Discrimination and differentiation of response number in stimulus directed pecking of pigeons.
Animals can use their own response count as a go signal, giving clinicians a simple way to build self-monitoring.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Researchers worked with pigeons in a small lab box.
The birds had to peck a key. They earned food only if the total pecks on that trial were above or below a set number.
The team used lights and chained schedules to signal when the count mattered.
What they found
The pigeons learned to keep track of their own pecks.
They switched their next move when the count crossed the target line.
Accuracy showed the birds used response number as a real cue for reinforcement.
How this fits with other research
Rapport et al. (1982) ran a near-copy study. Instead of counting pecks, they asked pigeons to tell if they had just pecked or paused. Both projects prove animals can use their own recent acts as a signal.
Poling et al. (1977) came first. They showed pigeons could pick the correct key when colors followed rules. Adams (1980) added the twist that the rule was the bird’s own response count, not an outside color.
Coe et al. (1997) looked at frequency: pick the picture that showed up least. Birds succeeded, but accuracy dropped as time passed. Adams (1980) shows the drop can be beat if the count ends right before the choice, keeping memory fresh.
Why it matters
If a pigeon can treat “I pecked five times” as a green light, so can a child. You can shape self-monitoring by setting response-number goals: “Tap the card six times, then ask for help.” Keep the goal small and give praise right after the final tap. The study says you don’t need fancy electronics—just clear counts and quick reinforcement.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Pick one task. Tell the learner, “Do it exactly five times, then raise your hand.” Reinforce immediately when the fifth response occurs.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
In Experiment 1, autoshaping trials terminated with food only if pigeons emitted more than a target number of responses during a trial in one condition and fewer than a target number in another. The median number of responses per trial shifted in accordance wtih the requirements. The responding of yoked-control birds that received response-independent reinforcers did not vary with the response requirements. In Experiment 2, the number of responses in autoshaping trial became the discriminative stimulus for reinforcement in the second component of a chained schedule. In one condition, responding was reinforced only if the number of responses in the first component was above a target value; in the other condition, responding was reinforced only if the number was below the target value. The distribution of the first-component response numbers did not shift systematically between discrimination conditions, but response rates in the second component indicated that the number of responses in the autoshaping trial was a discriminable property behavior.
Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 1980 · doi:10.1901/jeab.1980.33-253