Effects of required rates of responding upon choice.

Fantino (1968) let pigeons choose between two keys. One key paid off only if the bird pecked fast enough. The other key paid the same amount of grain with no speed rule.

The birds could switch keys at any time. Researchers watched which key the birds stayed on most.

Every pigeon picked the key without the speed rule. Even though both keys gave equal food, the birds avoided the one that forced them to peck quickly.

The results show that animals dislike contingencies that add extra work demands.

Arantes et al. (2012) ran a similar choice test but looked at response sequences instead of speed. Their pigeons also picked the freer option, backing up the 1968 finding: less constraint equals more preference.

Schwartz (1982) seems to disagree. That study tried to reward pigeons for varying their pecks, yet the birds still fell into rigid, repetitive patterns. The clash disappears when you see the difference: Fantino (1968) removed a rule, while Schwartz (1982) added a rule demanding novelty—something pigeons do not easily learn.

Zeiler (1977) adds a practical twist. That team paid birds for brief pauses instead of fast pecking. Response rates dropped smoothly, showing you can use reinforcement, not punishment, to slow behavior down.

When you build a program, skip unnecessary response-rate rules. Clients will stay more engaged if the only requirement is the one that really matters for the skill. If you need to lower rate, reinforce brief pauses like Zeiler (1977) instead of punishing fast responding.