Human Sensitivity To Concurrent Schedules Of Reinforcement: Effects Of Observing Schedule-correlated Stimuli.
People follow the matching law only when they can see which choice is currently paying off.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Adults worked on two computer keys that paid points on variable-interval schedules. The researchers added color cues that lit up only when each schedule was active. They measured how closely the adults' key presses matched the true payoff rates.
The team wanted to know if people need visible signals to follow the matching law.
What they found
Without the color cues, the adults' choices drifted away from the best ratio. With the cues present and watched, their responses almost perfectly matched the reinforcement rates.
The study showed that humans only achieve optimal matching when they can see which schedule is currently paying.
How this fits with other research
Bailey et al. (2008) tightened the screw: when the cues appeared for free instead of being earned by looking, people stopped watching and the good matching fell apart. Together the two papers prove both pieces are needed—cues must be there AND the learner must look at them.
Chandler et al. (1992) moved the same VI idea into a real classroom. Two fourth-graders' on-task behavior followed the matching equation while the teacher gave praise on a VI schedule. The lab finding holds in schools.
Dracobly et al. (2017) added a twist: schedule-correlated stimuli let kids flip quickly between repeating and varying their answers. The cues act like light switches for different response rules.
Reid et al. (2005) showed the end game—after preschoolers learned to ask for attention only when a cue signaled it was available, the team removed the cue and the discrimination stuck. Stimulus control transferred to the reinforcement itself.
Why it matters
If you run concurrent schedules—whether for math problems, play areas, or social bids—build in clear discriminative stimuli and make sure the learner observes them. A colored card, a light, or a distinct sound can be the difference between tidy matching and scattered responding. Start by delivering the cue only when the schedule is active, then require the learner to look or touch the cue before responding. Check Bailey et al. (2008) if you need to fade the effort later.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Add a clear visual cue that is present only when each schedule is active and have the learner look at it before responding.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
The determinants of human sensitivity to concurrent variable‐interval variable‐interval schedules of reinforcement have been difficult to identify, in part because of procedural differences separating published experiments. This experiment investigated vigilance to stimuli correlated with concurrent schedules. Across phases, 3 college students were provided with either no schedule‐correlated stimuli, an observing response that provided brief access to the stimuli, or a contingency that required the subject to identify the stimulus correlated with the source of each obtained reinforcer. Sensitivity, as quantified by the generalized matching equation, was low when no stimuli were available. When the stimuli were response contingent, 1 subject observed them, and her behavior became more sensitive to the distribution of reinforcers across the concurrent schedules. When the procedure required discrimination of the stimulus correlated with each reinforcer, the other 2 subjects also observed the stimuli, and their schedule sensitivity was increased as well. These results implicate procedural differences, rather than inherent behavioral differences, as the source of differences in sensitivity to schedules of reinforcement between humans and nonhumans.
Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 1999 · doi:10.1901/jeab.1999.71-303