Big Surprises: Jackpot Reinforcers in Research and Practice
Surprise jackpots don’t improve learning—use planned, response-specific large reinforcers instead.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Lattal (2020) read every jackpot study he could find. He wanted to know if surprise, oversized reinforcers help learning.
He looked at lab work with animals and people. He also checked what clinicians wrote about big reinforcers in therapy.
What they found
The review found almost no proof that jackpots help. Most papers showed zero gain over normal reinforcement.
Some data even hinted that sudden big rewards might slow learning. The evidence is too thin to trust.
How this fits with other research
Kuroda et al. (2020) ran five tight animal tests. They also saw no boost from jackpots, matching Lattal’s call for better data.
McCormack et al. (2019) tell a different story. Their meta-analysis shows that planned, predictable large reinforcers do help when they are tied to specific correct responses.
The clash is useful: surprise size (jackpot) fails, but signaled size (differential outcomes) works. The key is whether the learner can predict the bigger reward.
Why it matters
Skip the random “wow” reinforcers. Keep your schedule steady and save the big stuff for clear, rule-based bonuses. If you want extra punch, pair a distinct large reward with a specific target response, just like differential outcomes protocols. Track the data; let the chart tell you if the change helps.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Drop the random “jackpot” praise; save the extra-big sticker for one clearly defined correct response and stay consistent.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Unusually large, infrequent reinforcers, described as jackpots, are the subject of considerable discussion among applied animal behaviorists. Such reinforcers offer considerable promise in applied behavior analysis as a means of both potentiating training of new responses and response classes and enhancing previously learned ones. The concept of jackpot reinforcement, however, is rife with not only a lack of definitional and procedural clarity but also a paucity of research, either basic or applied, on such reinforcement. Considerations in undertaking such research include defining the parameters of jackpot reinforcers, identifying suitable dependent variables, and creating experimental designs appropriate for their assessment. The few experimental analyses of jackpot reinforcer effects on either response acquisition or maintenance have produced little evidence of systematic effects, despite the use of several different methods and behavioral measures. Negative results could reflect either the absence of systematic effects of these jackpot reinforcers or unsuitable methods of analysis. Only further research will take the topic of jackpot reinforcers beyond opinion and testimonial and into the realm of the science of behavior.
Behavior Analysis in Practice, 2020 · doi:10.1007/s40617-020-00423-0