The influence of "preparedness" on autoshaping, schedule performance, and choice.
Early response form can speed acquisition, but schedule contingencies soon wash the advantage away.
01Research in Context
What this study did
The team worked with pigeons in a small lab. Birds pecked two keys: one on the wall and one on the floor.
The wall key matched the birds’ natural head-forward strike. The floor key did not.
First the keys lit up to see which key birds pecked without food. Then the birds moved to real schedules where pecks produced food.
What they found
At first, birds pecked the wall key faster. This looked like "preparedness" helping autoshaping.
Once the schedules started, the edge vanished. Response rates, extinction, and final choice showed no steady wall-key boost.
By the end, most birds actually preferred the floor key. Biology lost to schedule control.
How this fits with other research
Belisle et al. (2017) seems to disagree. Their humans kept choosing slot machines with bonus lights even when pay rates were equal. Bonuses stayed powerful; preparedness did not. The gap is in the contingency. Bonuses were tied to every win; preparedness was never tied to extra food.
Pliskoff et al. (1972) used almost the same pigeon set-up. They added a light that signaled food on one key. That signal kept pulling responses. Again, a stimulus linked to food mattered; a mere key location did not.
Sayers et al. (1995) pull the story together. Their review says basic choice data are ready for real-world use. The 1992 study warns us: early biases fade once schedules bite. Check again after contingencies kick in before you trust the first trend.
Why it matters
If you see a client pick a new task fast, do not assume the form will stay strong. Run the full schedule and watch choice shift. Use real reinforcers, not just easy topographies, to build lasting preference. Test again after you change contingencies; the topography edge may disappear just like the wall key did.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →After the first quick success, keep the schedule running and record next-session preference to see if the early edge holds.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Two groups of experimentally naive pigeons were exposed to an autoshaping procedure in which the response key was mounted on the wall (the conventional location) or on the floor of the chamber. In two experiments, subjects readily responded to the wall key, but floor-key subjects required shaping. A subsequent experiment compared performance of wall- and floor-key groups on an ascending series of fixed-ratio schedule values, resistance to extinction, differential reinforcement of other behavior, and reversal of key assignment. Each experiment was followed by several sessions of fixed-ratio training; the performance of the wall- and floor-key groups was almost identical throughout. In the final experiment, a fixed-ratio requirement could be completed on either or both keys. Birds initially chose the key on which they had responded during the preceding (reversal of key assignment) experiment. However, within a few sessions both groups showed almost exclusive preference for the floor key. Preference for a key located on the floor may follow from the fact that pigeons are ground feeders and may thus be more "prepared" to peck the floor than to peck a wall. However, autoshaping, under the conditions prevailing here, occurred much more readily to the wall key, suggesting that pecking a vertical surface is more highly prepared. Difficulties in determining relative preparedness seem moot, however, given the lack of between-group differences in the intervening experiments. It is thus unlikely that schedule performances critically depend upon the specific operant response involved.
Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 1992 · doi:10.1901/jeab.1992.58-399