Elicited versus emitted behavior: Time to abandon the distinction
Elicited behavior is respondent behavior triggered by an antecedent stimulus; emitted behavior is operant behavior controlled by consequences, though this paper argues the split is outdated.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Domjan (2016) looked at the old rule that says operant behavior is 'emitted' and respondent behavior is 'elicited.'
He asked if that rule still helps us. He read past theory papers and showed the labels are circular.
The paper is a short, sharp essay, not an experiment.
What they found
The labels hide the same process: environment-behavior relations.
Dropping the words lets us see how reinforcement really works.
How this fits with other research
Zigman et al. (1997) already said the operant-respondent wall should come down. Domjan (2016) finishes the job.
Baum (2012) reframed reinforcement as allocation and correlation. Domjan uses that view to show the old labels are empty.
Cowie et al. (2016) reviewed choice studies and found stimulus control, not reinforcer strength, drives behavior. This evidence supports dropping the 'elicited' tag.
Why it matters
Stop correcting staff who say 'the noise elicited a tantrum' and then 'the child emitted a request.' Just say 'the noise evoked tantrum behavior' and 'the request was reinforced.' One language keeps data sheets, training, and team talk consistent. Your supervisees will thank you.
Elicited versus emitted: the classic definitions
In traditional terms, elicited behavior is respondent behavior automatically triggered by an antecedent stimulus, as in Pavlovian conditioning. Emitted behavior is operant behavior that the organism produces and that is controlled mainly by its consequences.
The elicited-emitted contrast was built into the original case for operant conditioning, to separate it from classical conditioning. It is a common exam distinction, and it is often confused with the elicit-versus-evoke wording, where evoke refers to how antecedents change the probability of operant behavior.
Why the author says to abandon the distinction
The paper argues the distinction is no longer warranted. First, it rests on an outdated view of Pavlovian conditioning. Second, it does not fit current data or contemporary accounts of operant behavior.
Third, the only way to salvage the terms is to define elicited and emitted by the conditioning process that produced the behavior, which makes the definitions circular. The author concludes the labels are more misleading than useful, even though many textbooks still teach them.
Get CEUs on This Topic — Free
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ on-demand CEUs including ethics, supervision, and clinical topics like this one. Plus a new live CEU every Wednesday.
Replace 'emitted' and 'elicited' with 'evoked' or 'followed by' in your data sheets and supervision notes.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
The concept of emitted behavior was formulated as a part of the original argument for the validity of a new kind of learning called operant conditioning. The rationale for operant conditioning contrasted it with Pavlovian or classical conditioning, which was (and remains) fundamentally based on responses to conditioned and unconditioned stimuli. Classical conditioned responses were said to be elicited. In contrast, operant behavior was viewed as emitted and controlled primarily by response consequences rather than antecedents. I argue that the distinction between emitted and elicited behavior is no longer warranted for three major reasons. First, the distinction was based on a view of Pavlovian conditioning that is no longer viable. Second, the distinction is incompatible with both empirical data and contemporary conceptualizations of operant behavior. Third, the only way to overcome these problems is to define emitted and elicited in terms of the type of conditioning (operant and classical) that produces these behaviors, but that approach makes the definitions circular and does not avoid implications of the terms that are misleading and counterproductive in light of contemporary research and thinking.
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 2016 · doi:10.1002/jeab.197