Further evaluation of reinforcer magnitude effects in noncontingent schedules.

Matson et al. (1999) ran a reversal ABAB test. They asked if bigger reinforcers make noncontingent schedules work better.

Noncontingent schedules give free reinforcers on a fixed clock. The team kept the clock the same but changed the size of each free snack.

Free reinforcers still cut the response rate. That part held up.

But the size of the reinforcer did not matter. Big snack or small snack, the drop in responding looked the same.

Zimmerman (1969) saw that bigger food shortened the pause after each ratio. Jensen et al. (1973) saw bigger food drive contrast later in the session. Both used schedules that required a response.

Matson et al. (1999) used free, response-independent food. The old rule — bigger is better — vanished when the learner did not have to work.

Hatton et al. (1999) ran the same year. They showed richer food during treatment cuts later recovery after extinction. Together the two 1999 papers say magnitude matters after extinction, but not during pure noncontingent delivery.

You can still use noncontingent reinforcement to mute problem behavior, but do not burn budget on giant reinforcers. A small, cheap item works just as well when the schedule is free and time-based. Save the big stuff for contingency-based programs where magnitude still talks.