Explaining complex behavior: Two perspectives on the concept of generalized operant classes

The concept of generalized, higher-order, or overarching operant classes ha s been invoked by a number of researchers when dealing with complex behavio r. For example, identity matching, generalized imitation, and relational fr aming all rest firmly on this concept. However, if the use of the term gene ralized (or higher-order/overarching) is to carry any explanatory value it needs to be clearly defined. The current article examines two approaches to clarifying this definition. The first approach suggests that generalized o perants may be defined in terms of the different orders of contingencies in volved, relative to nongeneralized operants, but fails to specify the exact nature of these different orders of contingencies. The second approach sug gests that the term generalized should be used in a nontechnical way to emp hasize that certain operant classes can only be specified in purely functio nal terms. This nontechnical definition appears to circumvent some of the t horny problems that arise in attempting to define generalized operants in t erms of different orders of contingencies. However, other issues are raised by the latter, nontechnical definition of the generalized operant when it is applied to complex human behavior. These issues are examined and are fou nd to be largely unproblematic.