Behavioral interactions in multiple variable-interval schedules.
Removing or thinning reinforcement in one schedule component briefly boosts responding in the other, so watch for temporary spikes when you fade rewards.
01Research in Context
What this study did
The team used pigeons on two side-by-side VI schedules.
When one schedule switched to extinction, the other stayed the same.
They watched if response rates in the unchanged schedule moved up or down.
What they found
Taking reinforcement away from one component made responding in the other part jump.
Bringing VI back later pushed response rates back down.
The size of the swing was bigger when the remaining schedule paid off less often.
How this fits with other research
Peterson (1968) saw the same jump with people who had intellectual disability.
Thomas et al. (1974), also in 1974, got the bump by only thinning payoff, not removing it.
de Rose (1986) later showed the effect holds for fixed-interval schedules too.
Together the four papers say: anytime one schedule gets poorer, the other one looks richer and responding rises.
Why it matters
Your client may show contrast when you fade reinforcement in one setting.
Expect a brief burst of higher responding in the still-reinforced setting.
Track both settings so you do not mistake the burst for real skill gain.
Plan extra prompts or wait it out; the spike should settle once the lean schedule feels normal.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Graph both components when you start thinning; note any jump in the unchanged one and hold prompts steady until it drops back.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
In Experiment I, two groups of four pigeons each were exposed to multiple schedules in which one component was always a variable-interval schedule with a mean interreinforcement interval of 30 or 180 seconds. The other component was either an equal variable-interval schedule or extinction. Response rates in the unchanged component always increased when reinforcement was no longer scheduled in the changed component, and decreased in seven of eight cases when the variable-interval schedule was re-introduced. The per cent rate change in the unchanged component was inversely related to the frequency of reinforcement and to the ongoing response rate in the unchanged component. Rate changes in the unchanged component were not consistently correlated with changes in any single feature of the relative-frequency interresponse-time distributions. In Experiment II, the same pigeons were exposed to variable-interval schedules and multiple variable-interval variable-interval schedules with equal mean interreinforcement intervals. Response rates were similar under both conditions.
Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 1974 · doi:10.1901/jeab.1974.22-471