Behavior induced by periodic food delivery: The effects of interfood interval.
Fixed-time food creates different interim behaviors: short intervals spark frantic stereotypy, long intervals produce calm pacing.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Reid et al. (1983) watched pigeons during fixed-time food delivery. Food arrived no matter what the birds did.
The team changed only one thing: how many minutes passed between pellets. They recorded every peck, pace, and wing flap.
What they found
Short waits sparked frantic feeder-directed moves. Birds pecked and bobbed at the food cup.
Long waits produced calm pacing in a set path. The same schedule created two clear shapes of extra behavior.
How this fits with other research
Blackman (1970) and Baer (1974) saw rats drink too much water on similar schedules. K et al. show the interval also sculpts movement, not just drinking.
O'Leary et al. (1979) repeated the pattern with humans. People paced under fixed-time tokens just like the pigeons paced under food.
Fernandez et al. (2023) used 1-min fixed-time food to boost activity and cut barking in shelter dogs. The lab finding now helps real animals relax.
Why it matters
If you run non-contingent reinforcement, picture the interim behavior your schedule may breed. One-minute intervals can wake clients up; ten-minute intervals may calm them into steady pacing. Plan the gap to match the mood you want, and watch for new topographies you did not expect.
Get CEUs on This Topic — Free
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ on-demand CEUs including ethics, supervision, and clinical topics like this one. Plus a new live CEU every Wednesday.
Set a 5-min FT snack break and watch what the client does right before delivery—note any new pacing or repetitive movements.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Pigeons were exposed to fixed-time schedules of food presentation ranging from five to 300 seconds. Although consistent, stereotyped response patterns developed during interfood intervals on all schedules, there were distinct differences in the behavior observed on schedules with short, as opposed to long, intervals. During the shorter intervals, responses were performed quite vigorously, a feeder-directed terminal response was observed, and most activities were localized near the feeder. On the longer schedules, no feeder-directed terminal response developed, although the birds were usually near the feeder at the end of intervals. The predominant response involved moving about the chamber, often pacing along one of the walls. Performance during short intervals is accounted for quite well by the antagonistic-motivational state hypothesis suggested by Staddon (1977); however, performance during longer intervals is not. Behavior during interfood intervals may more accurately be classified as reflecting a single (food) motivational state and described simply in terms of Craig's (1918) appetitive behavior.
Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 1983 · doi:10.1901/jeab.1983.39-309