Elicited versus emitted behavior: Time to abandon the distinction

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.