Contingencies, logic, and learning.
Even newborns change their sucking rate when you switch from every response to only some responses earning reinforcement.
01Research in Context
What this study did
The author built a math-like model of how reinforcement schedules should change behavior.
He tested three predictions with newborns who sucked on a pacifier for milk.
One prediction worked, one partly worked, and one was left for future tests.
What they found
Babies sucked faster when every suck earned milk (CRF) than when only some earned milk (VR).
The pattern matched the logical model, showing even newborns follow schedule rules.
A third prediction about pausing after reinforcement awaits testing.
How this fits with other research
Embregts (2000) took this logic further by grouping reinforcers into "consequence classes" that act alike.
Flanagan et al. (1958) used similar logic decades earlier to explain stuttering as an operant problem.
Repp et al. (1987) warned pure operant models may be too narrow for medicine, yet this paper shows the core logic still holds in simple systems.
Hamm et al. (1978), Sainsbury (1971), and Dukhayyil et al. (1973) all ran lab tests with older kids and adults that echo the schedule effects seen here in infants.
Why it matters
You can trust that even tiny clients will respond to schedule changes. When you shift from continuous to intermittent reinforcement, expect a drop in response rate. Test this next time you thin a token schedule or fade prompts.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Thin a continuous reinforcement schedule to a VR-3 and watch the response rate drop, just like the babies did.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
A logical analysis of operant learning is presented. In total, the analysis makes a number of predictions that are different from the predictions of any other theory. Individual predictions can be explained by other theories, but the pattern of predictions is unique. Some tests of the predictions of the analysis with human newborns are described. The analysis predicts increased variance in sucking with the introduction of continuous reinforcement. This does occur. The analysis predicts a decreased rate of sucking with a shift from continuous to partial reinforcement. This does occur. The analysis predicts an increased rate of sucking with a shift from continuous reinforcement to continuous plus noncontingent reinforcement. Due to methodological deficiencies, we have been unable to test this prediction. However, it has been confirmed by others. The most exciting prediction of the analysis is a rapid way of producing extinction. That has not been tested with newborns; however, there is confirmatory evidence in the literature.
The Behavior analyst, 1997 · doi:10.1007/BF03392771