Inverse relations between preference and contrast.
Reinforcement can speed responding without building preference, or build preference without speeding response.
01Research in Context
What this study did
The lab looked at pigeons in a two-key setup. One key gave rich grain, the other gave lean grain.
After a few sessions the team flipped the pay-off. They watched how the birds’ peck rate and key preference changed.
What they found
When rich grain moved to the other key, birds pecked faster on that key but did not start liking its color.
When rich grain stayed on the same key, birds slowed their pecking yet began picking that key’s color in a later choice test.
Response rate and color preference moved in opposite directions.
How this fits with other research
Azrin et al. (1969) first showed that CS-US contingencies can split suppression and acceleration. Hall (1992) extends that idea by showing contingencies can also split response rate and stimulus preference.
Juanico et al. (2016) used kids and toys, not birds and keys, yet both labs find that what you reinforce and what you prefer can be uncoupled.
Montague et al. (2025) focus on resurgence, another place where past rich reinforcement later drives behavior. Hall (1992) adds the twist: rich history can boost either pecking or liking, but not both at once.
Why it matters
If you want a client to work faster, arrange a sudden upgrade in payoff for that response. If you want the client to like a tool, picture, or spot in the room, keep the rich payoff there while you thin the response rate. Do not assume more work equals more liking—measure each separately.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Track two data paths: count responses per minute and record which item or area the client approaches during breaks.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Pigeons were trained on a multiple schedule in which two target components with identical reinforcement schedules were followed by either the same-valued schedule or by extinction. Response rate increased in both target components but was higher in the target component followed by extinction, replicating previous findings of positive anticipatory contrast. A similar design was used to study negative contrast, in that the two target components were followed either by the same-valued schedule or by a higher valued schedule. Negative contrast occurred equally, on average, in both target components, thus failing to demonstrate negative contrast that is specifically anticipatory in nature. When the stimuli correlated with the two target components were paired in choice tests, the pattern of preference was in the opposite direction. For the positive contrast procedure, no significant preference between the two target stimuli was evident. But for the negative contrast procedure, preference favored the stimulus followed by the higher valued schedule. The results demonstrate a functional dissociation between positive and negative contrast in relation to stimulus value. More generally, the results demonstrate an inverse relation between response rate and preference and challenge existing accounts of contrast in terms of the concept of relative value.
Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 1992 · doi:10.1901/jeab.1992.58-303