ABA Fundamentals

Aversive aspects of a fixed-interval schedule of food reinforcement.

Richards et al. (1972) · Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior 1972
★ The Verdict

Fixed-interval pay can spark aggression right after you deliver the reinforcer.

✓ Read this if BCBAs using FI schedules in classrooms, clinics, or feeding programs.
✗ Skip if Practitioners who run only VR or DRL schedules.

01Research in Context

01

What this study did

The team put six food-deprived pigeons in a box. A key lit up every 60 seconds. The first peck after the light paid food.

They counted how often each bird struck a nearby stuffed toy. Baseline had no schedule. Then they ran 30 daily FI sessions.

02

What they found

Attack jumps the moment food arrives. Birds bit the toy most right after eating. Pauses grow longer across days, and so does the biting.

The schedule itself, not the food, drives the anger. When food stops, aggression fades.

03

How this fits with other research

Duker et al. (1996) later showed bigger food portions make the biting worse. Same FI, same birds, just more grain per payoff.

Dardano (1970) saw the same spike under high fixed-ratio and extinction. Different schedules, same angry birds. Together the papers say: any lean or unpredictable pay can breed aggression.

Arnett (1972) ran FI with a clock cue. The cue stretched the pause and cut key pecks but never tested attack. Their longer quiet time could be the safest window—an idea worth checking.

04

Why it matters

Your client may not bite a toy, but post-reinforcement pauses are risky moments. Watch for SIB, property destruction, or peer hits right after you deliver a token, snack, or praise on an FI schedule. Add brief prompts or differential reinforcement of other behavior during that pause to block the first strike.

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

During the first 5 s after each FI payoff, give a high-probability request or an incompatible task to block early aggression.

02At a glance

Intervention
not applicable
Design
single case other
Sample size
5
Population
other
Finding
positive

03Original abstract

The key pecking of pigeons was reinforced according to a fixed-interval schedule of reinforcement. The pigeons were also given the opportunity to attack a restrained target pigeon. The attack rates during the sessions of fixed-interval reinforcement were higher than during the operant level sessions in four of the five pigeons. Most attack occurred during the post-reinforcement pause in key pecking. It was suggested that a fixed-interval schedule of positive reinforcement possesses aversive properties, the most aversive of which are located during the post-reinforcement pause.

Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 1972 · doi:10.1901/jeab.1972.17-405