Choice among two and three alternatives
Preference can flip when you remove brief transition responses, especially with three concurrent options.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Beeby et al. (2017) let pigeons peck three side-by-side keys.
Each key paid food on its own variable-interval schedule.
The team counted every peck, then re-counted after dropping the short "change-over" pecks birds made while hopping between keys.
What they found
When the hops were removed, the "preferred" key often flipped.
The reversal showed up most when three keys were open.
Two-key data stayed steadier, hinting that extra options make choice fragile.
How this fits with other research
Reberg et al. (1979) said switching tracks reinforcement rate.
Beeby’s re-analysis agrees: drop those switches and the picture changes.
Neuringer et al. (1968) showed longer change-over delays cut hopping.
Beeby shows the same hops can hide true preference, so both papers tag switching as a distorting extra.
Beeby et al. (2017) (companion paper) saw richer keys grab the first peck after food.
Together the two 2017 studies say: more alternatives scramble simple matching rules.
Why it matters
If you run concurrent reinforcement programs, count transition behaviors separately.
A client’s "favorite" activity might only look popular because of quick, meaningless switches.
Drop or delay those transitions during probe sessions to see cleaner preference before you make treatment decisions.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Score transitions as their own response class next time you run a choice assessment.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Although choice between two alternatives has been widely researched, fewer studies have examined choice across multiple (more than two) alternatives. Past models of choice behavior predict that the number of alternatives should not affect relative response allocation, but more recent research has found violations of this principle. Five pigeons were presented with three concurrently scheduled alternatives. Relative reinforcement rates across these alternatives were assigned 9:3:1. In some conditions three keys were available; in others, only two keys were available. The number of available alternatives did not affect relative response rates for pairs of alternatives; there were no significant differences in behavior between the two and three key conditions. For two birds in the three-alternative conditions and three birds in the two-alternative conditions, preference was more extreme for the pair of alternatives with the lower overall pairwise reinforcer rate (3:1) than the pair with higher overall reinforcer rate (9:3). However, when responding during the changeover was removed three birds showed the opposite pattern in the three-alternative conditions; preference was more extreme for the pair of alternatives with the higher overall reinforcer rate. These findings differ from past research and do not support established theories of choice behavior.
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 2017 · doi:10.1002/jeab.258