Choice and response contingencies.
Required work rules only guide choice when the learner can feel them during every part of the cycle.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Researchers worked with pigeons in a lab.
They used concurrent-chains schedules.
Birds could pick between two keys.
One key led to food only after a set number of pecks.
The other key gave food with no peck rule during wait time.
The team watched which key the birds chose.
What they found
When the wait time had no peck rule, birds acted indifferent.
They stopped caring about the work rule on the other side.
If the wait time still asked for pecks, birds stayed loyal to the work key.
The birds only followed the work rule when they could feel it.
How this fits with other research
Sanders et al. (1971) showed pigeons match choice to past payoff times.
Their birds still tracked work cues.
Aragona et al. (1975) adds a twist: remove the cue during waits and the rule fades.
Tracey et al. (1974) found birds follow a moment-to-moment rule.
Long gaps add noise and hide the rule.
Both papers agree: what the bird feels right now drives the next peck.
King et al. (1990) later showed signals can flip risk preference.
Together the set says: stimuli tied to contingencies, not just rates, steer choice.
Why it matters
Your client may "ignore" a token board during break time.
This study says the break might be erasing the contingency for them.
Keep the response rule visible or active even in wait periods.
Use signals that tie work cues to reward moments.
Check that your schedule is felt, not just programmed.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Add a brief response requirement or at least a visual cue during break time so the contingency stays obvious.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Two experiments investigated the extent to which response contingencies influence the choice between two schedules of reinforcement by exposing pigeons to a concurrent-chains procedure in which reinforcers in one terminal link were response-independent, and in the other terminal link, response-dependent. In Experiment 1, the pigeons were indifferent between an aperiodic, response-independent schedule and an aperiodic, response-dependent schedule that required a minimum rate of responding. This finding limits the generality of a required-rate contingency as a determinant of choice, which contingency had been previously demonstrated in a context of periodic reinforcement to evoke preference for an alternate schedule. In Experiment 2, the pigeons preferred a periodic, response-independent schedule to a periodic, response-dependent schedule that shared a feature with a required-rate schedule: there was a requirement to respond early in the interreinforcement interval, when responding produced reinforcement only later. The results of the two experiments suggest the following general interpretation: pigeons prefer a second schedule to the extent that the response contingencies of the first schedule must be satisfied during discriminable periods of nonreinforcement.
Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 1975 · doi:10.1901/jeab.1975.23-339