ABA Fundamentals

Stimulus- and response-reinforcer contingencies in autoshaping, operant, classical, and omission training procedures in rats.

Atnip (1977) · Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior 1977
★ The Verdict

Lever pressing learned under any contingency falls equally when food stops, but the physical touch persists, showing topography can outlast the payoff.

✓ Read this if BCBAs who shape new responses or reduce persistent stereotypy in clinic or home settings.
✗ Skip if Practitioners focused only on verbal behavior or academic tasks with no motor component.

01Research in Context

01

What this study did

The team worked with rats in a lab. Each rat got one of five lever-training plans.

Plans were autoshaping, regular operant, classical pairing, omission, or random control. Later every rat faced the same omission phase where lever presses no longer produced food.

02

What they found

All training types quickly produced lever pressing. When food stopped, pressing dropped the same amount in every group.

Surprise: the rats still touched the lever even though it no longer paid off. The movement stuck around even when the payoff was gone.

03

How this fits with other research

Locurto et al. (1976) ran a similar rat study one year earlier. They showed that rats with a past history of omission training later learned new autoshaping more slowly. Atnip (1977) moved that history inside one experiment and still saw equal drops in pressing, proving that the learning history effect acts on new acquisition, not on later extinction within the same cues.

Farrant et al. (1998) later tweaked reinforcement rate and delay. They found that lean, brief delays can actually boost early response rates compared with continuous payoff. W’s equal drop across groups fits this: once the payoff ends, past richness no longer matters.

Keely et al. (2007) showed rats still track which lever earns delayed food even without signals. Their data help explain why W’s rats kept touching the lever; the topography was still under stimulus control even when the food rule changed.

04

Why it matters

For BCBAs the key point is topography versus contingency. A client may keep touching, flapping, or tapping because the physical form was strongly reinforced, even when the payoff is now zero. Before you pick an intervention, probe both the response form and the current payoff. If the form is strong but the payoff is gone, consider response-blocking or differential reinforcement of an alternative that produces the same sensory consequence. This move can break the topography loop without long extinction waits.

FREE CEUs

Get CEUs on This Topic — Free

The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ on-demand CEUs including ethics, supervision, and clinical topics like this one. Plus a new live CEU every Wednesday.

60+ on-demand CEUs (ethics, supervision, general)
New live CEU every Wednesday
Community of 500+ BCBAs
100% free to join
Join The ABA Clubhouse — Free →
→ Action — try this Monday

Test if the problem response still produces any payoff; if not, block or replace the form while reinforcing a safer movement that gives similar sensory feedback.

02At a glance

Intervention
other
Design
other
Population
not specified
Finding
positive

03Original abstract

Separate groups of rats received 500 trials of lever-press training under autoshaping (food delivery followed 10-second lever presentations, or occurred immediately following a response); operant conditioning (responding was necessary for food delivery); and classical conditioning (food followed lever presentations regardless of responding). Each group then received 500 trials on an omission procedure in which food was omitted on trials with a response. Another group received 1000 trials on the omission procedure, and a fifth group, random control, received 1000 uncorrelated presentations of lever and food. The autoshaping, operant, and classical groups reached high response levels by the end of initial training. Acquisition was fastest in the autoshaping group. Responding remained consistently low in the control group. The omission group responded at a level between the control group and the other three groups. During omission training, responding in these three groups declined to the omission-group level. During omission training, the rats continued contacting the lever frequently after lever pressing had declined. Response maintenance under omission training seems not to require topographic similarity between the response and reinforcer-elicited consummatory behaviors.

Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 1977 · doi:10.1901/jeab.1977.28-59