Effects of schedule of reinforcement on over-selectivity.

Reynolds et al. (2011) worked with pigeons in a lab. The birds learned a two-part color test.

Some birds got food after every correct peck. Others got food only after some correct pecks. The team kept or switched these rules to see how choices changed.

When the food rule stayed the same, the birds picked both colors more evenly. Over-selectivity dropped.

When the rule changed mid-training, the birds still zoomed in on just one color. The switch wiped out the benefit.

Siegel et al. (1986) and Hursh et al. (1974) also ran multiple food schedules with pigeons. They asked which schedule birds like, not how steady rules cut over-selectivity. Gemma adds a new angle: keep the rule steady after learning starts.

Pickering et al. (1985) saw pigeons "over-match" when rich and lean parts never changed. Gemma’s data line up: stable schedules sharpen stimulus control instead of letting it drift.

Dawson et al. (2000) showed equal food rates let problem behavior win. Gemma flips the lens: steady rates help birds notice all cues, not just the loudest one.

If a client locks onto one cue and ignores the rest, check your reinforcement plan. Stay on the same schedule—every response earns a token or only some do—until the skill is solid. Switching too soon can bring over-selectivity right back. Pick a plan, stick with it, then thin.