Assessment of a response bias for aggression over functionally equivalent appropriate behavior.

The team set up a test room with two choices. Kids could ask for toys with words or signs, or they could hit to get the same toys.

Both choices paid off on variable-interval schedules. That means reinforcers came after short, changing time gaps, not every response.

The researchers slowly changed how often each choice paid. They watched which behavior won when the schedules were equal, slightly different, or very different.

When the two schedules were equal, hitting still happened more than asking. Even when asking paid a little better, hitting stayed on top.

Only when asking paid several times more often did mands finally outrun aggression. Small lead was not enough; the gap had to be big.

Pickering et al. (1985) saw the same overmatching with pigeons. When one side paid more, birds leaned even harder toward it than the math predicted. Dawson et al. (2000) now show children’s aggression follows the same rule.

Winett et al. (1991) looked at adult humans on concurrent VI-VR schedules. They found people drift toward maximizing, not strict matching, after brief training. The kids in G et al. echo this: they don’t settle for equal, they chase the richer schedule.

Walley et al. (2005) added delay and effort. They showed that longer delay weakens a reinforcer fast. G et al. kept delay zero but varied rate, proving rate alone can keep aggression alive unless the mand side is clearly denser.

If you run FCT and the problem behavior still pops up, check the pay rates. Matching the old reinforcer rate is not enough; you must make the mand pay several times more often. Thin the problem schedule harder or boost the mand schedule until the gap is large and steady. Do that and the words, not the hits, will win.