The Concept of the Operant in the Analysis of Behavior

Author(s): A. Charles Catania

Source: Behaviorism, Vol. 1, No. 2 (Summer, 1973), pp. 103-116
Published by: Cambridge Center for Behavioral Studies (CCBS)
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/27758804 .
Accessed: 20/06/2014 21:21

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Cambridge Center for Behavioral Studies (CCBS) is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to Behaviorism.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.144 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 21:21:56 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
The Concept of the Op?rant in the

Analysis of Behavior1

A. Charles Catania2
New York University

"Anop?rant is a class, of which a response is an instance or member.

... It is always a response upon which a given reinforcement is contingent,
but it is contingent upon properties which define membership in an op?rant.
Thus a set of contingencies defines an op?rant" (Skinner, 1969, p. 131).

In the contemporary analysis of behavior, the concept of the op?rant is commonly

invoked to describe what organisms do. The term op?rant was introduced to deal
with the simple observation that responding can be modified by its consequences.
For example, a hungry rat will ordinarily press a lever more often if its lever presses

produce food than if its lever presses do not produce food. Thus lever presses, a
class of responses demonstrably modifiable by consequences, are referred to as an

op?rant class.
But the concept of the op?rant has not emerged unmarked by the circumstances
of its development, and the historical definition is still occasionally challenged on
either logical or empirical grounds. The present paper examines the concept of the

op?rant, and undertakes to frame a definition that is consistent with historical usage
and adequate to current logical and empirical challenges. In the course of the account,
some historical precursors of the concept are considered, but no attempt is made
to give an exhaustive history of the op?rant.

OPERANTS AND REFLEXES

Two seminal
papers paved the way for the concept of the op?rant. The first

(Skinner, 1931) reviewed the history of the reflex, and offered a definition in terms
of the correlation between stimulus and response. The second (Skinner, 1935a)

of this manuscript was in part by NIH Grant MH 18506 to New York

Preparation supported
University.
2For reprints, write the author, now at the Department of Psychology, University of Maryland
Baltimore County, 5401 Wilkens Avenue, Baltimore, Maryland 21228.

103

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.144 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 21:21:56 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 A. Charles Catania

examined the criteria for choosing units of behavior, and provided an account in
terms of stimulus classes and response classes. The two papers one
complemented
another: on the one hand, the definition of the reflex as a correlation demanded
the specification of the correlated events; on the other, the specification of stimulus
classes and response classes demanded an account of the kinds of behavioral relations
into which these classes might enter.
The first paper presented the reflex as the reliable production of a response by
a stimulus. Neither a stimulus alone nor a response alone could define a reflex,
because the reflex was the relation between these two events. But, because stimuli
and responses vary from one instance to the next, the reflex could not be defined
in terms of the relation between one particular stimulus and one particular response;
rather, as was made explicit in the second paper, reflexes were relations between
classes of stimuli and classes of responses.
The analysis of reflexes dealt with the dependence of responses on prior stimuli.
Stimuli, however, can also depend on responses, as when the delivery of food depends
on a rat's lever presses. This relation, too, must be in terms of response
expressed
classes and stimulus classes. An op?rant can be defined in terms of the correlation
of classes, but with the temporal order of stimulus and response reversed relative
to that in the reflex. As in the concept of the reflex, the critical feature of the concept
of the op?rant is its expression of a relation between environmental events and behavior.
The concept of the op?rant, however, emerged in the context of a controversy
over the status of two types of conditioning procedures: respondent or classical condi

tioning and op?rant or instrumental conditioning {e.g.. Skinner, 1935b, 1937). In

that context, the concept of the op?rant became enmeshed in the issue of whether
different kinds of response classes were amenable to the two types of conditioning.
The theoretical significance of that issue has since faded, but the concept of the
op?rant maintained an emphasis on the properties of response classes rather than
on the properties of a relation between responses and stimuli. A dichotomization
was established between respondents, classes of responses defined in terms of the
stimuli that elicited
them, and op?rants, classes of responses defined in terms of
the stimuli that they produced. Implicit in this dichotomy, however, was another
and perhaps more important distinction, between two complementary behavioral rela
tions: reflex relations, or correlations between responses and prior stimuli, and op?rant
relations, or correlations between stimuli and prior responses.

Descriptive and Functional Op?rants

Contemporary research literature in the analysis of behavior includes at least two

usages for the term op?rant {cf. Catania, 1968). In the first, a descriptive usage
ordinarily found in the methodological sections of experimental reports, the response
class is specified in terms of its measured physical properties; for example, a rat's
lever press might qualify as a response in the class only if its force exceeds some
minimum value. In the second, a functional usage ordinarily found in the theoretical
discussion of experimental findings, the response class is not regarded as an op?rant
class unless its modifiability by response consequences has been demonstrated by
104

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.144 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 21:21:56 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 The Concept of theOp?rant in theAnalysis ofBehavior

experimental data; the lever press typically satisfies this criterion, but would not if
the experimenter chose some minimum force that the rat was incapable of exerting.
In other words, the first class is the class of responses for which consequences are

arranged; the second class is the class of responses generated when consequences
are arranged for responses in the first class. The concept of the op?rant grows out
of the relation between these two classes.
The two kinds are illustrated in Figure
of classes 1. Consider some parameter
of responding, such as the force of a rat's lever presses. The lever can be arranged
so that only forces within the range from X to Y Newtons are effective in producing
food. In the typical op?rant experiment, these presses of effective force are also
the only presses that are recorded as responses, even though presses of greater or
lesser force might occur. The range from X to Y Newtons therefore defines this
descriptiveop?rant class, which is representedby the dashed line in Figure 1; the
probability that a lever press will produce the stimulus, food, is zero at all forces
except those between X and Y Newtons.

Figure 1. Hypothetical response probability or relative frequency (solid line) and the probabilitywith
which the response produces a stimulus (dashed line) as a function of some property of the response.
Details in text.

105

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.144 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 21:21:56 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 A. Charles Catania

Lever presses of greater or lesser force are still responses, however, even if they
do not qualify as members of the op?rant class defined above (cf. Notterman and
Mintz, 1965). The solid line in Figure 1 represents a hypothetical distribution of
lever presses emitted by the rat when presses between X and Y Newtons produce
food. Because this is the class of responses generated by the procedure, and thereby
represents responding that has been modified by its consequences, itmight be called
a functional op?rant class. It would be arbitrary to say that responses in region
are members of the class while those in region A are not, because the two regions
are parts of a continuous distribution.
The important feature of these two classes is their relation to each other. In practice,
either class is more
likely to be called an op?rant class if the two classes are highly
correlated. Anomalous conclusions follow from considering either class alone. When
lever presses within the range from X to Y Newtons are defined as the op?rant
class because these responses produce food, then responses in region A are excluded
from the class even
though they are responses generated by the procedure. When
the actual distribution of responses generated by the procedure is defined as the op?rant
class, then responses in region C are excluded from the class because, although they
would produce food if they occurred, they are not responses emitted by the rat.
To define either class in its own terms, without reference to the other class, creates
difficulties (e.g., the problem of circular definition: cf. Meehl, 1950; Schick, 1971).
These difficulties are circumvented by defining the op?rant relation as a correlation
between of responses and classes of stimuli; this correlation is determined
classes
by measuring independently the probabilities (or relative frequencies) of both responses
and stimuli as functions of particular parameters of responding.

OPERANTS AS CORRELATIONS

When both response probability and stimulus probability are measured as a function
of some common response parameter, as in Figure 1, the simple correlation between
the two probability distributions is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for speaking
of an op?rant relation. Suppose, for example, that the fundamental frequency of the
first note of a particular bird's song always falls between X and Y Hz. If food
is delivered to the bird each time it begins the song with a note in this range of
frequencies, the correlation between the two distributions will be high: all songs will

begin with a note between X and Y Hz, and all songs will produce food. But it
would not be appropriate at this point to refer to either distribution of frequencies
as an op?rant class, because neither is a class modified
by the consequences of the
responses in it.
The criterion of modifiability implies that changes in correlation are an essential
feature of the op?rant relation. Here again the concept of the op?rant makes contact
with Skinner's account of the reflex relation; in that account, not simply the correlation
but also the orderliness of changes in the correlation under various conditions (e.g.,
successive elicitations) was critical to the definition of the reflex and the specification
of relevant stimulus and response properties. Changes in correlation play an analogous
role in defining the op?rant relation. An op?rant relation is demonstrated when the

106

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.144 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 21:21:56 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 The Concept of theOp?rant in theAnalysis ofBehavior

distribution of stimulus probabilities along some dimension of responding increases

the correlation between that distribution and the distribution of response probabilities
along the same dimension (and the stimuli that produce such an increase in correlation
are typically called reinforcers). In the op?rant relation, too, the orderliness of changes
in correlation contributes to the specification of relevant stimulus and response prop
erties.

An illustration of changes in correlation is provided in Figure 2. Assume again

that the response parameter is the force of a rat's lever presses, and that all lever
presses with forces in the range from X to Y Newtons will produce food (dashed
line in Figure 2). Before this procedure goes into effect, lever presses are distributed
across the full range of forces (solid line A); the correlation between the two distributions
is low. When lever presses in the appropriate range begin to produce food, the lever
presses begin to concentrate in the range from X to Y Newtons (solid line B); the
correlation between the two distributions increases. Eventually, most lever presses
fallwithin theappropriaterange (solid lineC); thedistributionof responses is highly
correlated with the distribution of stimuli along the dimension of response force.

RESPONSE PARAMETER

Figure 2. The probability with which a response produces a stimulus (dashed line) and three hypothetical
stages of response probability (solid lines A, and C) as a function of some property of the response.
The progression from A through C shows increasing correlation between the two kinds of distributions.

107

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.144 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 21:21:56 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 A. Charles Catania

Discussions of stimulus-response
correlations rarely describe actual statistical
derivations. An
explicit example may therefore be useful. Assume that some response
dimension is divided into five equal class intervals and that only responses in class
intervals 3 and 4 produce a stimulus. Table 1 shows the class intervals and the stimulus

probabilityassociated with each. Columns A through F show six hypothetical relative

frequency distributions for the responding thatmight be generated by this procedure.
The bottom row shows the correlation between stimulus probability and each of the
response distributions (the correlation is expressed as r, the standard correlation coef
ficient described inmost basic texts in statistics; a discussion of the statistical assump
tions underlying r is not critical to the present account). The correlation is zero when
responding is uniformly distributed across class intervals (A), becomes negative when
responding shifts toward class interval 1 (B), increases as responding becomes concen
trated in class intervals 3 and 4 (C), becomes 1.0 when responding is uniformly
distributed within class intervals 3 and 4 (D)? decreases when all responding is restricted
to class intervals 3 and 4 but is no longer uniformly distributed within these intervals
(E), and decreases still further when responding remains concentrated within two
class intervals but shifts out of class interval 4 and into class interval 2 (F).

Table 1

Correlations (r) between stimulus probabilities and relative frequencies of responding along a response
dimension for six hypotheticalresponse distributions(A throughF).

Response dimension Stimulus Relative Frequency of Response

(Class intervals) A
Probability c D E F
1 0 0.2 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
2 0 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2
3 1 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.5 0.8 0.8
4 1 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.2 0.0
5 0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0
Correlation coefficient (r): 0.00 -0.75 +0.87 +1.00 +0.79 +0.53

One along which the correlation between stimulus probabilities

dimension and
responding can be measured is the presence or absence of a specified response within
a particular time period. If responses produce stimuli or, in other words, if stimuli
occur within time periods that include a response but not within those that do not

(cf. Schoenfeld and Cole, 1972), an increase in theproportionof timeperiods that

includes responses will
necessarily be accompanied by an increase in correlation.
For example, if the probability of food in time t is 1.0 when t includes a response
but 0.0 when t does not, and the proportion of time periods t that include responses
increases from 0.5 to 1.0, then the correlation changes from 0.0 (the correlation
between stimulus probabilities of 1.0 and 0.0 and respective response probabilities
of 0.5 and 0.5) to +- 1.0 (the correlation between stimulus probabilities of 1.0 and
0.0 and respective response probabilities of 1.0 and 0.0). The change in behavior

108

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.144 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 21:21:56 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 The Concept of theOp?rant in theAnalysis ofBehavior

reflected by the increased correlation corresponds to an increase in response rate,

a convenient measure with substantial precedent in the analysis of op?rant relations.

OPERANTS AND THE LIMITS OF LEARNING

The preceding examples suggest that, just as there are degrees of reflexiveness,
there may be degrees of operantness. Although the reflex is ordinarily regarded as
a relation in which a stimulus produces a response with a high probability, there
exist stimulus-response relations in which the stimulus only occasionally produces
the response {e.g., near-threshold eliciting stimuli: cf. Catania, 1971). Similarly, the
production of stimuli by responses may generate a response distribution that is only
weakly correlated with the stimulus-probability distribution. To the extent that the
relation between responses and subsequent stimuli does increase the correlation, an
op?rant relation has been demonstrated. But a weak correlation also suggests that
other behavioralfactors may be operating, or that the relation involves other dimensions
of responding than those along which the correlation was determined.
A case is illustrated in Figure 3. Assume this time that a rat's lever press will
produce food only if the duration of the lever press falls between X and Y seconds;
the probability of food as a function of response duration is shown by the dashed
line inFigure 3. Before the procedure goes into effect, response durations are distributed
across a range of values (A). When responses with durations between X and Y seconds

begin to produce food, the distribution of durations becomes concentrated in the range
from X to Y seconds (B). As the procedure continues, the distribution of durations
narrows and also shifts toward shorter durations (C), until it reaches a point at which
the majority of response durations fall outside the range from X to Y seconds (D).
This kind of change in the distribution of responses is sometimes observed in the
study of response force {e.g., Notterman and Mintz, 1965), when the Law of Least
Effort is often invoked, as well as in the study of duration (Platt, Kuch, and Bitgood,
1973) and other temporal parameters of responding {e.g., interresponse times: cf
Anger, 1956;Malott and Cumming, 1964; Catania, 1970; Reynolds andMcLeod,
1970; see also Schwartz and Williams, 1972, for an example of how response-duration
distributions can be used to distinguish between op?rant and other relations between
responses and stimuli). Although the effect of the procedure is demonstrated by the

narrowingof the response distribution(B throughD in Figure 3), the narrowing

is accompanied by a decrease in the correlation between this distribution and the
stimulus-probability distribution. This decrease can even occur when the response
distribution does not shift outside of the boundaries of the stimulus-probability distribu
tion {cf. Columns D and E, Table 1).
It may in passing that these changes in correlation represent changes
be noted
in behavior that would be obscured if the actual frequency distribution of stimuli
were substituted for the stimulus-probability distribution specified by the experimental
conditions {cf. the issue of whether actual or scheduled consequences should serve
as the independent variable in studies of schedules of reinforcement: e.g., Stubbs
and Pliskoff, 1969). In Figure 1, for example, the correlation between actual frequencies

109

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.144 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 21:21:56 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 A. Charles Catania

r-1

O X Y
RESPONSE PARAMETER

Figure 3. The probabilitywith which a response produces a stimulus(dashed line) and fourhypothetical
stages of response probability (solid lines A through D) as a function of some property of the response.
The progression from through D shows a narrowing of the response distribution accompanied by
a decrease in its correlation with the stimulus-probability distribution.

of food and the response distribution would be that between region alone (because
each response in this region produces food) and regions A and together (because
the response distribution is the sum of these two regions); the fact that responding
did not occur in region C would not be taken into account in this correlation.
But in any case, the preceding considerations simply imply that the important
properties of the op?rant relation are empirical and not logical. For any response
distribution and any stimulus distribution along a given response dimension, the correla
tion and its changes can be measured. Calling a particular relation op?rant is justified

by the particular changes in correlation that are observed; some kinds of changes
in correlation that limit the application of the term, like those of Figure 3, may
lead to a search for other factors that may be operating or to the examination of
other parameters of responding. But the demonstration that there are limits to learning
(e.g., Seligman and Hager, 1972) simply reduces the range of op?rant relations that
experimenters may hope to discover empirically; it does not alter the status or the
logical consistency of those op?rant relations that have been shown to exist (Catania,
1973). To speak of a behavioral relation as op?rant is to name that relation. When
properly applied, the name remains appropriate no matter whether the relation is
ubiquitous or idiosyncratic in the behavior of particular organisms.

110

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.144 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 21:21:56 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 The Concept of theOp?rant in theAnalysis ofBehavior

Extensions of the Op?rant Relation

The op?rant relations so far emphasize

discussed positive correlations between
stimulus-probability distributions and response distributions. But there are no a priori
reasons for excluding negative correlations from consideration. Consider Figure 4,
and suppose that the response dimension represents the location at which a rat pokes
its nose through a slit. All nose pokes between locations X and Y produce a stimulus
(dashed line in Figure 4). Before this procedure goes into effect, the rat's nose pokes
are distributed across the full range of locations (A); after the procedure has been
established, nose pokes decrease in the region in which these responses produce a
stimulus (B). In this instance, the correlation between the stimulus-probability distribu
tion and the response distribution is negative.

-1
I I
I I

RESPONSE PARAMETER
Figure 4. The probabilitywith which a response produces a stimulus (dashed line) and two hypothetical
stages of response probability (solid lines a and B) as a function of some property of the response.
In the change from a to B, the response distribution becomes negatively correlated with the stimulus

probabilitydistribution.

This kind of outcome might be observed with stimuli such as electric shock,
and the phenomenon would typically be discussed as an example of punishment (note
also that negative correlations can be analogously extended to the phenomena of
avoidance). Because an effective punishment procedure leads to a reduction in respond

111

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.144 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 21:21:56 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 A. Charles Catania

ing, it is not ordinarily said to establish a class of responses. The absence of responses,
however, as well as their presence, can define a class; it might well be called a

stoperant class. And an increase in negative correlation, like an increase in positive

correlation, may be regarded as an
instance of an op?rant relation, because it too
demonstrates the modification of responding by its consequences. As with positive
correlations, the determination of negative correlations is an empirical issue; the discov
ery of constraints on the properties of stimuli or responses that can enter into this
relation (e.g., Premack, 1971; Walters and Glazer, 1971) does not change the nature
of the relation itself.
Other extensions of the op?rant relation are determined by the kinds of response

properties that can be correlated with stimulus probabilities. Op?rant relations can
be demonstrated not only in terms of the physical dimensions of responses but also
in terms of the times at which the responses occur (as in interval schedules: Catania
and Reynolds, 1968) or the stimuli in the presence of which they occur. When a
stimulus in the presence of which a response occurs is regarded as a property of
that response, that property can determine the probability with which the response

produces some other stimulus. For example, a rat's lever presses may produce food
in the presence of a light but not in its absence. Such properties define discriminated
op?rants; in this case, the op?rant relation involves a correlation between a stimulus
probability distribution and a response distribution along a dimension of the stimuli
in the presence of which responding occurs (a more detailed treatment is provided
inCatania, 1973; see also the treatment of op?rants as correlations between discrimina
tive stimuli and responses in Staddon, 1967). The discussion of Figures 1 through
4 could be recapitulated with respect to the properties of discriminative stimuli, and
the examples could be related to generalization gradients and other phenomena studied
in stimulus-control experiments. But the point has been made, and the range of stimulus
or response dimensions that can enter into op?rant relations cannot be exhaustively
enumerated. In fact, the discovery of these dimensions is themajor empirical problem
in the analysis of op?rant behavior.

Op?rants and the Vocabulary of Behavior

Up to this point, the account has not considered how the concept of the op?rant
is related to such terms as reinforcement and contingency. These terms have deliberately
been omitted in the preceding development, to avoid the possible circularity that
might result if their definition rested on the concept of the op?rant while the concept
of the op?rant at the same time rested on their definition. In fact, it is simple enough
to define reinforcement as a procedure that produces an op?rant relation or as the
relation itself, and to define reinforcers as the stimuli that enter into such a relation.
Contingencies then follow precisely as the stimulus-probability distributions that enter
into a correlation with responding (dashed lines in Figures 1 to 3).

Contingencies can be more complex than those considered here. The distribution
of stimulus probabilities along a response dimension need not be rectangular: the
probability with which a response produces a stimulus may vary as a function of
some property of responding. For example, the probability with which an infant's

112

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.144 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 21:21:56 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 The Concept of theOp?rant in theAnalysis ofBehavior

cry produces the mother's presence may be a function of the intensity of the cry.
Concern with the properties and effects of various stimulus-probability distributions
is best illustrated by the analysis of reinforcement schedules in terms of the probabilities
of reinforcement of different interresponse times (e.g., Anger, 1956; Malott and Cum
ming, 1964;Catania andReynolds, 1968,Appendix I; Reynolds andMcLeod, 1970).
An even greater complexity is probably involved when behavior is shaped by the
reinforcement of successive approximations to a particular class of responses; during
this procedure, the probabilities of reinforcement for different responses may vary
from moment to moment along one or many response dimensions.

Figure 5 shows some (or contingency) functions along an

stimulus-probability
arbitrary response dimension: a linear function (A), a step function (B), and a curvilinear
function (C). For any of these functions, the correlation with a distribution of
responses
could be determinedand op?rant relationscould be identified.Itwould be difficult,
however, to speak of an op?rant class in terms of these contingencies. In function
A, for example, all responses produce a stimulus with some
probability, but this
probability varies along the response dimension. Are all responses then
equivalently
members of the same op?rant class? How then is this op?rant class to be distinguished
fromone inwhich all responsesproduce the stimuluswith a probabilityof 1.0 (the
problem becomes even more difficult if stimulus properties as well as probabilities
are correlated with response
properties, as when reinforcement magnitude is a function
of response force; e.g., Notterman and Mintz, 1965). One way to deal with this
problem might be to consider various ranges along the response dimension as subclasses
within the largerop?rant class (cf. Schoenfeld, 1950;Malott and Cumming, 1964).
But although this strategymight provide an empirical solution, it does not resolve
the question of how the term op?rant might best function in the
vocabulary of behavior.
What is said about behavior can be affected both by the vocabulary and by the
grammar of behavior. Consider, for example, the term reinforcement, which refers
both to an experimental operation (a response is reinforced when itproduces a particular
stimulus) and a behavioral process (a response is reinforced when its probability
increases because it has produced a particular stimulus). The verb reinforce takes
as sometimes the organism (the rat was reinforced) and sometimes
its object the
response (the lever press was reinforced). Whether organism or response is the proper
object of reinforce is critical to the concept of self-reinforcement, which depends
uniquely on the usage with organism as object. But that usage allows the experimenter
to speak of a phenomenon without specifying any particular responses that are involved,
and therefore leads almost inevitably to ambiguity or contradiction (cf. Catania, 1969).
The usage of the term op?rant may similarly have implications for the analysis
of behavior. As discussed here, the term has at least three usages: as a class of
responses defined by the production of stimuli (the stimulus-probability or contingency
distribution); as a class of responses generated by contingencies (the response dis
tribution); and as a response-stimulus relation (the correlation between stimulus
probability and response distributions). Some of the historical difficulties that the
concept has faced may have originated because these usages have not been clearly
distinguished from one another. Because the term contingency is available to refer

113

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.144 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 21:21:56 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 A. Charles Catania

RESPONSE PARAMETER
Figure 5. Three hypothetical relations (contingencies) between some property of a response and the

probability with which the response produces a stimulus.

to the stimulus-probability distribution, the term op?rant, in referring to response

classes, might well be restricted to the class of responses generated by contingencies,
with the qualification that the usage also respect the defining properties of the op?rant
relation. Thus, when an op?rant relation has been demonstrated, it is appropriate
to say that contingencies have generated an op?rant class. This usage is consistent
with those properties of the op?rant relation that have been both implicitly and explicitly
involved in the historical development of the concept. But usage cannot be legislated,
and will undoubtedly be most strongly determined by the relative effectiveness of
the alternative usages in the language of behavior.

Conclusion

The concept of the op?rant originated with the observation that responding could
be modified by its consequences. The specification of this relation, like that of the
reflex relation, required an account in terms of response classes and stimulus classes.
The op?rant emerges as a correlation between response classes and subsequent stimuli.
The present examination of the concept does not resolve such empirical questions
as how relevant response or stimulus dimensions can be selected or how general
the relation is in the actual behavior of organisms. But in this respect the concept
of the op?rant does not differ from that of the reflex. That a behavioral relation
has been named is neither a guarantee of the ubiquity of that relation nor a specification

114

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.144 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 21:21:56 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 The Concept of theOp?rant in theAnalysis ofBehavior

of how that relation should be studied once an instance has been discovered. Because
the logical and empirical propertiesof the concept of the reflex are paralleled by
those of the concept of the op?rant, the strengths of the concept of the reflex are
not reserved to it; they are also inherent in the concept of the op?rant.

REFERENCES
Anger, D. The dependence of interresponse times upon the relative reinforcement of different interresponse
times. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1956,52, 145-161.
Catania, A.C. Glossary. In A.C. Catania (Ed.) Contemporary research in op?rant behavior. Glenview,
111.: Scott, Foresman, 1968. Pp. 327-349.
Catania, A.C. On the vocabulary and the grammar of behavior. Journal of the Experimental Analysis
of Behavior, 1969,72, 845-846.
Catania, A.C. Reinforcement schedules and psychophysical judgments: A study of some temporal prop
erties of behavior. In W.N. Schoenfeld (Ed.) The theory of reinforcement schedules. New York:

Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1970. Pp. 1-42.

Catania, A.C. Elicitation, reinforcement, and stimulus control. In R. Glaser (Ed.) The nature of
reinforcement. New York: Academic Press, 1971. Pp. 196-220.
Catania, A.C. The nature of learning. In J.A. Nevin and G. Reynolds (Eds.) The study of behavior:

Learning, motivation, emotion, and instinct. Glenview, 111.: Scott, Foresman, 1973. Pp. 31-68.
Catania, A.C. and Reynolds, G.S. A quantitative analysis of the responding maintained by interval
schedules of reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1968, 11, 327-383.
Malott, R .W. and Cumming, W. W. Schedules of interresponse time reinforcement. Psychological Record,
1964,14, 221-252.
Meehl, P.E. On the circularity of the Law of Effect. Psychological Bulletin, 1950, 47, 52-75.
Notterman, J.M. and Mintz, D.E. Dynamics of response. New York: Wiley, 1965.
Platt, J.R., Kuch, D.O., and Bitgood, S.C. Rats' lever-press durations as
psychophysical
of time. Journal
of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1973,19, 239-250.
Premack, D. Catching up with common sense or two sides of a generalization: reinforcement and

punishment. In R. Glaser (Ed.) The nature of reinforcement. New York: Academic Press, 1971.

Pp. 121-150.

Reynolds, G.S. and McLeod, A. On the theory of interresponse-time reinforcement. In G.H. Bower
(Ed.) The psychology of learning and motivation. Vol. 4. New York: Academic Press, 1970.

Pp. 86-107.
.
Schick, Op?rants. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1971, 15, 413-423.
Schoenfeld, W.N. On the difference in resistance to extinction following regular and periodic reinforce
. -
ment CEAB Note No. 20,27 February 1950 (mimeographed). Reprinted inJourned of theExperimen
talAnalysis ofBehavior, 1968, 11, 259-261.
-
Schoenfeld, W.N. and Cole, B.K. Stimulus schedules: the systems. New York: Harper and Row,
1972.
Schwartz, B. and Williams, D.R. Two different kinds of key peck in the pigeon: some properties
of responses maintained by negative and positive response-reinforcer contingencies. Journal of the
Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1972, 18, 201-216.
M.E.P. and Hager, J.L. Biological boundaries of learning. New York: Appleton
Seligman,
Century-Crofts, 1972.
Skinner, B.F. The concept of the reflex in the description of behavior. Journal of General Psychology,
1931,5, 427-458.
Skinner, .F. The generic nature of the concepts of stimulus and response. Journal of General Psychology,
1935, 12, 40-65. (a)
Skinner, B.F. Two types of conditioned reflex and a Journal of General
pseudotype. Psychology,
1935,72, 66-77. (b)
Skinner, B.F. Two types of conditioned reflex: A reply to Konorski and Miller. Journal of General
Psychology, 1937, 16, 272-279.
Skinner, B.F. Contingencies of reinforcement. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1969.

115

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.144 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 21:21:56 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 A. Charles Catania

Staddon, J.E.R. Asymptotic behavior: The concept of the op?rant. Psychological Review, 1967, 74,
377-391.
Stubbs, D.A. and Pliskoff, S.S. Concurrent responding with fixed relative rate of reinforcement. Journal
of theExperimentalAnalysis ofBehavior, 1969, 12, 887-895.
Walters, G.C. and Glazer, R.D. Punishment of instinctive behavior in the mongolian gerbil. Journal

of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 1971, 75, 331-340.

THE PSYCHOLOGICAL
RECORD
A PRIMARY SOURCE,
GENERAL JOURNAL
AT LOW COST

Institutions$10
Individuals$ 6
Students $ 4

Volumes foryears 1967 through1972 are available at your regularrate.

AVAILABLE REPRINTS
These papers, suitable forseminar use, are available at $1.00 each prepaid. Orders
forten ormore (titlesmay be assorted) at half price.

Bijou, SidneyW.
1. Theory and Research inMental (Developmental) Retardation.
2. Methodology for Experimental Studies of Young Children in Natural Settings.

Ferster, C.B.
An ExperimentalAnalysis of Clinical Phenomena.

Greenspoon, Joel& Simkins, Lawrence

A Measurement Approach to Psychotherapy.

Homme, Lloyd et al.

What Behavioral Engineering Is.

Kantor, J.R.
1. Behaviorism in the Historyof Psychology.
2. Feelings and Emotions as Scientific Events.
3. Newton's Influenceon the Development of Psychology.
4. Scientific Psychologyand Specious Philosophy.

Kellogg,Winthrop .
Chimpanzees inExperimentalHomes.

Lichtenstein, Parker E.
1. Psychological Systems: Their Nature and Function.
2. A Behavioral Approach to "Phenomenological Data."
3. Genius as Productive Neurosis.

Ratner, Stanley C.
Comparative Psychology:Some Distinctions fromAnimal Behavior.
Weiner, Harold
Human Behavioral Persistence.

PUBLISHED AT DENISON UNIVERSITY

GRANVILLE, OHIO 43023

614-582-9181

116

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.144 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 21:21:56 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions