Abstract
The commentaries prompted my realization that it is more useful to view the core of the aesthetic reaction as composed of a set of Pavlovian respondents than as a quasi-emotional reaction. They also increased my confidence in the generality of my conclusion, based in part on my analysis of hundreds of instances, that aesthetic reactions (as well as many other types of affective reactions) are elicited by the conjunction of (a) synergetic (unusual and transformative) interactions among stimuli, (b) the behavioral history and current state of the reacting individual, and (c) circumstantial features of the prevailing situation, including social and cultural factors. Aesthetic reactions can never be predicted or explained based on stimulus properties only. An important mechanism by which originally neutral stimuli acquire the power to elicit aesthetic reactions is Pavlovian pairing, often early in life, with stimuli that already possessed eliciting functions. The commentaries support my contention that a full understanding of the behavioral and biological aspects of aesthetic reactions requires a phylogenetic analysis of their evolutionary origins. Such an analysis suggests that the development of aesthetic sensibility is an important milestone in human evolution. The reinforcing properties of aesthetic reactions are key to the maintenance of such cognitive competencies as language and the manipulation of concepts, learning and inquiry skills, mentalization skills like visualizing and other types of thinking, various social skills, and cultural cohesion. The domain of aesthetic reinforcers extends beyond the arts to the quality of artifacts like tools, implements, or vehicles, certain types of interpersonal activity, and displays of competency. All of these reinforcer categories have biological utilities that account for the selection, throughout evolution, of individuals who were susceptible to those reinforcers’ effects. Also discussed are implications for therapy and education.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
This approach may seem somewhat teleological, but teleological formulations can also be regarded as heuristics that can help make sense of complex evolutionary processes.
I am using the term “intrinsic” in the sense of unlearned. The term does not apply to the types of activity-produced reinforcers that result entirely from learned associations, such as when activities like reading or being in someone’s company have become reinforcing. It is understood that even intrinsic reinforcers are susceptible to modulation by situational circumstances and learning.
For a discussion of synergetic interactions and synergetic brews, and how elements of the brews produce transformative effects when they interact synergetically, see Sections 1.6–1.10 of the 2017 article. Briefly, synergetic interactions of elements have effects that are transformative and different in kind from the interacting elements (unlike synergistic interactions as when 2+2 = 5). Familiar examples of synergetic interactions are chemical reactions and biological phenomena like photosynthesis or fertilization. Synergetic brews are sets of simultaneously present synergetically interacting elements.
I must thank Killeen for restating the devices succinctly by recasting them, very creatively, in information theory terms and am awed by the meticulous way he related them to specific aesthetic effects. I also thank him for the final sentence of his entertaining commentary.
I am using the term “respondent-laden” to distinguish the classically conditioned respondent components of the reaction from the discriminative ones, which are usually also present.
Barrett explains that it was John Dewey who formulated (and named) the James–Lange theory of emotion. She explains that the theory is actually antithetical to William James’s view, which was constructivist rather than essentialist: James said that emotions have “instances,” not stable well-defined categories. The name “Lange” was that of the contemporary physiologist Carl Lange, whose essentialist view agreed with Dewey’s.
The term “audience” is used throughout to include listeners, viewers, readers, etc., as in the 2017 article.
The term “state” is generally used in a variety of senses and contexts. Nonpermanence or transience is a common one. When a system is said to be in, for example, a state of oscillation, equilibrium, anxiety, decomposition, or euphoria, the implication is that this property is transient. If the term “state” were left out, the implication would be that the property is a permanent and inherent one.
fMRI studies have shown that visualization involves some of the same neural pathways as seeing, and mentalized hearing as listening, but only some. Visualization also involves other pathways that exteroceptive seeing or hearing do not. Likewise, visualization is a type of mentalization that does not necessarily involve images or “internal seeing.” For a more detailed analysis of these issues, see Mechner (2010a, b).
A related tour de force is Eric Kandel’s (2012) analysis of the Viennese figure painting scene of the early 1900s, with particular focus on Klimt and Schiele.
References
Barrett, L. F. (2017). How emotions are made. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
Blood, A. J., & Zatorre, R. J. (2001). Intensely pleasurable responses to music correlate with activity in brain regions implicated in reward and emotion. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 98, 11818–11823.
Coulter, X., Collier, A. C., & Campbell, B. A. (1976). Long-term retention of early Pavlovian fear conditioning in infant rats. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 2(1), 48–56.
Fields, L., & Arntzen, E. (2017). Meaningful stimuli and the enhancement of equivalence class formation. Perspect Behav Sci. (2018) 41:69–93. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40614-017-0134-5
Grewe, O., Nagel, F., Kopiez, R., & Altenmüller, E. (2005). How does music arouse “chills?” Investigating strong emotions, combining psychological, physiological, and psychoacoustical methods. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1060, 446–449.
Hineline, P. N. (2005). The aesthetics of behavioral arrangements. The Behavior Analyst, 28, 15–28.
Hineline, P. N. (2018a). Challenge of the ineffable: Concerning Mechner’s “a behavioral and biological analysis of aesthetics”. The Psychological Record, 68(3), 1–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-018-0309-9
Hineline, P. N. (2018b). Narrative: Why it’s important, and how it works. Perspective on Behavioral Science, 1–31.
Kandel, E. R. (2006). In search of memory: The emergence of a new science of mind. New York, NY: Norton.
Kandel, E. R. (2012). The age of insight. New York, NY: Random House.
Killeen, P. R. (2018). A ludic appreciation of Mechner’s aesthetics. The Psychological Record, 68(3). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-018-0317-9
Kunst-Wilson, W. R., & Zajonc, R. B. (1980). Affective discrimination of stimuli that cannot be recognized. Science, 207, 557–558.
Layng, T. V. J. (2017). Private emotions as contingency descriptors: Emotions, emotional behavior, and their evolution. European Journal of Behavior Analysis, 18(2), 168–179. https://doi.org/10.1080/15021149.2017.1304875.
MacCorquodale, K., & Meehl, P. (1948). On a distinction between hypothetical constructs and intervening variables. Psychological Review, 55, 95–107.
Malott, M. (2018). What influences audience response to figure painting? The Psychological Record, 68(3).
Mechner, F. (2008). Behavioral contingency analysis. Behavioral Processes, 78, 124–144.
Mechner, F. (2008a). An invitation to behavior analysts: Review of In search of memory: The emergence of a new science of mind by Eric R. Kandel. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 90, 235–248.
Mechner, F. (2010a). Chess as a behavioral model for cognitive skill research: Review of Blindfold Chess by Eliot Hearst & John Knott. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 94, 373–386.
Mechner, F. (2010b). Anatomy of deception: A behavioral contingency analysis. Behavioral Processes, 84, 516–520.
Mechner, F. (2011). Why behavior analysis needs a formal symbolic language for codifying behavioral contingencies. European Journal of Behavior Analysis, 12, 93–104.
Mechner, F. (2017). A behavioral and biological analysis of aesthetics: Implications for research and applications. The Psychological Record. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-017-0228-1.
Mechner, F., & Jones, L. D. (2015). Effects of repetition frequency on operant strength and resurgence of non-criterial features of operants. Mexican Journal of Behavior Analysis, 41, 63–83.
Mellon, R. C. (2018). A technology of aesthetic appreciation: Tweaking the reinforcing potency of synergetic events. The Psychological Record, 68(3). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-018-0316-x
Palmer, D. C. (2018). A behavioral interpretation of aesthetics. The Psychological Record, 68(3). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-018-0306-z
Rescorla, R. A. (1988). Pavlovian conditioning: It’s not what you think it is. American Psychologist, 43, 151–160.
Salimpoor, V. N., Benovoy, M., Larcher, K., Dagher, A., & Zatorre, R. J. (2011). Anatomically distinct dopamine release during anticipation and experience of peak emotion to music. Nature Neuroscience, 14, 257–262.
Schlinger, H. (2018). A functional analysis of “aesthetic”: A commentary on Mechner. The Psychological Record, 68(3). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-018-0308-x
Shimp, C. P. (2018). Science shapes the beautiful: Shaping moment-to-moment aesthetic behavior. The Psychological Record.
Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior. New York, NY: Macmillan.
Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal behavior. New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Thompson, T. (2018). Behavioral functions of aesthetics: Science and art, reason and emotion. The Psychological Record, 68(3).
Verhaeghen, P. (2018). Once more, with feeling: The role of familiarity in the aesthetic response. The Psychological Record, 68(3). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-018-0312-1
Zatorre, R. J., & Salimpoor, V. N. (2013). From perception to pleasure: Music and its neural substrates. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 110(Suppl 2), 10430–10437.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Mechner, F. Mechner’s Reply to the Commentaries on His Article, “A Behavioral and Biological Analysis of Aesthetics”. Psychol Rec 68, 385–404 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-018-0310-3
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-018-0310-3