Behavioral functions of stimuli signaling transitions across rich and lean schedules of reinforcement.

Danitz et al. (2014) asked a simple question. Do the lights that tell us "rich reinforcement" or "lean reinforcement" feel different to the learner?

They used pigeons in a chamber. Sometimes pecks paid off a lot. Sometimes they paid off little. A colored light announced each upcoming schedule.

The team tested the same light two ways. In one test the bird could peck a key to turn the light on. In another test the bird could peck to turn the light off.

The lean-signal light was aversive, but only in the escape test. Birds worked to turn it off. They did not work to look at it.

The rich-signal light stayed neutral or slightly good. Birds rarely tried to escape it.

When a rich period came right before a lean period, the lean light felt even worse. The contrast mattered.

Berler et al. (1982) showed that any stimulus before food can juice up responding. Their rats pressed more when a light promised food. B et al. found the opposite: a lean light can punish. Same method, opposite feelings. The difference is whether the signal points to feast or famine.

Selekman (1973) warned that weak stimulus control lets deprivation blow up extinction responding. B et al. go further: even well-trained signals can feel bad if they predict lean times. Together the papers say control the stimuli you use; learners are always reading the weather report.

Hamilton et al. (1978) proved brief stimuli can become mini-reinforcers when paired with food. B et al. flip the coin: stimuli paired with low food can become mini-punishers. One lab’s conditioned reinforcer is another lab’s conditioned aversive, all set by the same schedule history.

Your SD card for break time might be aversive to the client if breaks are thin. Test it both ways: does the learner work to get it or to remove it? If the answer is remove, thicken the schedule or change the cue. Check signals after rich activities; contrast can turn a mild cue into a hot stove.