The stitching and the unstitching: What can behavior analysis have to say about creativity?

Jackson (2003) wrote a theory paper. He asked: can behavior analysis explain creativity without adding new mental stuff?

He stitched together three old ideas: rules that guide behavior, new responses that pop out, and blended response units.

The paper claims we already have the tools. No new brain modules needed.

Creative acts are just old behavioral pieces recombined in fresh ways.

Fox et al. (2017) tested one of those pieces. They showed that once people learn an accurate rule, they stick to it even when the payoff changes. This gives real data to Jackson’s claim that rule-governed persistence can look like creativity.

Conine et al. (2024) sized up the emergent-behavior field. Their map of 99 emergent-intraverbal studies covers the same ground Jackson calls ‘creative leaps.’ The review shows the territory is big and messy, but it is all behavior-analytic.

Goltz et al. (2016) moved the lens from one artist to whole teams. They used the same rule-governed frame to explain ‘mental models’ in companies. The stitch is the same; only the canvas got bigger.

You can teach creativity the same way you teach any other behavior. First, build strong rule-following repertoires. Then arrange conditions for blending and emergence. When a client stalls, check if an old rule is blocking new tries. Loosen the rule, reinforce tiny novel blends, and watch creative responses appear without invoking mystery.