Effects of problem difficulty and reinforcer quality on time allocated to concurrent arithmetic problems.
A weak prize can cancel the pull of a rich schedule, especially when the task feels easy.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Kids worked on two math problems at once. One gave points every 30 seconds. The other gave points every 120 seconds.
The team made some problems hard and some easy. They also swapped between good prizes (small toys) and weak prizes (a single penny).
They watched where the kids spent their time for 20-minute sessions.
What they found
Hard problems did not pull kids away from the richer 30-second schedule. Difficulty alone did not matter.
Weak prizes did matter. Kids spent less time on the 30-second side when the prize was only a penny.
The drop was biggest on easy problems. When work felt simple and the prize felt cheap, kids walked away faster.
How this fits with other research
Leigland (2000) ran the same kind of two-choice math task and got matching-law curves. The 1996 data line up with those curves, so the basic pattern holds.
Cox et al. (2015) moved from two choices to one sliding scale. They still saw that schedule details drive behavior, extending the same idea to a new setup.
Rojahn et al. (1994) pitted money against cigarettes. They found the two rewards acted like separate pockets. The 1996 study adds that even within one pocket (math points), prize quality can shrink the pocket.
Honig et al. (1988) saw contrast effects when one reward vanished. The 1996 study did not test removal, but both show that reward type changes how time is spent.
Why it matters
Before you bump up the schedule richness, check the prize. A lean schedule with a great toy can beat a rich schedule with a dull penny. Test both prize and schedule in your next reinforcer assessment.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Run a two-choice math task: keep the same VI 30-s vs VI 120-s schedule but swap between a high-preference and low-preference item and watch time allocation shift.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Students with learning difficulties participated in two studies that analyzed the effects of problem difficulty and reinforcer quality upon time allocated to two sets of arithmetic problems reinforced according to a concurrent variable-interval 30-s variable-interval 120-s schedule. In Study 1, high- and low-difficulty arithmetic problems were systematically combined with rich and lean concurrent schedules (nickels used as reinforcers) across conditions using a single-subject design. The pairing of the high-difficulty problems with the richer schedule failed to offset time allocated to that alternative. Study 2 investigated the interactive effects of problem difficulty and reinforcer quality (nickels vs. program money) upon time allocation to arithmetic problems maintained by the concurrent schedules of reinforcement. Unlike problem difficulty, the pairing of the lesser quality reinforcer (program money) with the richer schedule reduced the time allocated to that alternative. The magnitude of this effect was greatest when combined with the low-difficulty problems. These studies have important implications for a matching law analysis of asymmetrical reinforcement variables that influence time allocation.
Journal of applied behavior analysis, 1996 · doi:10.1901/jaba.1996.29-11