Effects of reinforcer magnitude and distribution on preference for work schedules.

The team compared two work schedules. One schedule paid kids after every task. The other paid after several tasks. They kept the total reward the same but changed the size of each mini-pay. They wanted to know when kids would switch their choice.

They used an alternating-treatments design. Kids tried both schedules in the same session. The only thing that changed was how big each piece of the reinforcer was.

Kids first picked the continuous schedule, the one that paid every time. When the size of each mini-pay dropped by 20 %, most still stayed. At a 40 % drop, they flipped. Now the discontinuous schedule looked better.

The break point was clear: cut the magnitude by two-fifths and preference flips.

Landon et al. (2003) showed the same rule with pigeons. Bigger seeds made birds pick one key more often. Leung et al. (2014) moved that rule into a classroom. Same law, new species.

Chou et al. (2010) asked a nearby question: do kids still want to earn their treat on a lean schedule? They stayed until the schedule got very thin. The 2014 paper adds the size angle: even a thick schedule loses fans if each piece shrinks too much.

Miller et al. (2025) swapped leisure time for snacks. Longer game time beat candy. Together these studies say magnitude matters across snacks, play, and work.

You now have a number to watch. If you shrink each payout by 40 %, expect kids to bail on the steady-pay schedule. When you thin reinforcement, guard the size. Keep each piece big enough or kids will jump ship to a schedule that feels richer even if it pays less often.