Examining the generality of children's preference for contingent reinforcement via extension to different responses, reinforcers, and schedules.
Kids like to earn prizes until the schedule hits about 30 responses, then they want free stuff.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Chou et al. (2010) asked two elementary kids to choose between earning candy or getting it free.
The team first gave candy every time the child pressed a button. Then they thinned the schedule to every 5, 10, 20, and 30 responses.
They repeated the test with different candy and with stickers to see if the result stayed the same.
What they found
Both kids picked the work option on every ratio up to 20 responses. At 30 responses they flipped and took the free candy.
The switch point stayed the same even when the candy or the task changed.
How this fits with other research
Hardesty et al. (2023) seems to disagree. Their kids liked free stuff from the start, yet here kids only wanted free stuff when the work got very lean. The difference is schedule: Hardesty compared one free item every minute, while C et al. compared 30 responses for one item. The leaner schedule makes free items look better.
Leung et al. (2014) extends the story. They showed kids prefer a schedule that alternates easy work with short breaks over pure free time. Together the papers show children like to earn prizes, but only if the cost is not too high.
Smith et al. (1997) adds that when the ratio climbs, even similar prizes stop looking equal. One prize pulls ahead and becomes the favorite. This helps explain why, at 30 responses, free candy suddenly wins.
Why it matters
Thinning reinforcement too fast can kill motivation. Keep the ratio light at first, then stretch it slowly. Watch for the moment the client starts reaching for the free option—that is your cue to hold the ratio or add easier tasks. A lean schedule of 20 responses still keeps most kids working; 30 is the danger zone.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Probe the client’s preference after every ratio jump; retreat one step when they pick free items twice in a row.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Studies that have assessed whether children prefer contingent reinforcement (CR) or noncontingent reinforcement (NCR) have shown that they prefer CR. Preference for CR has, however, been evaluated only under continuous reinforcement (CRF) schedules. The prevalence of intermittent reinforcement (INT) warrants an evaluation of whether preference for CR persists as the schedule of reinforcement is thinned. In the current study, we evaluated 2 children's preference for contingent versus noncontingent delivery of highly preferred edible items for academic task completion under CRF and INT schedules. Children (a) preferred CR to NCR under the CRF schedule, (b) continued to prefer CR as the schedule of reinforcement became intermittent, and (c) exhibited a shift in preference from CR to NCR as the schedule became increasingly thin. These findings extend the generality of and provide one set of limits to the preference for CR. Applied implications, variables controlling preferences, and future research are discussed.
Journal of applied behavior analysis, 2010 · doi:10.1901/jaba.2010.43-397