Effects of reinforcement rate and delay on the acquisition of lever pressing by rats.
During first learning, lean immediate schedules can beat CRF for response speed, and added delays erase those gains.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Researchers taught rats to press a lever for food. They compared three schedules: every press paid off (CRF), a press paid roughly every 15 s (RI 15 s), and a leaner RI 30 s. Half the rats got the food right away. Half had to wait 12 s after each press before the pellet arrived.
The team watched how fast each rat learned to press during the very first sessions.
What they found
The rats on the lean-but-steady RI 15 s schedule pressed the most. Rats that got every press rewarded (CRF) actually pressed the least. Adding a 12-s delay washed out most of the differences; all groups pressed at moderate, similar rates.
In short, during brand-new learning, a little bit of scarcity can be more powerful than constant reward.
How this fits with other research
Sutphin et al. (1998) also taught rats to press under delays, but they gave the animals a second “cancellation” lever. That study showed rats can still learn with delays up to 32 s when they can cancel a delayed reward. The current paper shows the same basic effect—delays flatten rate differences—even without the extra lever.
Coe et al. (1997) used the same unsignaled-delay setup a year earlier and found that body weight and prior “magazine training” changed whether rats learned at all. The present study keeps weight constant and instead shows that the schedule itself—how often reward arrives—matters more than sheer delay once the contingency is sensed.
Lowe et al. (1995) and Anonymous (1995) looked at force: harder levers slow rats down. The current paper flips the variable: it keeps the lever easy but changes how often and how soon reward comes. Together the two lines say “response rate drops if the work gets harder OR if reward arrives too often.”
Why it matters
When you shape a new skill, don’t rush to reinforce every response. A thin, steady schedule (think FI 15 s or VR 3) can produce faster early responding than a dense CRF. If you must add a delay—say the learner hands you a token and then waits for praise—keep the delay brief and consistent; long or variable delays level out the very differences you’re trying to create.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Try starting acquisition on a thin RI 15 s schedule instead of CRF; only thicken once responding is steady.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
The acquisition of lever pressing by naive rats, in the absence of shaping, was studied as a function of different rates and unsignaled delays of reinforcement. Groups of 3 rats were each exposed to tandem schedules that differed in either the first or the second component. First-component schedules were either continuous reinforcement or random-interval 15, 30, 60 or 120 s; second-component schedules were fixed-time 0, 1, 3, 6, 12, or 24 s. Rate of responding was low under continuous immediate reinforcement and higher under random-interval 15 s. Random interval 30-s and 60-s schedules produced lower rates that were similar to each other. Random-interval 120 s controlled the lowest rate in the immediate-reinforcement condition. Adding a constant 12-s delay to each of the first-component schedule parameters controlled lower response rates that did not vary systematically with reinforcement rate. The continuous and random-interval 60-s schedules of immediate reinforcement controlled higher global and first-component response rates than did the same schedules combined with longer delays, and first-component rates showed some graded effects of delay duration. In addition, the same schedules controlled higher second-component response rates in combination with a 1-s delay than in combination with longer delays. These results were related to those from previous studies on acquisition with delayed reinforcement as well as to those from similar reinforcement procedures used during steady-state responding.
Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 1998 · doi:10.1901/jeab.1998.69-59