The Psychological Record (2021) 71:553–565
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-021-00480-z

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Creating Creativity: A Behavior Analytic Approach
Jacob L. Bradley 1 & Douglas A. Johnson 1
Accepted: 22 June 2021 / Published online: 13 July 2021
# Association for Behavior Analysis International 2021

Abstract
Creativity and innovation have brought about phenomenal changes throughout human history. Art, science, medicine, industry,
and technology have all grown through creative and innovative behavior. A complete science of human behavior needs toaccount for “creativity,” especially given its importance in society. Prior behavioral research has been able to account for creative
behavior in animals by training the component skills of a complex creative solution and arranging environmental conditions
which result in the recombination of component skills to produce a creative solution. The present study partially replicatescreativity research conducted in a laboratory setting with animals by conducting a similarly arranged laboratory study withhumans. The purpose of the present study was to determine whether a creative solution to a difficult problem could be produced
by teaching participants the necessary component skills and arranging the environment in such a way as to cause the component
skills to recombine in order to solve the problem. The present study suggests that such an approach may be viable and provides anexperimental task that can be used in future human creativity research.
Keywords creativity . innovation

Defining Creativity
What is creativity? This seemingly simple question has
plagued artists, scholars, and even mid-level managers.
Although answers will vary, most basic definitions seem tocontain two elements: (1) the emergence of a novel productand (2) the product having value to an individual or group ofindividuals (Ripple, 1989; Stein, 1953; Sternberg & Lubart,1996). If only the first element is present, then there is a new,
but not a valuable, product. For example, if a person took 30 s
and wrote a string of random words and nonsense words thiswould be a rather novel string of babble, but it would likely beof little to no value to anyone. One would be hard pressed toread the string of babble and label it as creative. If only thesecond element of creativity is present, then there is a valuable, but not a new, product. For example, if an individual
spent 30 s to copy a few lines from a famous poem, somepeople might say the replication of the poem has limited value
but copying words someone else has written would unlikely
be called creative by anyone.
* Douglas A. Johnson
behavioranalyst@gmail.com
1

Western Michigan University, P. O. Box 1295, Portage, MI 49081,
USA“Creativity” involves large segments of operant behavior.
In addition, the controlling variables that lead to an observer ofthe creative performance labeling the performance as creative
must be considered. As such, creativity cannot be defined byonly referencing a simple topography. The performance has tobe novel to society at large or at least novel relative to one’s
behavioral history. It would be overly difficult, if not impossible, to provide a comprehensive and clear definition thatwould be agreeable to everyone. However, a perfectly agreeable definition is not necessary for a functional analysis ofcreative behavior. When a behavior is said to be creative, thecontrolling variables that evoke such a label can be determined without a definition of creativity being determined inadvance (Epstein, 1980).
An observer’s behavior of labeling something as “creative”
is influenced by multiple variables. Two of those variables are
the saliency of control of a behavior and how people attributevalue to a behavior. An observer would be more likely to label
something as creative when the controlling variables for the
behavior are unknown. For example, an observer listening to a
new creative song may not be able to identify the thousands ofhours of practice on the part of the musician, the genres ofmusic the musician listened to, or the various musical styles
the musician was trained in which combined to form the creative song. Likewise, when the controlling variables of a behavior are known, it would not likely be labeled as creative. A

554

behavior that is imitated or the result of following instructions
can lead to novel responding, but the control is usually obvious to the observer; thus the behavior is not considered to becreative. For example, if a musician listens to and imitates the
new creative song, the imitated version would not be labeled
as creative regardless of how well the song is imitated. A
novel behavior, or its product, is only labeled creative if an
observer considers it as having some value. Roughly speaking, a behavior or product has value to an observer if it has thepotential to function as a reinforcer for the observer’s
behavior.
Several scholars have focused on a distinction in two general types of creativity: Big “C” and Little “c” creativity(Csikszentmihalyi, 1996; Kubina et al., 2006). Big “C” creativity is a term that describes the rare, highly notable creative
products, such as Einstein’s Theory of Relativity, Thomas
Edison’s electric light, or Mozart’s musical works. Little “c”
creativity refers to the more common and less notable acts ofcreativity, such as the invention of a picture frame, babychanging table, or elevator music. This distinction is not likely
to be consistently reliable, but it does have some use indistinguishing between the great creative and innovative acts
and products of history and the run-of-the mill creative acts
and products produced on a daily basis. Marr (2003) made asimilar distinction but used “genius” instead of “creativity.”
Genius connotes creativity or innovation and fits with thegeneral language of creativity, although it also suggests somelevel of complex intellectual behavior.
Although the distinction between Big “C” and Little “c” isnot a strict dichotomy, the distinction nonetheless falls in linewith the common perception of creativity. Although imperfect, the Big “C” and Little “c” differentiation allows us toapproach creativity in a manner that reflects how the generalpublic talks about creativity (i.e., Big “C”). In much the sameway, Skinner’s definition of verbal behavior was not meant toprovide an intrinsic distinction between verbal and nonverbal
behavior. Rather, the purpose of the definition was to provide
a structure to analyze behavior that has clear social significance (Skinner, 1957). The conceptualization of Big “C” creativity allows people to talk about most instances of what
would be labeled as creative, even if the boundaries are imprecise. Such imprecision is to be expected because the social
community uses the term inconsistently. It seems apparent
that there is an everyday or common type of creativity andan extraordinary type of creativity. At one end, the Little “c”
creativity is of interest and value, but at the other end the Big“C” creativity is of exponentially higher interest and value.
The ability to explain, understand, predict, and control thelatter type of creativity could help to effectively produce more
Thomas Edisons, Albert Einsteins, and Steve Jobs. Although
this may be an audacious claim, it is the hope that this research
will contribute to a foundation for the development of a behavioral account of creativity.

Psychol Rec (2021) 71:553–565

A Behavioral Approach to Creativity
As B. F. Skinner explained in “A Case History in ScientificMethod” (1956), scientific advancements and innovations areoften not the result of logical, formal, or mathematical practices. When referring to the scientist, Skinner writes, “Thework habits which have become second nature to him havenot been formalized by anyone, and he may feel that they
possibly never will be” (p. 221). He claims that this is due inpart to the difficulty to clearly verbalize scientific practices
that lead to innovations. After all, part of the nature of a hunchis that it cannot be easily communicated. Given the lack of
documentation for the processes underlying scientific advancement, Skinner called for an empirical approach rather
than a more structured formal or logical approach.
Behavior analysis takes an empirical, natural scientific approach to the study of behavior. That is, behavior analysis
focuses on actual controlling variables in the environment toaccount for behavior of organisms. Behavior analysis does notappeal to hypothetical constructs (e.g., we would not say thatcreative behavior happens because the person has a lot ofcreativity), or circular reasoning (e.g., creative behavior happens because the person is creative, and we know that person
is creative because they engage in creative behavior). Most of
creativity research has not adopted such an approach, but rather, has appealed to hypothetical constructs. For example, creativity is often thought of as being an innate characteristic thata person has; it cannot be taught, only brought out (Hennessey& Amabile, 2010). This approach suggests genetics would
weigh heavily in determining creativity but downplays theimportance of how the environment shapes behavioral
development.
Phylogenic selection accounts for types of inherited behavior patterns or propensities. This type of selection results fromthe evolutionary history of a species along the lines ofDarwinian evolution. Behavior analysis accounts for behavior
through ontogenic forms of selectionism (Skinner, 1981).
Ontogenic selection accounts for learned behavior throughoperant selection by consequences, which takes place continuously over the life of an organism (Cooper et al., 2007;
Skinner, 1981). Operant selection provides a solution to the
problem of development and diversity of behavior as natural
selection did for a similar problem of development and diversity of species in evolutionary theory (Skinner, 1953).
Cultural selection accounts for behavior of individuals fromthe verbal behavior and social contingencies provided by other members of the culture, which allows for learning without
directly experiencing the conditions that generated the original
learning (Glenn, 2004).
Ontogenic selection, in the form of reinforcement, is able toaccount for the increase in several dimensions of operant behavior including but not limited to response rate, intensity, andduration (Cooper et al., 2007). In addition to these relatively

Psychol Rec (2021) 71:553–565

common dimensions of behavior, research has shown that reinforcement can increase other dimensions or characteristics of
behavior, such as novelty. Eisenberger and Armeli (1997) demonstrated that novel performance, in the form of stating unusual
uses for common physical objects, was sensitive to reinforcement. The authors found that not only was novelty a reinforceable dimension of behavior, but that it generalized to different
tasks such as drawing pictures. Participants who received larger
rewards for identifying unusual uses for everyday objects subsequently drew more novel pictures than participants in the low
or no reward conditions. This finding contradicts previous studies that have claimed that reinforcement reduces creativity ornovelty in responding (Amabile et al., 1986; Hennessey et al.,1989).

555

responding to a question. Children with autism were asked
what they liked to do and received reinforcement when the
response emitted was both appropriate and different from previous trials. This produced an increase in the diversity of appropriate responses. In another applied study (Goetz & Baer,
1973), the block-building behavior of preschool girls was analyzed and found to occur in largely the same forms acrossbaseline sessions. The authors provided social reinforcement
contingent on a participant building the blocks in a form thatwas not previously used in that session. Contingent reinforcement of constructing diverse block structures resulted in an
increase in both the diversity and novelty of forms built ineach session. On the other hand, when social reinforcement
was provided for repetitive block structure forms, the numberof novel forms built in each session decreased.

Behavioral Research on Creativity
Extinction
Behavior analysis has been used to train animals and people toincrease their novel responding (Neuringer, 2004; Winston &Baker, 1985). In one study, porpoises were trained to engage
in creative responding by differentially reinforcing novel responses (i.e., a response that had not been previously emitted).
After training, the porpoises engaged in a wide range of variable and complex novel responses (Neuringer, 2004; Pryor
et al., 1969). Several studies have also been conducted withpigeons in which the birds were trained to emit responses thatsimulated complex human behaviors such as symbolic communication, “self-awareness,” and “insight”—which will be
discussed below (Epstein, 1981). Of course, response variability has also been trained in humans through operant conditioning procedures (Neuringer, 1986). One of the largest contributions of a behavioral approach to creative behavior is theways in which it is able to account for variability inresponding (a necessary condition for creative performance).
Of course, promoting variability also produces novelty, but
not necessarily creativity (because the novel behavior may
or may not be considered valuable to the social community).
However, practices and procedures that regularly evoke novel
responding will increase the probability that a variant of behavior that is considered valuable will eventually be emitted
and thus will be considered creative due to being both noveland valued. This article will now consider several sources of
behavioral novelty and by extension, potential sources forcreativity.
Reinforcement
Many studies conducted in laboratory settings withnonhumans and humans have shown that reinforcement reliably increases novelty and diversity of responses (Neuringer,
2004). Several applied studies have also demonstrated similarfindings. In one such study, Lee and Sturmey (2006) used lagschedules of reinforcement to increase novelty and diversity in

Extinction involves the discontinuation of reinforcement for apreviously reinforced response resulting in a decreased rate ofthat response in the future. Extinction procedures can induce
temporary variability in several response dimensions including frequency, intensity, and topography (Cooper et al., 2007).
It is the variation in response topography that would be most
readily labeled as novel responding.

Imitation
Novel responding can be brought about via imitation.
Imitation includes a modeled response seen or heard by anobserver and the occurrence of the modeled response by theobserver. Through imitation, observers can quickly engage inbehavior that is novel to them. Such imitative responding istypically reinforced by either contact with natural sources ofreinforcement (such as when someone successfully interacts
with a new piece of technology after mimicking that actions ofothers currently using the technology) or through social reinforcement from others, perhaps from the model themselves(such as when a parent praises a child for correcting echoing
a multisyllabic word that the parent just said). However, imitated behavior is not usually labeled as creative, likely due tothe salient controlling variables (i.e., the modeled response).

Instructions
Novel behavior can occur as the result of following instructions. When a speaker gives specific instructions to a listener,
the listener is generally able to follow the instructions by completing a behavior or behavioral sequence. The instructed behavior is not always novel to the listener, but it often can be.
Like imitation, novel behavior occurring as the result of following instructions is not likely to be considered as creative
due to the obvious controlling variables (i.e., the instructions).

556

Exceptions can be found in cases for which the instructions
were vague or general, likely due to the fact that the response
products are not precisely predictable to a casual observer(e.g., it is difficult to know in advance what outcome will be
produced by instructions such as “I want you to go to youroffice and think up a new strategy to deal with our budget
shortfalls” or “I want you to show more passion in your performance next time”). In short, the more prescriptive the instructions, the less likely that rule following will be consideredcreative.

Variation
Variability in responding naturally occurs in all operant behavior (Chance, 1999). As will be discussed in this article withgenerativity theory, all responses have some form of novelty
or variation to them. Variation is often not considered to becreative, given that the observer saw previous instances of the
response and the variation may have been slight, or was of no
added value. However, there are times when variation in
responding might be labeled creative.
In general, the processes discussed above would be considered Little “c” due to the triviality of the behaviors or thereadily observable nature of the processes. The social community may be more likely to call the remaining techniques Big“C” creativity because the processes are difficult to directly
observe. The unobservable nature of these processes leads thesocial community to label these forms of creativity as special.
This is similar to B. F. Skinner’s point regarding willpowerfrom Science and Human Behavior: “It is natural that the‘will’ as an inner explanation of behavior should have survived longer in the study of operant behavior, where the control exercised by the environment is more subtle and indirect”(Skinner, 1953, p. 112).
Owing to the subtle and indirect nature of such environmental variables, the verbal community tends to attribute causality to the individual or constructs within the individual,such as insight or creativity, rather than to the controlling
environmental variables. Based on such common verbal practices, we will now modify our defining characteristics to include a third criterion beyond the standard considerations ofnovelty and value. We define creativity to be the occurrence of
behavior that is (1) novel (either in form or in the conditions
under which it occurs) or produces a novel product; (2) valuedby the social community; and (3) produced by controllingvariables that are not readily salient to the general social community (although the variables may be known to a more limited audience such as the scientific community). As such, theremaining techniques are more likely to be considered creative
because of the subtlety of the controlling variables (the relevant historical events are often dispersed over time or involve
multiple sources of control). Once again, these procedures do
not guarantee creativity as the label of creativity depends upon

Psychol Rec (2021) 71:553–565

the value assigned by the social community (which may not
be consistent across audiences or time periods, such as whenaccomplishments are not appreciated until long after theirproduction).

Interconnection of Repertoires
A repertoire is a relatively stable tendency to perform in certain ways given certain environmental conditions due to theorganism’s behavioral history. A more colloquial way of expressing this would be to consider this tendency as a set ofskills, although caution is warranted against mentalistic practices and reification with such expressions. The skills in arepertoire are related by environmental situations or settings(Cooper et al., 2007). For example, an individual could have
one repertoire of skills for using a computer (e.g., typing,using a mouse, operating a word processing program,accessing the internet) and another repertoire for drawing
using art supplies (e.g., sketching a layout, using a charcoal
pencil, shading to display light and shadows). Behaviors thatare part of a repertoire combine to produce novel and complex
sequences of behavior over time. When behavioral tendencies
that constitute a repertoire begin to interconnect, the products
are more likely to be considered creative. This is due to theobserver not being able to easily identify the controlling variables. One does not see such interconnection across a single
session and therefore this process is not easily observable(Kubina et al., 2006). Research has shown that by isolating
specific repertoires, their contribution to complex repertoires
can be determined.
A study that Wolfgang Kohler conducted in the 1920s recorded instances of “insight” in the way chimpanzees solved
problems. In this study, a banana was hung in a room out ofreach of the chimpanzees. The room was empty with the exception of wooden crates, which were placed on the floor
several feet away from the suspended banana. All six chimpanzees in the room tried jumping from the floor to reach thebanana, but none was successful. After several minutes oftrying, one chimpanzee paced the floor, then suddenly moved
the box underneath the banana and in a fruitful effort, jumped
from the box and grabbed the banana. The sudden emergenceof an effective solution to this problem suggested that problem
solving was not learned via trial-and-error and because of that
it was argued that insight (or other similar hypothetical constructs such as creativity, innovation, etc.) was a necessary
explanation to account for this observed performance(Kohler, 1925).
Nearly 60 years later, Epstein et al. (1984) conducted astudy in an attempt to explain the insightful solution to
obtaining the out-of-reach bananas. Epstein et al. suggested
that the insightful response was due to a combination of component skills: pushing the box towards the banana andclimbing on the box to reach the banana. Epstein et al.

Psychol Rec (2021) 71:553–565

replicated Kohler’s earlier study using pigeons. Pigeons wereselected as subjects because they do not naturally push boxes
or other objects towards targets, nor do they typically jump on
top of objects to reach food. Three targets were identified andtrained: (1) directional pushing of the box; (2) climbing onto
the box and pecking the suspended plastic banana which waspaired with food; and (3) extinguishing flying and jumping
towards the suspended plastic banana. Pigeons trained on all
three component skills demonstrated a similar pattern of
seemingly looking confused for several minutes and then suddenly pushing the box towards the suspended banana, hopping on the box and pecking the banana. All other pigeons thatwere trained on only two of the three targeted skills failed tosolve the problem. Based on these findings, “a tentative,
moment-to-moment account of a successful performance canbe given” (p. 62). At the beginning of the problem-solving
session, stimuli were present that controlled both boxpushing and banana pecking responses. These competingstimuli led the pigeons to engage in behaviors that the general
population may label as “perplexed” or “confused.” The pigeons did not fly towards the banana, because that response
had been previously extinguished. The birds began pushing
the box likely because the stimulus conditions closely resembled those of the directional pushing training condition;
though the birds were only trained to push towards a green
dot which was not present in the problem-solving condition,
the pigeons were never trained to push towards the banana.
Pushing the box in the direction of the banana only occurred inpigeons that were trained to peck the banana; in other words,“banana-directed pecks strengthened banana-directed pushes”(p. 62). Finally, the pigeons stopped pushing the box once it
was located under the banana due to the process of autochaining. The box-under-banana stimulus condition controlled climbing and pecking responses. In other words, if
given sufficient practice with the relevant skills, the emittanceof one behavior would automatically create a set of conditions
that made the subsequent behaviors (i.e., further pecks andclimbing behaviors) more probable so that a solution emergedin the form of a continuous chained response.

Autochaining
Automatic chaining, or autochaining, is the process by whicha sequence of behavior emerges when one behavior produces
a stimulus that increases the probability of another behavior(Epstein, 1997). For example, consider the Epstein et al.
(1984) study discussed above. When the pigeon pushed thebox, the box moved closer to the target. This slightly different,
but new stimulus condition with the box closer to the banana
served as a reinforcer, which strengthened pushing the box
toward the banana. Likewise, pushing the box under the banana produced a situation where the pigeon could climb onto
the box and peck the banana.

557

Resurgence
Resurgence occurs when one response has been extinguishedand an alternative response that was established undergoes anextinction procedure and the first, previously extinguishedresponse reappears (Cleland et al., 2000). For example, consider the situation in which a person tells several one-line
jokes that are reinforced with laughter from his friends.
Once he has told all his one-line jokes to his friends they are
no longer considered funny and no laughter follows. He thenswitches to telling the few story-based jokes he knows that are
reinforced with his friends’ laughter. Again, after the story
jokes are told once they are no longer reinforced with laughter
from his friends and the person reverts back to telling one-line
jokes. The occurrence of previously reinforced behavior isnot, in itself, creative. However, resurgence may contributeto behavioral creativity by making the recombination of behaviors more likely (Shahan & Chase, 2002).

Contingency Adduction
Contingency adduction refers to when repertoires establishedunder one set of contingencies are recruited by a differing setof conditions to produce a new behavioral relation (Andronis
et al., 1997). As was the case for interconnection of repertoires, the current conditions necessitate a new performancein order to be successful. However, a defining distinction isthat the new behavior is reinforced by a different effect on theenvironment. Once reinforced, the newly established behavioral relation becomes part of the individual’s repertoire. As
such, adduction with a particular contingency cannot be repeated with the same person (although it can be repeatedacross people as part of a training procedure), because oncethe behavior is emitted and reinforced it is no longer considered novel for that individual. Contingency adduction caninvolve the recruitment of a new sequence of behavior(linking previously emitted behaviors in a unique manner),
new blend of existing behaviors (novel compound stimulus
control resulting in a topographically unique response), a partial component of previously emitted behavior (as a result of
new situation sharing some partial aspect of more familiar
stimuli), derived relational control, and more (Johnson &Street, 2020).
When contingencies adduce, repertoires do not form an
automatic chain as an interconnection; rather, a repertoire
may be engaged by a different set of conditions into a new
function and, over time, into an entirely new and different
repertoire (Kubina et al., 2006). To illustrate, suppose anotherindividual regularly engages in gardening as a hobby. While
working on a marketing campaign at their advertising firm,
the individual may recruit behavior established under one setof conditions to a new set of conditions, such as when they
propose planting flower seeds by the roadside in the558

configuration of the company’s logo. Because the new function (i.e., commercial/monetary gain) differs from the previous function (i.e., food or aesthetics), this novel proposal
would be considered a form of contingency adduction. If theclient valued the proposal, it would also be likely to be considered a creative marketing idea. Behavior that results fromcontingency adduction is more likely to be labeled as creative
due to the fact that the controlling variables cannot be directly
observed.

Fluency
In order for skills to be most useful they need to be fluent. A
fluent skill is one that has a rate that makes it effective ineveryday life and can be readily performed after extended
periods without practice. Fluency has also been shown to playa role in the emergence of novel behavior, especially in theinterconnection of repertoires and contingency adduction.
Fluency allows correct responses to be more readily emitted
and therefore available for selection by consequences. Fluent
skills are more readily able to be combined with other behaviors or repertoires in order to create new, complex behavioral
sequences or repertoires that can be useful in solving problems(Johnson & Layng, 1992).
People with more extensive experiences with the aforementioned processes (e.g., diverse skills, regular emittanceof novel behavior, fluency with component behaviors,connecting, blending, or extending behaviors and behavioral
sequences) are more likely to emit behaviors that will eventually be called creative by others. This may be well summed up
by a quote from an interview with Steve Jobs—cofounder ofApple and arguably considered one of the most creative andinnovative people in the last century—regarding creativity(Wolf, 1996):
Creativity is just connecting things. When you ask creative people how they did something, they feel a little
guilty because they didn't really do it, they just saw
something. It seemed obvious to them after a while.
That's because they were able to connect experiences
they've had and synthesize new things. And the reason
they were able to do that was that they've had moreexperiences or they have thought more about their experiences than other people. (p. 163)

Limitations and Goals
One of the largest limitations to a behavior analysis of creativity is that many of the processes responsible for producing
novel responses, and thus creative behavior, often occur overan extended period of time, which is problematic if one wishes
to compress events into a single research session. It is in thePsychol Rec (2021) 71:553–565

very nature of creative behavior that controlling variables are
difficult to observe. That is to say, people tend to attribute thecause of creative responses to a construct within the organism
as opposed to behavioral processes occurring over the courseof time. The construct of “creativity” would not be of explanatory use in the general language if the controlling behavioral
processes were salient and easily observable.
A second, and equally large limitation, is that due to theopaque nature of behavioral processes that produce creative
responses, there is a tendency in both society and establishedresearch communities to reify creativity and treat it as an actual genetic or personality trait or cognitive process(Hennessey & Amabile, 2010). Such approaches are engrained in the language surrounding creativity and make atruly behavioral discussion of creativity difficult to have without referencing hypothetical constructs, accidentally or otherwise. In Skinner’s final writing, he attributed the advancementof cognitive psychological explanations of behavioral phenomena to the similarity of their language and terminology
to the vernacular (Skinner, 1990). A precise analysis of behavior will provide the distinct advantage of clarifying thereinforcement contingencies that are glossed over in cognitive
analyses and everyday language. This analysis will, in time,need to overcome the clumsy and imprecise language of cognitive psychology in order to identify the causes of creative
behavior. This language limitation is part of the reason why abehavioral analysis of creativity is of great interest, but it also
creates an obstacle in the discussion and dissemination of suchan analysis.
A third limitation is that interconnecting repertoires andcontingency adduction can take a significant amount of time.
The behavioral history of an organism required to build diverse and fluent skills and repertoires is considerably difficult,if not impossible, to completely control for, much less manipulate experimentally. Doubtless there are more limitations to a
behavioral analysis of creativity, many of which are related to
the language and general perception surrounding creativity.
The behavioral processes that produce novel responses ofvalue are of interest in themselves, and it is clear that behavior
analysis has advanced our understanding of “creativity”(Runco, 1993). It is at least equally clear that there is a significant amount of work that still needs to be done within thefield to develop a robust behavior analysis of creative behavior. The ultimate goal of such an analysis ought to be theunderstanding of the relevant underlying processes andenvironment/behavior relations so that creative behavior canbe engineered by manipulating environmental variables. If
creative performance could be reliably and effectively trainedor facilitated, then one could only imagine the advancements
in science, business, health, education, and the arts.
In Epstein et al. (1984), the authors suspected and demonstrated that pigeons would be able to complete the complex
task of directionally pushing a box underneath a suspended

Psychol Rec (2021) 71:553–565

plastic banana, jumping onto the box and pecking the plastic
banana without directly teaching such a chain of responses.
The authors found that pigeons that were trained on each of
three necessary component skills were able to complete thenovel response chain. The current study uses the Epstein et al.
model to investigate whether human participants will be able
to create a magnetized compass with only training component
skills. If Epstein et al.’s findings translate to human participants in this study, it would be expected that only participants
trained on all necessary component skills will be able to “invent” a magnetized compass.

Method559

obvious thematic links that would encourage them to independently seek solutions to forthcoming tests outside of the experimental setting.

Research Design
A case study design, similar to the one implemented by
Epstein et al. (1984), was used in this study. Epstein et al. used
11 pigeons divided into five groups. Four pigeons were taught
all component skills necessary to solve the problem. The otherseven pigeons were divided across four conditions—three
conditions with two pigeons and one condition with one
pigeon—that involved training on a different combination of
only some of the component skills. The current study had four
conditions with two participants each.

Participants, Setting, and Recruitment
Independent and Dependent Variables
Nine potential participants completed the screening test andeight participants were selected for continuation in the study.
The eight participants were randomly assigned to one of fourgroups, as described later. Potential participants were recruitedfrom undergraduate courses at a large Midwestern university.
The study took place in an academic research laboratory.
There were multiple computers (unused in the current study),
adjustable chairs, and tables separated by cubicle walls in thisroom. During relevant training and testing, the following
items were randomly arranged on one of the tables: one sewing needle, one bar magnet with poles labeled “N” and “S,” an
8-in wide dish filled with water, plastic forceps, a small LED
flashlight, a 12-in long wooden ruler, and a 12-in piece of
thread. Each potential participant was given a prestudy screening test composed of 20 questions. Responses on 5 of the 20
questions were used to select participants for continuation in
the study. The five questions were designed to assess potential
participants’ knowledge on areas relevant to the study including magnetism, the Earth’s magnetic properties, buoyancy,
the use of a compass, and how a compass works. Only participants who answered all five screening questions incorrectly,
demonstrating that they were naïve on the areas relevant to thestudy, were selected to continue in the study. All potential
participants who answered any one of the five questions correctly were not selected for participation and were dismissedfrom the study. Only one of nine potential participants answered any of the five questions correctly and was not selected
for further participation in the study. The remaining 15 questions were distractor questions and dealt with other topics
related to science, such as how electricity travels through awire and why the sky becomes red/orange at sunrise and sunset, and basic outdoor camping skills such as the use of strikeanywhere matches and tying a bowline knot. Responses on the
15 distractor questions were not considered in selecting participants for continuation in the study. These distractor questions were selected to prevent participants from attending to

The independent variable was training on the combination ofcomponent skills necessary to build a magnetic compass thatthe participants were taught. There were two dependent variables: device success and session duration. Device success
was assessed by whether or not the participants successfully
built a magnetic compass that pointed North in the allotted 30min time frame. For participants who successfully built a magnetic compass, the session duration variable was assessed as
the time from the start of the testing session to the successful
completion of the construction of the magnetic compass thatpointed north.
GroupsParticipants in Group 4 were taught all three component skills
necessary to build a magnetic compass including magnetism,floating a needle and magnetizing a needle, along with two
distractor skills: how to thread a needle using the “pinch thethread” method and how a sundial works. Groups 1–3 were
each taught a different combination of two of the three component skills. Group 1 was taught the same two distractor
skills and magnetism and floating a needle as component
skills. Group 2 was taught the two distractor skills and magnetism and magnetizing the needle as component skills.
Group 3 was taught the two distractor skills and magnetizing
the needle and floating the needle as component skills.

Training Component and Distractor Skills
The process of constructing a magnetic compass was broken
down into the following component skills: magnetizing a needle (an operation), floating a needle on water (an operation),and magnetism (a concept). A typical magnetic compass, suchas one that could be bought at a sporting goods store, consistsof a magnetic needle that floats in a liquid solution in an560

enclosed housing and is allowed to rotate freely around a fixedanchor point at the middle of the needle. The magnetized needle reliably orients itself in a north–south direction due to theneedle’s magnetic attraction to the Earth’s magnetic north pole.
The magnetic north end of a compass needle is magneticallyattracted to the south pole of Earth’s magnetic field, which lies
close to Earth’s geographic North Pole. Magnet fields have twopoles, called a north pole and south pole. Magnetic north poles
and south poles are attracted to each other. Also, magnetic northpoles are repelled by magnetic north poles of other magnets andmagnetic south poles are repelled by magnetic south poles ofother magnets (Kuhn, 1996).
A magnetic compass can be constructed using the following
common household objects: one metal sewing needle, one
common bar magnet, plastic forceps, and a shallow dish filledwith water. A standard metal sewing needle is able to be magnetized by stroking the pointed half against the south pole of amagnet. After the pointed end of the needle is magnetized, it
can be made to float on water by carefully placing the needle
on the surface tension of water using forceps. When left to float
undisturbed for several seconds, the needle will rotate until it
points in the direction of Earth’s geographic North Pole.
As indicated earlier, it was critical to select distractor skills
that would appear plausibly related to the targeted skills but
would not be relevant to the final performance. The first
distractor skill was demonstrating how a sundial works. Thiswas selected as a distractor skill because it is a sufficiently
complex concept, similar to the component skill concept ofmagnetism. The function of a sundial is also not useful or
relevant to constructing or using a magnetic compass.
Finally, this skill involves an aspect of rotational motion, similar to the needle rotating in a compass, in that the light source(flashlight) is moved in an arch-like motion over a ruler inorder to cast a shadow on the table that appears to move in asemicircular motion.
The second distractor skill was threading a needle using a
specific “pinch-the-thread” method. This was selected as a
distractor skill because it is a sufficiently difficult fine motor
skill, similar to balancing a needle on the surface tension ofwater. This skill is also not useful or relevant to constructing
or using a magnetic compass. Finally, this skill involves theuse of a needle in completing a fine motor skill, similar to
floating a needle and magnetizing a needle.
Component and distractor skills were trained in a one-onone setting using the following process. First, participants received verbal instruction about the skill from the researcher.
For operations such as floating a needle using forceps or
threading a needle, the researcher precisely specified the actions to be taken (e.g., “Then, moving very slowly and carefully, set the needle lengthwise onto the surface of the water.
Make sure that when you release the needle from the forceps
the needle is just touching the surface of the water. The needle
won’t float if it is released above or below the surface of thePsychol Rec (2021) 71:553–565

water.” or “Next, pick up the needle with your dominant hand[the hand you write with] and hold the middle of the needle
using your index finger and thumb. Make sure the eye of theneedle is pointing up. Be careful not to poke yourself with the
sharp end of the needle.”). For concepts such as magnetism,
the relevant features were highlighted (e.g., “You can see thatthe magnet has two poles; an N-pole and an S-pole” and“Even though the Earth is like a giant magnet, it is a rather
weak magnet. It isn’t strong enough to even align the N-poleends of magnets that are lying on the table to the Earth’s
geographic North Pole. It is only strong enough to align Npole ends of magnets towards the geographic North Pole whenthe magnets are able to rotate with very little friction; even lessfriction than they experience when lying on a table”). At thesame time, the skill was modeled and explained by the researcher (e.g., holding the middle of the needle between thetips of the forceps; pointing to the poles of a magnet in relation
to a representation of the globe). Then the participant practiced
the skill (e.g., magnetizing a needle or labeling the magnetic
poles of the Earth) and received positive and corrective feedback (e.g., “That’s right! The Earth’s magnetic S-pole is close
to Earth’s geographic North Pole” or “Think about it this way:
opposites attract. The N-pole end of one magnet is attracted to
the S-pole end of another magnet.”) from the researcher.
Finally, the researcher evaluated each skill for mastery using
predetermined mastery criteria. Only after a participant demonstrated mastery for all of relevant component and distractor
skills were they advanced to the testing session.

Test Condition
Researchers collected participants’ phones and watches prior
to the test session because some of these devices have thetechnology to identify direction. These were returned to participants after the test session was complete. The testing session started with a researcher stating that the participant had
30 min to use the materials presented on the table to make adevice that accurately and consistently identified geographic
North. The word “compass” was not used by the researcher
reading the script. Testing sessions lasted 30 min, or until theparticipant constructed a functional magnetic compass,whichever came first. The dependent variables measured werewhether the participants were able to create a functional compass and, if a functional compass was constructed, the amountof time from the start of the test session until a functional
compass was constructed.

Analysis
Data Collection
Data were collected by two researchers continuously observing the participants throughout each testing session. A digitalPsychol Rec (2021) 71:553–565

timer displaying the minutes and seconds remaining in thesession was visible to the researchers and participant during
the test session. Once a participant was seated at the table, had
the instructions read to them, and acknowledged that they
were ready for the test session to begin, a researcher thenstarted the digital time and the session began. The timer was
stopped when the participant successfully completed the task,
or when 30 min had elapsed, whichever was first. The researchers independently recorded the time displayed on thedigital timer and recorded whether the participant created a
device that successfully identified geographical North.
To assess whether a participant’s device identified North,
the researcher compared the participant-identified North witha store-bought magnetic compass that identified North. The
participant’s device was considered correct if the direction it
identified as North was within 30 degrees of true North as
identified with a store-bought magnetic compass.

561

By the end of the 30-min test condition, one participant hadconstructed a device by leaning the ruler on the side of thewater dish, tying the needle to the upper end of the ruler using
the tread so that it dangled several inches from the surface ofthe table, and placing the bar magnet on the table a few inches
away from the suspended needle such that the needle wasbeing magnetically pulled towards the bar magnet but was
unable to touch it due to being tied to the ruler. Although thisdevice was visually interesting due to the needle being
suspended at an angle, it did not reliably identify geographic
North.
The other participant in Group 1 did not have any device
constructed by the end of the 30-min test session. This participant had attempted several different combinations of the materials given throughout the session, including using variationsof the sundial approach taught as a distractor skill in training.

Group 2: No Floating the Needle
Interobserver Agreement
Interobserver agreement was calculated both on the session
time recorded and on the scoring of the test session as successful or unsuccessful. Data points independently recordedby each observer were classified as in agreement or disagreement. The number of agreements were divided by the sum ofagreements and disagreements. The resulting quotient wasthen multiplied by 100% to determine the interobserver agreement percentage. In this study, interobserver agreement was100%.
Data Reporting and Analysis
Data on the dependent variables are reported by individual
participant and grouped as follows: the dependent variableof device success is reported as the percentage of participantsin each group that successfully built a magnetic compass.
Session duration is reported as the average time in minutes
and seconds it took participants in each group to successfullybuild a magnetic compass.

Results
Group 1: No Magnetizing the Needle
Participants in Group 1 were trained on the component skillsof floating the needle and understanding Earth’s magnetism
but were not trained on how to magnetize the needle. Neitherof the participants in this group were able to successfully build
a device that reliably pointed North before the end of the 30min test session. Both participants floated the needle on thewater at least once during the test session, but neither had
attempted to properly magnetize the needle beforehand.

Participants in Group 2 were trained on the component skillsof magnetizing the needle and Earth’s magnetism but were nottrained on how to float the needle on the surface tension of thewater. Neither of the participants in Group 2 were able to build
a device that successfully identified geographic North within
the 30-min test condition. Neither participant attempted tofloat the needle on the surface tension of the water during
the test condition. One participant dropped the needle to thebottom of the water dish for a brief moment during the test
condition and noticed that the needle could be moved aroundthe bottom of the dish by holding the magnet to the outside ofthe dish. This only lasted a matter of seconds before the participant removed the needle from the water dish and attempted
to solve the task in other ways. Other than this brief episode,neither participant attempted to build a device that involved
the water. Both participants, at times, used the edges or theoutside of the water dish as a type of structural support in otherunsuccessful attempts to build a device.

Group 3: No Earth’s Magnetism
Participants in Group 3 were trained on the component skills
floating the needle and magnetizing the needle but were nottrained on Earth’s magnetism. Neither of the participants inthis group successfully constructed a device that reliably identified geographic North. Both participants properly magnetized the needle and floated the magnetized needle on thesurface tension of the water. At multiple points throughout
the test session the needles in both devices were allowed tofloat undisturbed long enough to point toward geographic
North, but neither participant gave any indication that they
had solved the task or that they understood that the needle
repeatedly rotated towards and pointed in the same direction.
One participant spent over half of the session moving the bar

562

magnet around the outside edge of the bowl, which caused thefloating needle to move quickly across the surface tension of
the water following the movement of the bar magnet. The
other participant engaged in similar behavior for less than aminute and spent the majority of the session attempting toconstruct devices that did not include the needle floating on
the surface tension of the water.

Group 4: All
The two participants in Group 4 were trained on all three of thecomponent skills including floating the needle, magnetizing
the needle, and Earth’s magnetism. One of the two participants in Group 4 successfully built a device that reliably identified North within 3:24. This participant did not immediately
attempt to build a device, rather, the participant appeared tothink for nearly a minute with one hand on their forehead
while visually scanning over the materials. This participant
then moved rapidly—in comparison to the other participantsin the study—by magnetizing the needle and floating the needle on the surface tension of the water. Then the participant
appeared to notice that the needle was drifting towards themagnet, which was laying on the table next to the water dish.
The participant then picked up the magnet and placed it on thetable on the opposite side of the bowl, but a few inches farther
away from the bowl than it had been placed previously. This
caused the needle to drift to the other side of the bowl towards
the bar magnet. Within seconds, the participant picked up thebar magnet and held it several feet away from the bowl. Whenthe magnet was removed, the needle oriented itself in a North/South direction, with the tip of the needle pointing North. The
participant brought the bar magnet back towards the bowl,
which caused the needle to rotate and drift towards the magnet. The participant then quickly moved the bar magnet several feet away from the bowl, which was followed by theneedle rotating and pointing North within seconds. The participant repeated this a few times in rapid succession and thenplaced the bar magnet on the far end of the table, several feetaway from the water dish and needle. Once the needle
returned to pointing North, the participant notified the researchers that the device created reliably pointed North. The
participant was able to correctly identify North as the direction
the tip of the needle was pointing.
The other participant in Group 2 also constructed a similar
device that would have been capable of reliably identifying
North within the first few minutes of the test session but spentnearly the entire remainder of the 30-min session moving thebar magnet around the outside of the water dish causing theneedle to rapidly drift across the surface of the water in the
direction of the magnet. At no point did the participant hold or
put down the bar magnet sufficiently far enough away fromthe water dish and needle so that the needle would not beaffected by the magnetic field of the bar magnet. The

Psychol Rec (2021) 71:553–565

participant also gave no indication during the test session thatthe constructed device was able to reliably identify North.

Discussion
As previously discussed, creative problem solving has often
been attributed to moments of “insight.” Kohler (1925) statedas much in his observation of chimpanzees stacking andclimbing boxes to obtain previously out-of-reach bananas.
Epstein et al. (1984) was able to replicate the moment of“insight” with pigeons pushing and climbing on a box to pecka banana to obtain food. However, Epstein et al. did not attribute the successful pigeons’ problem solving to “insight,” asKohler previously had. Rather, Epstein et al. credited the solution to fluent component skills and environmental conditions that resulted in the interconnection of repertoires. In
the current study, the successful participant demonstrated amoment of “insight” at which the effective solution to the
problem suddenly emerged. Rather than being a function of“insight,” the innovative solution to building a device that
reliably identifies North may likely be explained as the resultof mastery of the three necessary component skills and being
put in an environmental condition that results in the interconnection of those repertoires.
The arrangement of the current study was such that,
if Epstein et al.’s (1984) explanation of creative problem solving was correct, only the two participants inGroup 4 who were taught all three of the necessarycomponent skills would be able to solve the problem,
whereas the six participants in Groups 1–3 would be
unsuccessful. The study found that one of two participants in Group 4 quickly solved the problem, whereas
the other participant nearly solved the problem, and theremaining six participants did not solve the problem atall. These findings are consistent with Epstein et al.’s
explanation of creative problem solving.
The current study contributes to the line of research in threesubstantial ways. First, it provides a proof-of-concept that
Epstein et al.’s (1984) account of creative problem solving
may translate to complex human problem solving in a laboratory setting. Second, it identifies a problem-solving task thatcan be used in future research. The problem-solving task usedin the current study was sufficiently complex, involved a reasonable number of teachable component skills that potential
participants are not likely to already know, produced a usefulproduct that is known to the general public, and the product—
at its original invention—was an example of Big “C”
Creativity. Third, it lays out the framework for a future
between-groups-design experiment that can investigate
Epstein et al.’s theory behind creative problem solving bydetailing the logic behind the number of groups and the component and distractor skills taught to each group.

Psychol Rec (2021) 71:553–565

Limitations
The current study implemented a case study design with fourgroups of two participants each. This method was implemented
to demonstrate proof-of-concept for Epstein et al.’s (1984) explanation of “insight” or creative problem solving. This casestudy methodology does not allow for any causal relationships
to be identified. The small number of participants also precludes
a true correlational analysis to demonstrate a significant relationship between independent and dependent variables.
The concept of building a device that reliably identifies
North was likely not entirely novel to the participants.
Though it was not asked directly, it is assumed that most if
not all of the participants have a general sense of what a compass is and that its function is to point North, or at least help
identify direction. The screening questions the participants
were asked ensured that none had a general understanding of
how a compass works or its magnetic properties. Several participants did use the word “compass” at some point during thetest condition either after the instructions were delivered or at
the end of the test session when they described their device,though the researchers never used the word “compass” during
the study. It is possible that that some of the participants
attempted to use their recollection and understanding of acompass as a model in attempting to build a device that reliably identified North.
Participants were trained on, practiced, and demonstrated
the component and distractor skills during one training session
and were then required to demonstrate the skill correctly immediately before the test condition during a second session.
For most skills—in particular floating the needle, threading
the needle, and magnetizing the needle—this amount of training in the study seemed sufficient. For the more complex skills
regarding Earth’s magnetism and how a sundial works, additional training and practice may be beneficial. This is likely
because these more complex skills represent concept learning(unlike the motor activities represented by the other skills) thatwould have benefited from extensive teaching and testing
using multiple examples and nonexamples (Tiemann &Markle, 1990). Three of the eight participants required additional refresher training on Earth’s magnetism during the second session immediately before the test. Two participants required refresher training on how a sundial works. No morethan one participant required refresher training on any of theother skills.

563

groups. The current study identified a viable research structureand experimental task but did not use a sufficient number ofparticipants to conduct significance testing to identify if there
were any significant differences between the groups. In addition, future studies may benefit from adding two sessions forparticipants who were trained on all but one of the component
skills and did not successfully complete the task during the 30min test condition. The first additional session would involve
training the missing component skill that the participant was
not originally taught during the first training session. The second additional session would be another test session with thesame task and instructions as the first test condition. This
would allow for a type of multiple baseline design which
could provide an added level of within-subjects analysis inaddition to the between-groups analysis.
Epstein et al. (1984) emphasized the importance of amoment-by-moment account of the problem-solving process
to provide a behavioral explanation for the phenomenon of
insight. The current study provided anecdotal descriptions of
the general problem-solving process but did not provide a true
moment-by-moment account. Future studies could video record the test sessions in order to capture a moment-bymoment account. This would provide three benefits to theresearch. First, a more descriptive and accurate moment-bymoment account can be provided by analyzing and comparing
the video of recorded test sessions without the practical limitations of real-time observation. Second, the moment of “insight” in problem-solving process can be captured and analyzed. This would allow for more precise identification of theconditions and processes resulting in “insight.” Also, the recording of these moments of “insight” that are recognizable tolay observers and the general public could provide strongsocial validity to the results of the study. This would be in linewith Epstein et al.’s (1984) study in which the problem solving of performance of pigeons was recorded and made a casefor the face validity of the research. Third, video recording
would allow for additional methodological integrity during
the test sessions and provide greater scheduling flexibility as
only one researcher would need to be present during the test
condition while a second researcher could record interobserver agreement data from the video recordings at a later time.
Fourth, a protocol analysis with a talk-aloud component could
be used in addition to video recording to capture informationfrom the participants’ perspective as they solve the problem inreal time (Austin & Delaney, 1998). This may lead to a morethorough and accurate moment-by-moment account of the
problem-solving process.

Recommendations for Future Research
In order to address the limitations identified above, futurestudies using this task should use a true between-groups experimental design in order to determine if there are significant
differences between the performances of each of the four

Conclusion
The ultimate goal of a behavior analysis of “creativity” is tounderstand the processes and relationships between

564

environment and behavior that produce creativity to bringabout the possibility of creating creativity by arranging
environmental variables. Epstein et al. (1984) established aframework for the research to achieve this goal with complex
problem solving in pigeons. Until now there have been nostudies that have developed a similarly complex, socially significant, Big “C” creative problem-solving task to be used inresearch with adult human subjects. This study also suggests
the initial translatability of Epstein et al.’s analysis and explanation of the underlying behavioral processes from animal
research to adult human subjects. In conclusion, a comprehensive analysis of creativity could lead to the ability of creating
creativity, which would certainly be a pretty creative creation
created by the field of behavior analysis.

Funding This study was not funded.
Data Availability Data supporting the findings and information regarding
materials used are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Declarations
Conflict of Interest The authors declare that they have no conflicts ofinterest.
Ethical Approval All procedures performed in studies involving humanparticipants were inaccordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee andwith the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed Consent Informed consent was obtained from all individual
participants included in the study.

References
Amabile, T. M., Hennessey, B. A., & Grossman, B. S. (1986). Social
influences on creativity: The effects of contracted-for reward.
Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 50(1), 14–23. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.50.1.14.
Andronis, P. T., Layng, T. V. J., & Goldiamond, I. (1997). Contingency
adduction of “symbolic aggression” by pigeons. Analysis of Verbal
Behavior, 14(1), 5–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03392913.
Austin, J., & Delaney, P. F. (1998). Protocol analysis as a tool for behavior analysis. Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 15(1), 41–56. https://doi.
org/10.1007/BF03392922.
Chance, P. (1999). Where does behavior come from? A review of
Epstein’s cognition, creativity, and behavior. The Behavior
Analyst, 22(2), 161–163.
Cleland, B. S., Foster, T. M., & Temple, W. (2000). Resurgence: The roleof extinction. Behavioural Processes, 52(2–3), 117–129. https://doi.
org/10.1016/s0376-6357(00)00131-5.
Cooper, J. O., Heron, T. E., & Heward, W. L. (2007). Applied behavior
analysis (2nd ed.). Pearson Education.

Psychol Rec (2021) 71:553–565
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of
discovery and invention. Harper/Collins.
Eisenberger, R., & Armeli, S. (1997). Can salient reward increase creative
performance without reducing intrinsic creative interest? Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 72(3), 652–663. https://doi.org/
10.1037/0022-3514.72.3.652.
Epstein, R. (1980). Defining creativity. The Behavior Analyst, 3(2), 65.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03391845.
Epstein, R. (1981). On pigeons and people: A preliminary look at the
Columban simulation project. The Behavior Analyst, 4(1), 43–55.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03391851.
Epstein, R. (1997). Skinner as self-manager. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis, 60(3), 545–568. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1997.30545.
Epstein, R., Kirshnit, C., Lanza, R., & Rubin, L. C. (1984). “Insight” inthe pigeon: Antecedents and determinants of an intelligent performance. Nature, 308(March), 61–62. https://doi.org/10.1038/
308061a0.
Glenn, S. S. (2004). Individual behavior, culture, and social change. The
Behavior Analyst, 27(2), 133–151. https://doi.org/10.1007/
BF03393175.
Goetz, E. M., & Baer, D. M. (1973). Social control of form diversity andthe emergence of new forms in children’s blockbuilding. Journal ofApplied Behavior Analysis, 6(2), 209–217. https://doi.org/10.1901/
jaba.1973.6-209.
Hennessey, B. A., & Amabile, T. M. (2010). Creativity. Annual Review of
Psychology, 61(1), 569–598. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.
psych.093008.100416.
Hennessey, B. A., Amabile, T. M., & Martinage, M. (1989). Immunizingchildren against the negative effects of reward. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 14(2), 212–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/
0361-476X(89)90011-8.
Johnson, K. R., & Layng, T. V. J. (1992). Breaking the structuralist
barrier: Literacy and numeracy with fluency. American
Psychologist, 47(11), 1475–1490. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003066X.47.11.1475.
Johnson, K., & Street, E. M. (2020). Generative responding throughcontingency adduction. In M. Fryling, R-A. Rehfeldt, J. Tarbox, &L. Hayes (Eds.), Applied behavior analysis of language andcognition. (pp. 131–156). New Harbinger.
Kohler, W. (1925). The mentality of apes. Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Kubina, R. M., Morrison, R. S., & Lee, D. L. (2006). Behavior analytic
contributions to the study of creativity. Journal of Creative
Behavior, 40(4), 223–242. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.
2006.tb01275.x.
Kuhn, K. F. (1996). Basic physics: A self-teaching guide. John Wiley &Sons.
Lee, R., & Sturmey, P. (2006). The effects of lag schedules and preferredmaterials on variable responding in students with autism. Journal ofAutism & Developmental Disorders, 36(3), 421–428. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10803-006-0080-7.
Marr, M. J. (2003). The stitching and the unstitching: What can behavior
analysis have to say about creativity? The Behavior Analyst, 26(1),
15–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03392065.
Neuringer, A. (1986). Can people behave “randomly?” The role of feedback. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 115(1), 62–75. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.115.1.62.
Neuringer, A. (2004). Reinforced variability in animals and people:
Implications for adaptive action. The American Psychologist,
59(9), 891–906. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.59.9.891.
Pryor, K. W., Haag, R., & O’Reilly, J. (1969). The creative porpoise:
Training for novel behavior. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of
Behavior, 12(4), 653–661. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1969.12653.

Psychol Rec (2021) 71:553–565
Ripple, R. E. (1989). Ordinary creativity. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 14(3), 189–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/0361476x(89)90009-x.
Runco, M. (1993). Operant theories of insight, originality, and creativity.
American Behavioral Scientist, 37(1), 54–67. https://doi.org/10.
1177/0002764293037001006.
Shahan, T. A, & Chase, P. N. (2002). Novelty, stimulus control, andoperant variability. The Behavior Analyst, 25(2), 175–190. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03392056
Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior. Macmillan.
Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal behavior. Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Skinner, B. F. (1981). Selection by consequences. Science, 213(4507),
501–504. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.7244649.
Skinner, B. F. (1990). Can psychology be a science of mind? American
Psychologist, 45(11), 1206–1210. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003066X.45.11.1206.

565
Stein, M. I. (1953). Creativity and culture. Journal of Psychology, 36(2),311–322. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.1953.9712897.
Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1996). Investing in creativity. American
Psychologist, 51(7), 677–688. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.
51.7.677.
Tiemann, P. W., & Markle, S. M. (1990). Analyzing instructional content: A guide to instruction and evaluation. Stipes.
Winston, A. S., & Baker, J. E. (1985). Behavior analytic studies of creativity: A critical review. The Behavior Analyst, 8(2), 191–205.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03393151.
Wolf, G. (1996). Steve Jobs: The next insanely great thing. Wired
Magazine, 4(2), 102–107 158–163.
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.