The form of the auto-shaped response with food or water reinforcers.
Autoshaped responses copy the way the reinforcer is finally eaten or drunk.
01Research in Context
What this study did
The team worked with pigeons in a lab. They paired a light on a key with food or water.
The birds never had to peck to get the reinforcer. The researchers watched what the birds did.
What they found
The pigeons started to peck the key. The form of the peck matched how they ate or drank.
Food-paired birds gave short, sharp pecks. Water-paired birds gave longer, scooping pecks.
How this fits with other research
Wilkie et al. (1981) extended this idea. They cut the birds' beaks so normal eating was hard. The birds still learned to peck, showing autoshaping can create new forms even when the old form is broken.
Mulvaney et al. (1974) tried the same setup with monkeys. The monkeys touched a key when it was paired with food, but they stopped when the food no longer came. This tells us the effect is not the same in every species.
Neumann (1977) took the idea to people. A floating target in a toilet bowl autoshaped accurate aim in boys with ID. It shows the same simple pairing can shape useful human behavior.
Why it matters
You now know that the form of an autoshaped response copies the final consummatory act. Use this when you pick reinforcers and cues. If you want a gentle touch, pair the cue with a reinforcer that is eaten with a soft motion. If you want a big arm sweep, pair it with a reinforcer that needs a big motion. Match the reinforcer's natural move to the response shape you want to see.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Pick a reinforcer and watch how your client eats it, then pair the cue with that same reinforcer to shape a similar topographic response.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
The relation between the form of auto-shaped responses to the lighting of a key and the consummatory responses of pecking grain and drinking water was examined in pigeons. Responses on the key were analyzed by means of high-speed photography, recordings of the force of contact, and judges' ratings of response-form based on film and videotape recordings. The first experiment showed that food-deprived birds presented grain as a reinforcer responded on the key with a grain-pecking movement, while water-deprived birds presented water as a reinforcer responded with drinking-like movements. The second and third experiments showed that the resemblance between auto-shaped and consummatory responses does not require the dominance of the deprivational state appropriate to the reinforcer. Changing the dominant state of deprivation did not immediately change the form of the key response, and in subjects simultaneously deprived of food and water, the form of response depended on the reinforcer. In the fourth and fifth experiments, subjects simultaneously deprived of food and water received one stimulus signalling food and another signalling water in a random series. In most subjects, the response to each stimulus resembled the consummatory response to the particular reinforcer that was signalled by the stimulus. This result demonstrates the role of association between a stimulus and a reinforcer in producing a resemblance of the auto-shaped response to the consummatory response.
Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 1973 · doi:10.1901/jeab.1973.20-163