Delayed reinforcement and fixed-ratio performance.
Delaying reinforcement, even briefly, slows fixed-ratio responding, though social reinforcers are more delay-tolerant than food.
01Research in Context
What this study did
The team worked with pigeons on fixed-ratio schedules. They waited a few seconds before delivering food after each completed ratio.
Across several small experiments they stretched the delay from 0 up to 6 s. They counted how fast the birds pecked and how long they paused.
What they found
Even a 3-second wait cut response rates and stretched pauses. Longer delays made the drop worse.
Adding a brief light that signaled the upcoming food helped a little, but rates still stayed below immediate reinforcement.
How this fits with other research
Eisenmajer et al. (1998) saw the same 3-second unsignaled delay slash both preference and resistance to change in pigeons, a direct replication of the current finding.
Buriticá et al. (2017) moved from fixed-ratio to fixed-interval schedules and still found that any delay devalued the reinforcer, showing the effect holds across schedule types.
Koegel et al. (1992) appears to contradict the pigeon data: 3-second delayed social praise increased vocalizations in 4- to 6-month-old infants. The difference is reinforcer type—social attention for babies versus food for birds—so delay hurts food reinforcement more than social reinforcement.
Why it matters
For your clients, immediate reinforcement beats delayed every time. If you must wait—say, to gather materials—add a clear signal such as 'Great, snack is coming' and keep the gap under three seconds. When using edible reinforcers, deliver right after the response; social praise can tolerate slightly longer waits.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Deliver edible reinforcers within one second; if you must delay, say the client's name and 'Reinforcer coming' so the delay is signaled.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Effects of delayed reinforcement on fixed-ratio (FR) maintained responding of pigeons were investigated. In Experiments 1-3, the delay of reinforcement was increased across successive sessions until pigeons paused for 300 s. Both signaled and unsignaled delays were studied across different conditions. Overall response rates and run rates (timed from the first to last response of a ratio) decreased and postreinforcement pauses increased as delays increased in each experiment. As delays increased, the likelihood of pausing during a ratio run also increased. When these measures were plotted as a function of obtained delays, signaled delays had less of an effect on the above measures than did unsignaled ones. In Experiment 2, delays had a greater effect on the above measures than did a control condition arranging equivalent interreinforcer intervals to those accompanying the delays. Experiments 3 and 4 examined the generality of the effects obtained in the first two experiments. In Experiment 3, delays imposed on FR or yoked-interval schedules had similar behavioral effects. In Experiment 4, effects similar to those found in Experiments 1-3 for 1, 10, and 20-s delays imposed on FR 50 schedules were found when the FR requirement increased across sessions. Despite the different contingencies relating response rate and reinforcement rates on interval and ratio schedules, delays of reinforcement generally affect performance on these schedules similarly.
Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 2013 · doi:10.1002/jeab.48