ABA Fundamentals

Increased eating in rats deprived of running.

PREMACK et al. (1963) · Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior 1963
★ The Verdict

Blocking a favorite activity can quickly boost other behaviors, so plan what you want the client to do instead.

✓ Read this if BCBAs writing behavior plans that use response cost or deprivation.
✗ Skip if Clinicians who only teach new skills without ever removing reinforcers.

01Research in Context

01

What this study did

Scientists watched eight rats live in cages with a running wheel and free food. They flipped the wheel on and off every few days. They weighed the food cup each day to see how much the rats ate.

The design was A-B-A-B. That means baseline, no wheel, wheel back, no wheel again. Each phase lasted one week.

02

What they found

When the wheel was locked, the rats ate about a large share more food. When the wheel opened again, they ran more and ate less. The change happened fast, within one day.

Food intake and wheel running moved in opposite directions like a seesaw. No new food rules were added; the shift just happened.

03

How this fits with other research

Hamm et al. (1978) saw the same pattern in college students. When the kids could not play their favorite game, they worked more on a dull math task. The later study added a rule: finish math, then get the game. Even without the rule, the boring job still rose when the fun one was gone. This shows the rat rule works in humans.

Morris et al. (1982) found a twist. Rats that got food every few seconds started drinking more, not eating more. The extra drinking looked like substitution, but the authors said it came from response competition, not from wanting water. The two papers seem to clash on why the new behavior grows, yet both agree that blocking one move pushes another up.

Lejuez et al. (2001) treated wheel running as a reward. Rats could choose two wheels that paid off at different rates. Time on each wheel matched the payoff rate, proving running is a real reinforcer. PREMACK et al. (1963) already showed running is strong enough to cut food intake; the later paper just measured that strength with numbers.

04

Why it matters

If you take away a high-value item, clients may swap in another behavior you did not plan for. A child who loses iPad time might ask for snacks every five minutes. A teen who can't pace the hallway might start nail-biting. Before you remove a favorite toy or activity, ask: what will fill the gap? Offer a desired, safe option early so the substitute works for you, not against you.

Free CEUs

Want CEUs on This Topic?

The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.

Join Free →
→ Action — try this Monday

Before you lock the iPad, set out a puzzle or Lego kit and deliver praise for using it.

02At a glance

Intervention
not applicable
Design
reversal abab
Population
neurotypical
Finding
mixed

03Original abstract

Daily food intake in rats was temporarily reduced by the introduction of an activity wheel and temporarily increased by the subsequent removal of the wheel. When this outcome is coupled with the positive relation between food deprivation and running-and food deprivation is seen as a loss of eating rather than as a physiological state-there is the suggestion that the total behavior output of the organism may be regulated as such. Specifically, when the rat is deprived of a behavior that recurrently comprises a large part of its total daily activity, an increase may occur in some other behavior.

Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 1963 · doi:10.1901/jeab.1963.6-209