Effects of a signaled delay to reinforcement in the previous and upcoming ratios on between-ratio pausing in fixed-ratio schedules.
A clear cue that reinforcement will be delayed makes learners pause longer before they start the next task.
01Research in Context
What this study did
The team worked with pigeons in a lab. The birds pecked colored keys under fixed-ratio schedules.
Each session had two FR parts. A red light signaled the next part would delay food. A green light meant food came right away.
They timed how long the bird waited before starting each new ratio.
What they found
Birds paused longer when the next ratio had a delay. The pause grew even more when they switched from no-delay to delay.
Knowing a delay was coming made the bird stall before starting work.
How this fits with other research
Young et al. (2017) swapped delay for bigger food. Bigger upcoming food shortened the pause, while upcoming delay lengthened it. Same schedule, opposite result.
Guest et al. (2013) looked brief unsignaled delays in VR schedules. They saw faster responding, not longer pauses. The clash clears up when you spot the difference: VR vs FR, and unsignaled vs signaled.
Dunham (1972) first showed plain delays make FR pauses grow. Aimee et al. added the cue, proving the signal itself drives the pause, not just the wait.
Why it matters
Your client may stall when reinforcement is slow. If you use token boards or points that cash in later, tell the learner up front. A clear signal reduces surprise and keeps the work flow smooth. Try a simple cue like "First work, then wait for iPad" and watch the pause shrink when you later return to immediate rewards.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Add a distinct visual cue before any delay period and measure the time until the client starts the next response.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Domestic hens responded under multiple fixed-ratio fixed-ratio schedules with equal fixed ratios. One component provided immediate reinforcement and the other provided reinforcement after a delay, signaled by the offset of the key light. The components were presented quasirandomly so that all four possible transitions occurred in each session. The delay was varied over 0, 4, 8, 16, and 32 s with fixed-ratio 5 schedules, and over 0, 8 and 32 s with fixed-ratio 1, 15 and 40 schedules. Main effects of fixed-ratio value and delay duration were detected on between-ratio pauses. Pauses were longer when the multiple-schedule stimulus correlated with a delayed-reinforcer component was presented, with the longest pauses occurring at the transition from a component with an immediate reinforcer to one with a delayed reinforcer. Pause durations were shortest during immediate components. Overall, both the presence or absence of a delay in the upcoming component, and the presence or absence of a delay in the preceding component affected pause length, but the upcoming delay had the larger effect. Thus changes in delay had similar effects to past reports of the effects of changes in response force, response requirement, and reinforcer magnitude in multiple fixed-ratio fixed-ratio schedules.
Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 2012 · doi:10.1901/jeab.2012.98-295