When my cat Lassie was young, she had springs for legs. I’ve never seen a cat jump as quickly or with as much agility as she would, especially when it came to accessing canned cat food as we opened it on the counter. We took video of her doing this once because it became so ridiculous that it looked like there were three cats involved instead of one! Every time she was moved to the floor, she was back up within seconds, and not always from the same direction. In the video we have of her, she is back up on the counter eight times in 45 seconds, and that’s with the time it took to remove her, spoon cat food from the can, and nudge her away several times. While this was pretty entertaining, it also quickly became a frustrating behavior. We could not get the food onto the plate, and she was one of three cats in the household, so the other two needed to eat, too!
The first step was to identify what the problem was for us and why we had failed so completely to change it up until this point. The problem behavior was that she kept appearing on the counter, so using the ABC model for behavior analysis, my “B” for “behavior” would be “cat on countertop.” The antecedent, or what always preceded the behavior, was opening the can of cat food. So my “A” for “antecedent” was “opening the cat food can.” And lastly, the consequence. Why was she continuing to act this way? From our perspective, we were making it difficult for her by removing her from the counter over and over again. However, from Lassie’s perspective, this was clearly not a punishment. The behavior was not decreasing in frequency. If anything, it was being reinforced, because her tenacity and speed seemed to be increasing. So what was the maintaining consequence? I believe the “C” for “consequence” for this situation was the quick licks and nibbles she managed to swipe from the can every so often as she jumped up. She was being intermittently reinforced, and this trumped everything we had tried. To put it into the ABC contingency, this is what we were seeing:
| A | → | B | → | C |
| Open the can of cat food | Cat on the countertop | Nibbles/licks of food from the can |
My current prediction? This behavior would increase because she was gaining the tastes of food. It was being positively reinforced.
Alright, so now that we had identified the problem, what were we going to do about it? Well, you can just imagine the suggestions that came from friends and family: spray her with water, swat her off the counter, scare her with a loud noise, shut her out of the room. All of these may have worked, but almost all of them had something in common: they employ what is intended to be an aversive in order to punish (or reduce) the behavior. As someone who has worked with behavior extensively, I knew that that was not the first place I wanted to go. I also knew that while shutting her out of the room would be a good way to manipulate the setting, it was not going to be a good solution long term for our family, as it required a large effort each time, and I suspected she would begin to avoid being picked up around mealtimes knowing that she was going to be closed away. So I went the way that I was most comfortable, both ethically and logistically, and asked the question: If I don’t want her to be on the countertop, what do I want her to do instead?
I had identified the problem behavior and what was maintaining it, and decided that I was most comfortable teaching Lassie an alternate and incompatible behavior to replace it. I decided that the alternate behavior in this situation was for her to be on the floor and then to make the criteria even clearer, I chose a “four feet on the mat” behavior. Since the reinforcer that had worked to develop the current behavior was tastes of the wet food, I selected this as my reinforcer for the new behavior as well. My new ABC looked like this:
| A | → | B | → | C |
| Open the can of cat food | Cat puts four feet on the mat | Nibbles/licks of food from the can, delivered on a fork. |
In addition to this, I decided that if Lassie jumped up on the countertop or left the mat, I would use a food lure to bring her back to the mat. This allowed the procedure to be free of physical manipulation or potential aversives. Ideally, my reinforcement would be well-timed enough to limit the number of times I had to use a lure.
I chose two minutes as my time frame for each session, and during that time I videoed my interactions so I could count the number of reinforcers delivered during each session, and also add up the amount of time Lassie spent on her mat. The data would let me know if the intervention was working, as I would ideally see an increase in the amount of time Lassie spent on her mat, a decrease in the frequency of reinforcement, and a decrease in the number of times she left the mat each session.
First, let’s orient you to the graph. On the vertical y-axis is seconds. Each session was two minutes, so it goes up to 120 seconds. On the horizontal x-axis is the “session number.” We did a total of 23 sessions (two per day). There are two things charted on the graph. The first is the total number of seconds she spent on the mat (the diamonds); this number was cumulative. For example, if she spent 2 seconds on the mat twice and 30 seconds on the mat once, she would get a cumulative duration of 2 + 2 + 30 = 34 seconds (out of the total 120). The second thing that is charted is the average number of seconds she spent on the mat each time she returned to it (the triangles). This means that if during a two minute session she spent 2 seconds on the mat twice and 30 seconds on the mat once, she would get an average of (2 + 2 + 30)/3 = 11 seconds total. Ideally, both of these numbers would rise if the behavior plan was successful.

During the initial session, I did not reinforce for being on the mat at all and Lassie chose to spend no time there. When I introduced the reinforcement, her time on the mat increased with each successive session. The first session, she spent about 40 total seconds on the mat, the second session it was close to 70 seconds, and by the sixth session, she spent nearly the entire 120 seconds there. As you can see with the other data line on the graph, these were not necessarily consecutive seconds. With the initial session, she averaged just under 10 seconds per each “stay” on the mat. However, by the sixth session she spent nearly 40 seconds on the mat each time she was lured back. Things were going really well, so I decided to return to baseline to test whether it was the intervention that was working or something else.
During this return to no reinforcement for sitting on the mat, Lassie’s behavior immediately regressed. While she did spend some time on the mat, as compared to the initial baseline when she spent no time on the mat for six sessions, she did not ever spend more than about 45 seconds there total out of the 120 seconds that were available each session. After five sessions, I returned to our training protocol.
The return to reinforcement for the mat behavior went well, and Lassie showed immediate improvement in her behavior. She again made it nearly the whole 120 seconds on the mat by the third session (though she did have to be lured back twice, hence the 40 seconds of duration for each stay on the mat). This change was maintained 22 days later when I checked in by taking video again.
At this point, I felt like the behavior was under control. As her owner, I didn’t mind giving her a couple reinforcers during the time I was putting the food on the dish in order to keep her on the mat. This was a socially significant shift for me, and one I could live with long term. I will say that now, a couple of years later, the behavior is very solid. Lassie never jumps up on the counter during feeding time, and the reinforcer at this point is being allowed to lick the can. It turns out that from her perspective this is way better than food on a plate. Maybe that was the problem all along?
While data collection can be arduous at times, it makes a very big difference in how we are able to view successes and show them to clients.
Adria Karlsson is an applied behavior analyst and Certified Dog Behavior Consultant. She works primarily with dogs but also with the occasional bonus cat through her company, Dog Willing, in Cambridge, Massachusetts. You can reach her via her website, www.dogwillingma.com, or by email, adria@dogwillingma.com.
SHARE
Mike is an emerging animal behaviorist sitting in Minnesota in the US. He carries an MSc in social science research methods (U. of Kentucky) and brings a passion for understanding how the methods we favor shape the knowledge we privilege. Coming from careers in teaching and non-profit program evaluation, he found companion animal behavior by accident helping anxious feline friends in a unique shelter in Ohio. It is a privilege and a joy to combine these and advance the journal in this exciting time of growth.
Alexandra is a certified dog behavior consultant and holds a PhD in neuroscience. She has spent over a decade in academic research and is author of numerous scientific articles on different aspects of brain development, including olfaction, neurogenesis, and memory formation. Her work as a behavior consultant focuses on creating trusting relationships between humans and their dogs through communication, respect, and science-based knowledge. Alexandra is very dedicated to promoting more science within the dog training world. She supports dog guardians and professionals to build a solid understanding of scientific principles and provides guidance on how to apply these to life with dogs. She runs Canine Mindscape in Alicante, Spain.
I’m an Argentinean-Italian dog trainer and CSAT who spent eight amazing years in Brazil learning and working with dogs. Now based in Europe, I volunteer with the IAABC as a translator and, in my free time, help rehomed dogs settle into their new families. I love bridging languages—and hearts—between people and their dogs.
I’m a translator, editor and journalist, as well as canine educator for children and families, specialized in canine body language. I am part of the IAABC Family since 2019, as Language Director at the IAABC and Translators Team Lead at the IAABC Foundation, at the moment. I volunteer at local shelters and promote bite prevention and animal welfare at schools and events all over my country, Uruguay.
I’m a Chilean veterinarian and certified dog trainer, based in Madrid and working at a veterinary clinic. I’ve been volunteering with the IAABC and the IAABC Foundation for over seven years. In my free time, I help dogs and their guardians strengthen their bond, and I love spending quality time with my own dogs.
Master’s Degree in Natural Sciences, with a strong interest in environmental sustainability and the protection of natural ecosystems. Passionate about writing and science communication, she collaborates with multidisciplinary teams on research projects, such as Equine International, and with non-profit initiatives in the environmental and cultural fields. She is writing for different magazines, including IAABC Foundation. Her major goal is to improve horse’s welfare through behaviour research and empirical practice.
Adrienne Hovey is the copy editor for the IAABC Foundation journal and the owner of
I believe that knowledge from a wide range of disciplines fosters a more empathetic, curious, and engaging world. I am passionate about social, environmental, and minority rights issues (both human and non-human), and this has invariably led me down the road of multi-species anthropology. Perpetually curious about the world we live in, I hope to contribute towards making the world a kinder place for all of us earthlings to live on!
Beckie Wheldon is based in England, UK, and has been supporting the IAABC Foundation Journal team as a volunteer journal content editor since early 2025. She has a BSc (Hons) Animal Behaviour and Welfare, and has recently completed a MSc Clinical Animal Behaviour. With a passion for both practical and theory, Beckie is proud to be a part of the journal submission journey and support the process of applied animal behaviour information and research getting from our writers to the readers. As her full-time career, Beckie is currently part of the UK veterinary charity, PDSA, as a Learning and Development Business Partner for Veterinary, where she supports the professional development of people in their Veterinary Hospitals. Her last position was with the rescue charity, Dogs Trust, as a Canine Behavioural Welfare Manager, where she worked on embedding evidence-based behavioural welfare best practices throughout policy and practices, with both internal and external professional stakeholders, such as the police and military. With a varied background in kennels, caregiver education, and charity dog training classes, Beckie is also an accredited Animal Training Instructor (APDT UK) and an Associate Clinical Animal Behaviourist (APBC).
Erin Jones, PhD, IAABC-ADT, CDBC, CPDT-KA, CANZ-ATI, CANZ-ABC, is the Journal Director of the IAABC Foundation Journal. She holds a PhD in Human–Animal Studies, an MSc in Anthrozoology, a PG Dip in Animal Welfare, and a BSc (Hons) in Anthropology and Psychology. An international presenter, editor, writer and mentor, Erin’s writing bridges research and practice with a focus on the intersection of philosophy, ethics and dog-centered behaviour practice. She is the author of Constructing Canine Consent and co-editor of Topics in Non/Human Coexistence and numerous academic and trade journal publications.