Arousal, changeover responses, and preference in concurrent schedules.
A rich neighbor schedule can make an equal schedule look better, even if switching stays the same.
01Research in Context
What this study did
LeBlanc et al. (2003) worked with lab animals on two levers.
Both levers paid off after 40 seconds, but one lever sat next to an 80-second rich schedule.
The team asked: does the rich neighbor make this 40-s lever preferred?
They also doubled the food size on some days to see if bigger pay mattered.
They counted responses, changeovers, and which lever the animal chose most.
What they found
Animals again picked the 40-s lever that was paired with the 80-s rich schedule.
Bigger food made them respond faster, but it did not make them switch levers more often.
So preference can rise even when switching stays flat.
The rich context, not just the food size, steered choice.
How this fits with other research
Winett et al. (1972) used the same two-lever set-up, but they added a scary buzzer before shocks.
Their animals also favored one lever, yet the buzzer cut responding instead of boosting it.
The 2003 study flips the mood: a rich neighbor lifts preference while a shock cue drops it.
Both papers show the lever next door changes behavior, but one adds value and the other adds fear.
Hangen et al. (2023) later tested token value the same way—by pairing items and watching choice.
They also found that paired value can shift behavior even when swap rates stay steady.
Why it matters
When you set up two tasks, the richer task nearby can make the equal task look better.
Check what sits beside your target skill; a high-pay game on the iPad could steal praise from tooth-brushing.
If you want true preference, test in a neutral corner or rotate partners.
Bigger candy may speed responses, yet it may not make kids hop between jobs more—so watch choice, not just switches.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Place the new skill in a quiet corner first, then test it next to a high-pay game to see if preference shifts.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Pigeons were trained on multiple schedules that provided concurrent reinforcement in each of two components. In Experiment 1, one component consisted of a variable-interval (VI) 40-s schedule presented with a VI 20-s schedule, and the other a VI 40-s schedule presented with a VI 80-s schedule. After extended training, probe tests measured preference between the stimuli associated with the two 40-s schedules. Probe tests replicated the results of Belke (1992) that showed preference for the 40-s schedule that had been paired with the 80-s schedule. In a second condition, the overall reinforcer rate provided by the two components was equated by adding a signaled VI schedule to the component with the lower reinforcer rate. Probe results were unchanged. In Experiment 2, pigeons were trained on alternating concurrent VI 30-s VI 60-s schedules. One schedule provided 2-s access to food and the other provided 6-s access. The larger reinforcer magnitude produced higher response rates and was preferred on probe trials. Rate of changeover responding, however, did not differ as a function of reinforcer magnitude. The present results demonstrate that preference on probe trials is not a simple reflection of the pattern of changeover behavior established during training.
Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 2003 · doi:10.1901/jeab.2003.80-261