ABA Fundamentals

A comparison of the effects of fixed and variable ratio schedules of reinforcement on the behavior of deaf children.

Van Houten et al. (1980) · Journal of applied behavior analysis 1980
★ The Verdict

Switching token delivery from fixed to variable ratio can lift attention and cut disruption in deaf students without spending more tokens.

✓ Read this if BCBAs running token economies in school classrooms.
✗ Skip if Clinicians who only use primary reinforcers or work in non-school settings.

01Research in Context

01

What this study did

Five deaf students earned tokens for paying attention and doing math.

The teacher switched each day between two rules: every 4th response (fixed) or a surprise 3-5 response average (variable).

Same number of tokens were given overall; only the timing changed.

02

What they found

Variable ratio (VR) days gave more eye contact and less yelling.

Kids also finished a few more math problems when the reward felt random.

No extra tokens were needed to get these gains.

03

How this fits with other research

Clarke et al. (1998) saw the opposite: fixed ratio beat variable interval while teens did vocational tasks. The gap is about schedule type—VR vs VI—showing ratio beats interval when the goal is steady work, not less stereotypy.

Wilder et al. (2023) matched the 1980 design but used momentary DRO. Both fixed and variable cuts worked, echoing that schedule flavor can be flexible if the contingency is clear.

de Carvalho et al. (2018) ran FR vs VR with rats and also found steadier effort under VR, giving cross-species backup to the classroom result.

04

Why it matters

If attention or disruption is a problem, try shifting token delivery from fixed to variable ratio first. You keep the same budget, but the learner works harder for the surprise payoff. Check data after a week; if gains mirror the 1980 study, keep the change. If stereotypy pops up during vocational tasks, remember D et al. and switch back to fixed.

Free CEUs

Want CEUs on This Topic?

The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.

Join Free →
→ Action — try this Monday

Flip one student’s token schedule to VR 4 (range 3-5) and track attention and disruption for three days.

02At a glance

Intervention
token economy
Design
alternating treatments
Sample size
5
Population
other
Finding
positive
Magnitude
medium

03Original abstract

The performance of all five students in an adjustment class for deaf children was compared under fixed and variable ratio schedules of reinforcement. During the fixed ratio (FR) condition, students earned checks if they were attentive and did not engage in disruptive behavior. These checks could be exchanged for the opportunity to draw a prize from a grab bag. During the variable ratio (VR) condition, they earned a draw from the grab bag according to a variable ratio schedule with a mean ratio equal to the value of the preceding FR schedule. During the VR condition, students visually attended more and engaged in disruptive behavior less often than during the FR condition. The number of math problems completed per minute was also higher during the VR condition although no specific consequences were applied to math performance.

Journal of applied behavior analysis, 1980 · doi:10.1901/jaba.1980.13-13