Choice and multiple reinforcers.
The first reinforcer’s speed, not the total later pay-off, controls what learners pick.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Moore (1982) worked with pigeons in a lab.
The birds could peck one key to get a multiple schedule or another key to get a mixed schedule.
Both choices gave the same total food, but the timing of the first piece changed.
What they found
The pigeons always picked the key that gave the sooner first bite.
When the first food came at the same time, the birds did not care which key they pecked.
Total food amount never swayed them; only the first reinforcer’s delay mattered.
How this fits with other research
Hursh et al. (1974) had already shown that pigeons like multiple schedules more than mixed ones.
Moore (1982) explains why: the multiple side usually delivered the first food faster.
Siegel et al. (1986) looked deeper and found a twist. When the wait before the first food grew longer, the birds flipped and now liked the mixed schedule.
This sounds like a contradiction, but it is not. Both studies agree that the first reinforcer’s timing drives choice; B et al. simply showed the rule flips if the “soon” side is no longer soon.
Varley et al. (1980) adds that just having a choice, even without richer food, can feel good. Together the papers tell us that local, moment-to-moment events—not big-picture totals—steer preference.
Why it matters
For your clients, the first reinforcer should come fast. Start a session with easy tasks and quick praise or tokens. If you run group instruction, give the first reinforcer to the whole class right away; the “first bite” sets the table for everything that follows.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Put one easy, highly reinforced task first in every block so the first reward hits within 5 seconds.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Pigeons chose between equivalent two-component mixed and multiple terminal-link schedules of reinforcement in the concurrent-chains procedure. The pigeons preferred the multiple schedule over the mixed when the components of the compound schedules were differentiated in terms of density of reinforcement, but the pigeons were indifferent when the components were differentiated in terms of number of reinforcers per cycle. Taken together, these results indicate that a local variable, the interval to the first reinforcer, but not a molar variable, the number of reinforcers, was sufficient to differentiate the components and thereby evoke preference.
Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 1982 · doi:10.1901/jeab.1982.37-115