Analysis of Behavioral Indicators as a Measure of Satiation.

The team worked with children whose problem behavior was kept going by access to toys or snacks.

They compared two ways to do presession satiation: stopping after one sign the child had enough, or waiting for three signs.

An alternating-treatments design let the same child experience both rules on different days.

Three signs of satiation cut problem behavior more than one sign.

The extra wait time made the session run smoother once it started.

Koegel et al. (2014) saw mixed results when they gave noncontingent toys during meals; some kids ate better, one got worse. Grove et al. (2017) clarifies why: the 2014 study likely stopped satiation too early, before the child was truly done.

Fischer et al. (1968) showed that satiation weakens a reinforcer’s power fastest at first, then more slowly. The 2017 paper turns that lab finding into a field rule: wait for three real-world cues before you call the child "satiated."

Keel et al. (1997) used alternating treatments to test a quick neutralizing routine and also saw big drops in problem behavior. Both studies prove that tiny schedule tweaks, tested head-to-head, can yield clear answers for practitioners.

If you run noncontingent reinforcement or presession access, don’t quit at the first yawn or toy-drop. Watch for three clear indicators—like turning away, putting the item down, or signing “all done”—then start your session. This simple habit gives you a calmer table, less problem behavior, and more teaching time.