Facilitation of food-reinforced responding by a signal for response-independent food.
A brief cue that predicts free food can momentarily increase the behavior already on deck.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Blough (1971) worked with pigeons that pecked a key for grain.
A light came on before extra grain arrived, no matter what the bird did.
The team watched if the light made the birds peck more during normal work periods.
What they found
The light boosted key pecks.
When the light stopped predicting grain, the extra pecks stopped too.
A simple signal for free food can pump up the behavior you already have.
How this fits with other research
Van Hemel (1973) ran the same setup and got the same lift, so the effect is real.
Cullinan et al. (2001) moved to rats and showed the signal also makes lever pressing harder to extinguish, stretching the idea beyond pigeons.
Laugeson et al. (2014) looked for the same boost in resistance to extinction and found nothing, so the signal helps start behavior but may not protect it later.
Bland et al. (2016) used the logic in DRA and saw that signaling alternative treats made target behavior stickier, warning that our good intentions can backfire.
Why it matters
If you give free reinforcers during breaks, know that any cue you pair with them can spike the client’s ongoing work rate.
Use a neutral cue if you want calm, or withhold cues during downtime to avoid accidental bursts of problem behavior.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Before you hand out free edibles, turn off the tablet that usually signals reinforcement to keep rates steady.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Five pigeons whose key pecking was maintained by 4-sec access to grain on a variable-interval 2-min schedule received Pavlovian differential conditioning trials superimposed upon the instrumental baseline. The conditioned stimuli were changes in the stimulus on the key from white to red, or to a white horizontal line against a dark background. The positive conditioned stimulus was 20 sec long, and was followed immediately by 8-sec access to grain. The negative conditioned stimulus, also 20 sec long, was never paired with response-independent food. All pigeons responded more rapidly in the presence of the positive conditioned stimulus than in the presence of the negative one. The positive conditioned stimulus produced an increase in response rate over the pre-conditioned stimulus period. The negative conditioned stimulus had no marked effect upon response rate. When the roles of the positive and negative stimuli were reversed, and the duration of the response-independent reinforcement was reduced to 4 sec, the new positive conditioned stimulus came to facilitate responding, and the new negative conditioned stimulus no longer produced facilitation. A second discrimination reversal produced similar outcomes. When a third reversal was initiated, and the duration of response-independent reinforcement was reduced to 2 sec, the difference between the effects of the positive and negative stimuli diminished.
Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 1971 · doi:10.1901/jeab.1971.15-49