Choice and foraging: the effects of accessibility on acceptability.

Researchers let pigeons choose between two food keys. One key gave food quickly and often. The other gave food slowly and rarely.

They changed two things. First, they raised the chance the bad key would pay off. Second, they shortened the time birds had to wait for that key. They watched which key the birds picked.

When the poor key became more likely to pay, birds accepted it more. When the poor key simply paid faster, birds accepted it less.

Both results still fit the math models. The birds were not crazy; the type of change mattered.

Grosch et al. (1981) and Lattal (1984) already showed that pigeons love any signal that tells them when food is coming. Bachman et al. (1988) adds that making the wait shorter can backfire if the food stays small.

Cullinan et al. (2001) later mixed signaling with delay length. They found birds still pick the shorter delay, but only if the signal clearly marks the delay. Together these papers say: birds care about both time and information.

Iwata (1993) tested another foraging model and also saw mixed results. Both studies agree: pigeon choices follow the broad rules of foraging theory, but the numbers never match perfectly.

When you set up reinforcement schedules, remember that quicker is not always better. If the reinforcer is weak, cutting the delay can make clients skip it entirely. Check both quality and clarity of the cue. A short wait with no clear signal may lose to a longer wait that is well marked.