Criticisms of the satiety hypothesis as an explanation for within-session decreases in responding.

McSweeney et al. (2000) wrote a theory paper. They looked at why response rates fall during a single session.

They argued the old "satiety" idea is weak. Instead they say habituation to the reinforcer causes the drop.

The paper finds no proof that animals stop because they are "full." It says the habituation story fits better.

Without eating data, calling the drop "satiation" is just a guess.

Carmichael et al. (1999) directly contradicts the critique. They showed pigeons with smaller stomachs ate less and quit sooner. Their data link food intake to the decline.

Taras et al. (1993) seems to clash too. A satiation procedure cut self-injury by two-thirds in adults with profound ID. The clash fades when you see the difference: the adults worked for leisure, not food, so true satiation could still apply.

Eugenia Gras et al. (2003) extends the habituation view. Larger or longer non-contingent food drops still slowed responding even after removing eating time. Session length, not just belly fill, shaped behavior.

Before you blame "satiation" for falling response rates, ask: Did I measure intake? If not, call it habituation and adjust the task or the reinforcer instead of assuming the learner is full. Try shorter sessions, smaller bites, or fresher stimuli next time.