknown outcomes, we should try to increase both related and seemingly unrelated skills.

The moment of adduction is itself an instance of rein- forcement. As important as variability and component skills are, it is equally important that novel response com- binations produce reinforcement when emitted so that they may be adduced and added to the repertoire. This is of critical importance, if one wants to add novel and creative responses to a learner’s repertoire. As noted at the outset, the process of creativity may seem mysterious. Lifting that veil of mystery may best be accomplished by further investigating how contingency adduction may provide a basis for understanding the origins of creative performance.

Acknowledgements Special thanks to Dr. T. V. “Joe” Layng, Dr. Paul Andronis, Dr. Joanne Robbins, and Awab Abdel Jalil for invaluable con- tributions to the development and revision of this manuscript.

Data Availability Not applicable.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflicts of Interest The authors have no conflicts of interest.

Code Availability Not applicable.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent The present article did not use human or animal subjects and did not involve the acquisition of informed consent.

References

Adams, G. L., & Engelmann, S. (1996). Research on direct instruction: 25 years beyond DISTAR. Educational Achievement Systems. Seattle, WA.

Andronis, P. T. (1983). “Symbolic aggression” by pigeons: Contingency adduction (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Chicago, Chicago, IL.

Andronis, P. T., Layng, T. J., & Goldiamond, I. (1997). Contingency adduction of “symbolic aggression” by pigeons. Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 14(1), 5–17.

Binder, C. (1993). Behavioral fluency: A new paradigm. Educational Technology, 33(10), 8–14.

Binder, C. V. (1987). Fluency-building: Research background. Nonantum, MA: Precision Teaching & Management Systems.

Binder, C. V. (1988). Precision teaching: Measuring and attaining aca- demic excellence. Youth and Policy, 10, 12–15.

Epstein, R. (1985). The spontaneous interconnection of three repertoires. The Psychological Record, 35(2), 131–141.

Epstein, R. (1999). Generativity theory. Encyclopedia of Creativity, 1, 759–766.

Gagne, R. M., & Foster, H. (1949). Transfer of training from practice on components in a motor skill. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 39(1), 47.

Gilbert, T. F. (1962). Mathetics: The technology of education. Journal of Mathetics, 1(1), 7–74.

Haughton, E. C. (1972). Aims—Growing and sharing. Faculty of Education: York University. Arlington, VA.

Haughton, E. C. (1980). Practicing practices: Learning by activity. Journal of Precision Teaching, 1(3), 3–20.

Holth, P. (2012a). Variability as an operant? The Behavior Analyst, 35(2), 243.

Holth, P. (2012b). The creative porpoise revisited. European Journal of Behavior Analysis, 13(1), 87–89.

Johnson, K., & Street, E. M. (2004). The Morningside Model of Generative Instruction: An integration of research-based practices. In Evidence-based educational methods (pp. 247–265). Academic Press. San Diego, CA.

Johnson, K., & Street, E. M. (2020). Generative responding through contingency adduction. In R. A. Rehfeldt, J. Tarbox, M. Fryling, & L. Hayes (Eds.), Applied behavior analysis of language and cognition. Oakland, CA: New Harbinger.

Johnson, K. R., & Layng, T. J. (1992). Breaking the structuralist barrier: Literacy and numeracy with fluency. American Psychologist, 47(11), 1475.

550 Psychol Rec (2021) 71:543–551

Johnson, K. R., & Layng, T. J. (1996). On terms and procedures: Fluency. The Behavior Analyst, 19(2), 281–288.

Kieta, A. (2017). Reinforcing variability produces stereotypic behavior. (Unpublished master’s thesis), University of North Texas, Denton, TX.

Layng, T. J. (2019). Tutorial: Understanding concepts: Implications for behavior analysts and educators. Perspectives on Behavior Science, 42(2), 345–363.

Layng, T. J., Twyman, J. S., & Stikeleather, G. (2004). Engineering discovery learning: The contingency adduction of some precursors of textual responding in a beginning reading program. Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 20(1), 99–109.

Neuringer, A. (2002). Operant variability: Evidence, functions, and the- ory. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9(4), 672–705.

Neves Filho, H. B., Assaz, D. A., Dicezare, R. H. F., Knaus, Y. C., & Garcia-Mijares, M. (2020). Learning behavioral repertoires with dif- ferent consequences hinders the interconnection of these repertoires in pigeons in the box displacement test. The Psychological Record, 70(2), 1–9.

Page, S., & Neuringer, A. (1985). Variability is an operant. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 11(3), 429.

Pryor, K. W., Haag, R., & O’Reilly, J. (1969). The creative porpoise: Training for novel behavior 1. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 12(4), 653–661.

Ray, B. A. (1969). Selective attentions: The effects of combining stimuli which control incompatible behavior. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 12(4), 539–550.

Schiller, P. H. (1952). Innate constituents of complex responses in pri- mates. Psychological Review, 59, 177–191.

Schiller, P. H. (1957). Innate motor action as a basis of learning. In C. Schiller (Ed.), Instinctive behavior: The development of a modern concept. International Universities Press. New York, NY

Tiemann, P. W., & Markle, S. M. (1985). Analysing instructional con- tent: A guide to instruction and evaluation. Stipes Publishing. Champaign, IL

Weiss, M. J. (2001). Expanding ABA intervention in intensive programs for children with autism: The inclusion of natural environment train- ing and fluency based instruction. Behavior Analyst Today, 2(3), 182.

Williams, P., Granzin, A., Engelmann, S., & Becker, W. C. (1979). Teaching Language to the truly naive learner: An analog study using a tactual vocoder. Journal of Special Education Technology, 2(3), 5–15.

Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdic- tional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

551Psychol Rec (2021) 71:543–551

Psychological Record is a copyright of Springer, 2021. All Rights Reserved.