Does contingent reinforcement strengthen operant behavior?
Making a reinforcer contingent speeds responding but does not by itself make the response survive extinction or satiation.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Matthews et al. (1987) worked with pigeons in two small experiments.
Birds pecked a key for food. Sometimes the schedule switched to richer pay only after a peck. Other times the same richer pay arrived with no peck required.
The team then tested how long the birds kept pecking when they were pre-fed or when food stopped completely.
What they found
Contingent transitions made the pigeons peck faster. Yet the same birds quit just as quickly when food was removed or when they were full.
The contingency itself did not make the behavior stronger.
How this fits with other research
Varley et al. (1980) saw earlier that stimulus change in chained schedules raised response rates. Matthews et al. (1987) now show the rise is fragile; it does not survive extinction or satiation.
Davison et al. (2010) later added that response-contingent stimulus onset, not mere pairing, guides choice. Together the three papers shift the spotlight from "contingency versus non-contingency" to "what the stimulus signals about next reinforcers.
Storch et al. (2012) extended the same question to relapse. They found separate-context training can lower persistence. The 1987 lab result and the 2012 extension fit: factors that strengthen responding in the moment do not always deepen resistance to change.
Why it matters
For BCBAs this means a child may work faster for tokens, yet still quit when tokens stop if the stimuli do not predict future pay. Pair your reinforcers with clear, reliable cues and teach the learner what those cues mean. Check persistence by running brief extinction probes, not just rate checks.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →After the learner earns three tokens, briefly withhold the fourth and watch if responding holds; if it drops, add stronger stimulus-reinforcer pairings, not more tokens.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
In Experiment 1, pigeons were trained to peck keys with equal food-reinforcement schedules in components that ended with either noncontingent or contingent transitions to a third component with a five-fold richer schedule. Response rates were higher in the initial component with contingent transitions, but resistance to prefeeding or extinction was not consistently greater. Experiment 2 also included noncontingent or contingent transitions to a signaled period of nonreinforcement. There was no effect of the contingency on transitions to nonreinforcement, but the difference in response rates maintained by contingent versus noncontingent transitions to the richer schedule was replicated. In addition, response rates were higher in components that preceded nonreinforcement than in components that preceded the richer schedule. However, resistance to extinction was greater for noncontingent transitions to the richer schedule than to nonreinforcement, implicating stimulus-reinforcer relations in the determination of resistance to change. Resistance to change was also somewhat greater for noncontingent than for contingent transitions to the richer schedule. The latter result, together with the results of Experiment 1 and related research, suggests that response-contingent reinforcement does not increase resistance to change.
Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 1987 · doi:10.1901/jeab.1987.48-17