A critical review of the support for variability as an operant dimension

Abstract

There is abundant evidence that behavioral variability is more predominant when reinforcement is contingent on it than when it is not, and the interpretation of direct reinforcement of variability suggested by Page and Neuringer, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 11(3), 429–452 (1985) has been widely accepted. Even so, trying to identify the underlying mechanisms in the emergence of stochastic-like variability in a variability contingency is intricate. There are several challenges to characterizing variability as directly reinforced, most notably because reinforcement traditionally has been found to produce repetitive responding, but also because directly reinforced variability does not always relate to independent variables the same way as more commonly studied repetitive responding does. The challenging findings in variability experiments are discussed, along with alternative hypotheses on how variability contingencies may engender the high variability that they undeniably do. We suggest that the typical increase in behavioral variability that is often demonstrated when reinforcement is contingent on it may be better explained in terms of a dynamic interaction of reinforcement and extinction working on several specific responses rather than as directly reinforced.