Control by reinforcers across time and space: A review of recent choice research
Stimulus correlations, not the reinforcer itself, may be the main driver of everyday choice.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Cowie et al. (2016) read 30 years of choice experiments. They asked: do we pick a snack because the food itself feels good, or because the room, people, and signals around it have always pointed to that food?
The team pulled together animal and human data. They looked at how timing, place, and signals line up with rewards.
What they found
The review says the real power is not the candy or praise itself. It is the pattern of cues that come before the treat. The brain acts like a correlation detector, not a pleasure meter.
In plain words: stimulus control runs the show. The reinforcer is just the cherry on top.
How this fits with other research
Laugeson et al. (2014) seem to disagree at first. They showed that taking away the alternative cue did not stop resurgence; reinforcer control looked stronger. But the two papers fit once you see the methods. A et al. studied brief relapse after extinction, where the last memory is the food that used to come. Cowie et al. talk about everyday choice across many sessions, where cues stack up.
Kuroda et al. (2018) back Cowie with fresh data. Pigeons worked harder when every extra peck lined up with an extra seed, even if the seed came late. The link, not the speed, kept them going.
Gulley et al. (1997) and Mace et al. (1990) add the early bricks. They showed that raising reinforcer rate can shift which picture or plate gains control. Cowie ties these single studies into one big story: cues and correlations guide behavior more than the goodies alone.
Why it matters
Next time a client keeps choosing the iPad over tasks, check the signals first. Maybe the iPad always appears right after a red card, while work cues are weak or messy. Strengthen the work cues, keep the reinforcer rate steady, and watch the balance shift. You might get the same change with half the candy.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Add one clear, unique cue right before the targeted work task and keep the reward rate the same.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Reinforcers affect behavior. A fundamental assumption has been that reinforcers strengthen the behavior they follow, and that this strengthening may be context-specific (stimulus control). Less frequently discussed, but just as evident, is the observation that reinforcers have discriminative properties that also guide behavior. We review findings from recent research that approaches choice using nontraditional procedures, with a particular focus on how choice is affected by reinforcers, by time since reinforcers, and by recent sequences of reinforcers. We also discuss how conclusions about these results are impacted by the choice of measurement level and display. Clearly, reinforcers as traditionally considered are conditionally phylogenetically important to animals. However, their effects on behavior may be solely discriminative, and contingent reinforcers may not strengthen behavior. Rather, phylogenetically important stimuli constitute a part of a correlated compound stimulus context consisting of stimuli arising from the organism, from behavior, and from physiologically detected environmental stimuli. Thus, the three-term contingency may be seen, along with organismic state, as a correlation of stimuli. We suggest that organisms may be seen as natural stimulus-correlation detectors so that behavioral change affects the overall correlation and directs the organism toward currently appetitive goals and away from potential aversive goals. As a general conclusion, both historical and recent choice research supports the idea that stimulus control, not reinforcer control, may be fundamental.
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 2016 · doi:10.1002/jeab.200