Religion as schedule-induced behavior.
Religious acts can be split into schedule-induced overflow or standard operant behavior.
01Research in Context
What this study did
MacDonall (2009) wrote a theory paper. It asked: can we sort religious acts into two ABA bins?
One bin is schedule-induced. These are the extra movements that pop up when food comes on a fixed timer. The other bin is plain operant. These acts contact normal reinforcement.
What they found
The paper gives a new lens. Kneeling, chanting, or singing might be schedule-induced. Donating money or attending service for social praise looks operant.
No data were collected. The gift is the sorting tool itself.
How this fits with other research
Wetherington (1979) showed that schedule-induced drinking in rats follows Herrnstein’s matching equation. That lab fact is the base MacDonall (2009) uses to say religious overflow can also be lawful.
Domjan (2016) says the old "elicited versus emitted" split is useless. MacDonall (2009) keeps the split but moves it inside religion: some acts are induced, some are emitted for payoff.
Neuringer (2023) argues that voluntary choice is just operant behavior. MacDonall (2009) agrees partly, but adds a second class—nonoperant schedule-induced acts—so the picture is two-tone, not one.
Why it matters
You can use the lens tomorrow. Watch a client during non-contingent snack time. Note any extra hand flaps, rocking, or prayers. Ask: is this induced by the schedule or is it reinforced? If it’s induced, try giving a competing item (a drink, a fidget) right before the usual food timer. If it’s operant, chart what payoff the act contacts. Either way you replace vague talk about "rituals" with testable variables.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →During the next non-contingent reinforcement session, record any extra movements five seconds before delivery and test if a competing item cuts the rate.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
In this article, I argue that a class of religious behaviors exists that is induced, for prepared organisms, by specific stimuli that are experienced according to a response-independent schedule. Like other schedule-induced behaviors, the members of this class serve as minimal units out of which functional behavior may arise. In this way, there exist two classes of religious behavior: nonoperant schedule-induced behaviors and operant behaviors. This dichotomy is consistent with the distinction insisted upon by religious scholars and philosophers between "graceful" and "effortful" religious behaviors. Embracing the distinction allows an explanation of many aspects of religious experience and behavior that have been overlooked or disregarded by other scientific approaches to religion.
The Behavior analyst, 2009 · doi:10.1007/BF03392183