Choice between delayed reinforcers and fixed-ratio schedules requiring forceful responding.
Learners will ditch hard work for calm waiting once the work crosses a hidden threshold.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Researchers let pigeons pick between two keys. One key needed hard pecks and more of them. The other key paid off after a quiet delay.
They slowly raised the number of hard pecks. They watched which key the birds chose.
What they found
As the hard-peck job got bigger, birds flipped to the delay key. The switch was sudden, not gradual.
Simple math lines could not predict the flip. The birds acted as if effort hurt more than waiting.
How this fits with other research
Matthews et al. (1987) also saw pigeons care most about the first ratio they meet. Both studies show early parts of a schedule steer choice.
Najdowski et al. (2003) later showed birds can change daily when delays shift. Their quick shifts match the sudden jump McClannahan et al. (1990) found.
Bailey et al. (1990) ran a similar pigeon test the same year. They changed reward odds, not effort. Both papers prove reinforcer details bend preference fast.
Why it matters
When you build token boards or response chains, watch the effort pile-up. A child may suddenly quit if the next step feels too hard, even if the payoff is close. Break large ratios into smaller chunks or add brief delays instead of heavy work. You’ll keep the learner on board without guessing when the switch will hit.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Split any ratio bigger than 10 responses into two smaller ratios with a quick stretch break between.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
This experiment measured pigeons' choices between delayed reinforcers and fixed-ratio schedules in which a force of approximately 0.48 N was needed to operate the response key. In ratio-delay conditions, subjects chose between a fixed-ratio schedule and an adjusting delay. The delay was increased or decreased several times a session in order to estimate an indifference point--a delay duration at which the two alternatives were chosen about equally often. Each ratio-delay condition was followed by a delay-delay condition in which subjects chose between the adjusting delay and a variable-time schedule, with the components of this schedule selected to match the ratio completion times of the preceding ratio-delay condition. The adjusting delays at the indifference point were longer when the alternative was a fixed-ratio schedule than when it was a matched variable-time schedule, which indicated a preference for the matched variable-time schedules over the fixed-ratio schedules. This preference increased in a nonlinear manner with increasing ratio size. This nonlinearity was inconsistent with a theory that states that indifference points for both time and ratio schedules can be predicted by multiplying the choice response-reinforcer intervals of the two types of schedules by different multiplicative constants. Two other theories, which predict nonlinear increases in preference for the matched variable-time schedules, are discussed.
Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 1990 · doi:10.1901/jeab.1990.53-175