Human choice in "counterintuitive" situations: fixed- versus progressive-ratio schedules.
Adults pick ratio schedules that minimize total responses, but stable choice needs lots of practice.
01Research in Context
What this study did
College students picked between two work plans. One plan asked for the same number of button presses every time. The other plan asked for more presses after each payoff.
The students could switch plans at any moment. The researchers watched which plan they chose and how long they stayed.
What they found
Students picked the plan that needed fewer total presses. Their choices matched the "do less work" rule.
It took many sessions before the choices settled into a steady pattern.
How this fits with other research
Attwood et al. (1988) ran the same test with pigeons first. The birds also chose the lower-work option. The human data now show the same rule works across species.
Iwata et al. (1990) showed toddlers press faster under ratio schedules. The adult study adds that even complex choice between ratios follows the same economic rule.
Bryant et al. (1984) found pigeons care most about the first few responses in a sequence. The 1992 study shows adult humans look at the whole picture, not just the first step.
Why it matters
Your clients may pick tasks that feel easier right now, even if the long-term payoff is smaller. If you offer two work plans, expect them to drift toward the one with fewer total responses. Give extended practice before you judge their "preference" — early choices can flip after more exposure.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Run the same task under both fixed and growing response requirements; let the client switch and track which one they keep after five sessions.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
College undergraduates were given repeated opportunities to choose between a fixed-ratio and a progressive-ratio schedule of reinforcement. Completions of a progressive-ratio schedule produced points (exchangeable for money) and incremented that response requirement by 20 responses with each consecutive choice. In the reset condition, completion of a fixed ratio produced the same number of points and also reset the progressive ratio back to its initial value. In the no-reset condition, the progressive ratio continued to increase by increments of 20 throughout the session with each successive selection of this schedule, irrespective of fixed-ratio choices. Subjects' schedule choices were sensitive to parametric manipulations of the size of the fixed-ratio schedule and were consistent with predictions made on the basis of minimizing the number of responses emitted per point earned, which is a principle of most optimality theories. Also, the present results suggest that if data from human performances are to be compared with results for other species, humans should be exposed to schedules of reinforcement for long periods of time, as is commonly done with nonhuman subjects.
Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 1992 · doi:10.1901/jeab.1992.58-67