Chained and tandem scheduling with children.
Start chained token systems with DRL or DRO links, or add a timer, to avoid messy pauses.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Long (1963) tested how children handle chained and tandem schedules.
Kids earned trinkets and pennies for pressing buttons under different rules.
Some schedules mixed DRL or DRO with fixed-ratio links.
Others mixed fixed-interval with fixed-ratio links.
What they found
Chain DRL/DRO FR schedules worked right away.
Kids paused after reward, then ran the ratio fast and cleanly.
Chain FI FR schedules were messy at first.
Adding a big ratio, prior DRL training, or an external clock fixed the mess.
How this fits with other research
Jwaideh (1973) later showed the same pattern in pigeons.
Birds also paused longer in chained than in tandem schedules.
Thomson (1974) gave the matching-law math behind the pause.
Together the three papers show the pause is real across species and can be predicted.
BURNSTEIN et al. (1964) used DRL/DRH with teams and tokens the next year.
Their teams learned slower than R’s individual kids, hinting that group contingencies need extra help.
Why it matters
When you build token boards or work systems, start with DRL or DRO links.
These give clear start-stop cues and cut problem behavior.
If you must use FI links, add a visual timer or first teach DRL.
The chain will run cleanly and you will spend less time fixing errors.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Put a cheap kitchen timer on the desk and run the first link as DRO 10 s before the FR token.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Children 4 to 7 yr in age were reinforced with trinkets and pennies on chained and tandem schedules. The schedules used were chain DRL FR, chain DRO FR, chain FI FR, tand FI FR, and tand DRO FR. Chain DRL FR and chain DRO FR schedules almost always produced strong schedule and stimulus control, but chain FI FR schedules rarely did if additional techniques were not used. Strong control was produced with chain FI FR schedules, however, if: (a) the FR component was increased in size; (b) schedule and stimulus control was first established with chain DRL FR or chain DRO FR schedules before shifting to the chain FI FR; or (c) an external clock was attached to the FI. Tand FI FR schedules never produced regular or repeatable patterns of responding when additional procedures were not used. Rate patterns resembling those of chain FI FR schedules were produced by tand FI FR schedules, however, if: (a) an external clock was attached to the FI component or (b) control was established by means of tand DRO FR schedules before the tand FI FR was used. Stimulus control was found to be exercised by specific visual stimuli, change of stimuli, and schedule order. Control exercised by schedule order was probably mediated by the child's own behavior which had assumed discriminative stimulus properties.
Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 1963 · doi:10.1901/jeab.1963.6-459