Effects of random reinforcement sequences.
Brief response bursts after lucky payoffs are normal; they fade fast when the payoff is truly random.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Michael (1974) watched rats press levers. The food came at random times, not because the rat pressed.
The team wanted to see if the rat would still press the lever that had just paid off.
What they found
At first the rats repeated the lucky lever. After more random food the repetition stopped.
The brief superstition faded once the animals learned the food was truly random.
How this fits with other research
Keely et al. (2007) later showed the opposite: rats kept tracking a weak link even when food was delayed. The 1974 random setup removed all links, so extinction came faster.
Keesey et al. (1968) and Davis et al. (1972) had already shown that extra or paired rewards change later response strength. Michael (1974) adds the mirror image: when rewards are truly random, the response briefly spikes then dies.
Together the papers draw a line. A weak signal keeps behavior alive; no signal lets it fade.
Why it matters
Your client may repeat a response that once produced attention or escape even if the payoff is now gone. Check the schedule. If the reinforcer is still slipping through, the behavior will persist. If the payoff is truly random, wait: the repetition should drop on its own.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Probe the last three times the problem behavior produced anything; if the link is weak or gone, hold the line and let the burst extinguish.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Rats were exposed to a random sequence of reinforcement on two levers, such that there was no way to predict from the previous reinforcement which lever would deliver reinforcement next. The rats showed a tendency to repeat the choice that had just produced reinforcement, despite the absence of an overall contingency that differentially reinforced such repetition. However, this tendency decreased with continued exposure to the schedule. Runs of successive reinforcements on a lever increased the probability of pressing that lever, but only slightly, and only in the earlier phases of training. The more quickly a press was made after reinforcement the more likely it was to be on the lever that had delivered that reinforcement. Repetition of choice followed by reinforcement should be viewed as a naturally occurring behavior in the rat, but not necessarily as a behavior that will continue without differential reinforcement of repetition.
Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 1974 · doi:10.1901/jeab.1974.22-301