Combinations of response-dependent and response-independent schedule-correlated stimulus presentation in an observing procedure.

Bailey et al. (2008) tested how much the learner’s own response matters for making stimuli work.

They set up a multiple schedule with two parts. In one part, pecking a key made colored lights appear. In the other part, the same lights came on even if the bird did nothing.

They also made each part last longer in some tests. They counted how often the birds pecked an extra “observing” key just to see the lights.

When the lights stopped depending on the bird’s peck, the birds watched less. The lights also lost their power to tell the birds which schedule was running.

Making each part last longer made the birds watch even less. The two changes added together.

Schlundt et al. (1999) showed that people pick the better deal only when lights tell them the ratio. Anthony’s lab result explains why: if the lights come free, they stop being good cues.

Hilton et al. (2010) used a multiple schedule with an adult who had intellectual disability. They got strong stimulus control by keeping the lanyard cue tight and response-based. Their success lines up with Anthony’s warning that loose cues weaken control.

Reid et al. (2005) found that preschoolers kept good discrimination even after cues were removed. Anthony’s study shows the opposite side: if the cues were never earned, control never forms.

Your teaching materials are conditioned reinforcers only if the learner’s own action produces them. Make the child tap, point, or say the word before the card, light, or praise appears. If you give the cue for free, it may lose value and the child won’t tell the difference between work time and break time. Keep components short and keep the response requirement in place to keep stimulus control strong.