Editing Operant conditioning (section)

==Questions about the law of effect==
A number of observations seem to show that operant behavior can be established without reinforcement in the sense defined above. Most cited is the phenomenon of [[Shaping (psychology)#Autoshaping|autoshaping]]  (sometimes called "sign tracking"), in which a stimulus is repeatedly followed by reinforcement, and in consequence the animal begins to respond to the stimulus. For example, a response key is lighted and then food is presented. When this is repeated a few times a pigeon subject begins to peck the key even though food comes whether the bird pecks or not. Similarly, rats begin to handle small objects, such as a lever, when food is presented nearby.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Timberlake|first1=W|year=1983|title=Rats' responses to a moving object related to food or water: A behavior-systems analysis|journal=Animal Learning & Behavior|volume=11|issue=3|pages=309–320|doi=10.3758/bf03199781|doi-access=free}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last1=Neuringer|first1=A.J.|year=1969|title=Animals respond for food in the presence of free food|journal=Science|volume=166|issue=3903|pages=399–401|doi=10.1126/science.166.3903.399|pmid=5812041|bibcode=1969Sci...166..399N|s2cid=35969740}}</ref> Strikingly, pigeons and rats persist in this behavior even when pecking the key or pressing the lever leads to less food (omission training).<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Williams|first1=D.R.|last2=Williams|first2=H.|year=1969|title=Auto-maintenance in the pigeon: sustained pecking despite contingent non-reinforcement|journal= Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior|volume=12|issue=4|pages=511–520|doi=10.1901/jeab.1969.12-511|pmid=16811370|pmc=1338642}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last1=Peden|first1=B.F.|last2=Brown|first2=M.P.|last3=Hearst|first3=E.|year=1977|title=Persistent approaches to a signal for food despite food omission for approaching.|journal=Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes|volume=3|issue=4|pages=377–399|doi=10.1037/0097-7403.3.4.377}}</ref> Another apparent operant behavior that appears without reinforcement is [[contrafreeloading]].

These observations and others appear to contradict the [[law of effect]], and they have prompted some researchers to propose new conceptualizations of operant reinforcement  (e.g.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Gardner|first1=R.A.|last2=Gardner|first2=B.T.|year=1988|title=Feedforward vs feedbackward: An ethological alternative to the law of effect|journal=Behavioral and Brain Sciences|volume=11|issue=3|pages=429–447|doi=10.1017/s0140525x00058258|s2cid=143876403 }}</ref><ref>Gardner, R. A. & Gardner B.T. (1998) The structure of learning from sign stimuli to sign language. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last1=Baum|first1=W. M.|year=2012|title=Rethinking reinforcement: Allocation, induction and contingency|journal=Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior|volume=97|issue=1|pages=101–124|doi=10.1901/jeab.2012.97-101|pmid=22287807|pmc=3266735}}</ref>)  A more general view is that autoshaping is an instance of [[classical conditioning]]; the autoshaping procedure has, in fact, become one of the most common ways to measure classical conditioning.  In this view, many behaviors can be influenced by both classical contingencies (stimulus-response) and operant contingencies (response-reinforcement), and the experimenter's task is to work out how these interact.<ref>Locurto, C. M., Terrace, H. S., & Gibbon, J. (1981) Autoshaping and conditioning theory. New York: Academic Press.</ref>