Matching, maximizing, and the behavioral unit: concurrent reinforcement of response sequences.
Reinforcement can select whole response chains as single units, so set your pay-offs for the full chain you want.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Kunz et al. (1982) worked with pigeons in a lab.
Two keys sat side by side.
Birds had to peck left then right, or right then left, to get grain.
Each two-peck sequence was treated as one unit.
The team changed how often each sequence paid off.
They watched which chain the birds picked.
What they found
The birds’ choices tracked the pay-off rates.
If left-right paid twice as often, birds used it twice as much.
The two-peck chain acted like one single response.
Longer gaps between trials made the favored sequence happen more.
How this fits with other research
Stubbs et al. (1970) showed single pecks match pay-off rates.
Kunz et al. (1982) proves the same rule works for whole mini-chains.
Oliver et al. (2002) moved the idea to kids.
Severe problem behavior rose and fell with adult attention the same way.
Matson et al. (2004) added free treats.
Target responses dropped, but other behaviors rose to match the new rates.
Together the papers say: matching works from pigeons to people, from one peck to whole routines.
Why it matters
When you write a program, think in chains, not single clicks.
If you reinforce “touch picture then say word,” treat the full chain as the unit.
Check that your pay-off rates for each chain match the goals you want.
This keeps the child’s choice ratios where you need them.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Count how often each response chain earns reinforcement and adjust so the desired chain pays off twice as much as the old one.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Pigeons pecked two keys in a probability matching situation in which four two-peck sequences were intermittently reinforced: left-left, left-right, right-left and right-right. In Phase 1, relative reinforcement rate was varied with respect to the first response of a sequence: reinforcers were differentially assigned for left-left and left-right sequences as opposed to right-left and right-right sequences. The second response of reinforced sequences occurred equally on the left and right keys across conditions. In Phase II, relative reinforcement rate was varied for sequences that involve an alternation as opposed to those that did not. The relative outputs of the different sequences matched the relative reinforcement rates for the different sequences in both phases. Relative response rates for key pecks did not always match relative reinforcement rates. The intertrial interval separating responses was varied in both phases; increases in the intertrial interval affected the relative frequency of different sequences. The results demonstrate that response sequences acted as functional units influencing choice and thus support a structural account of choice. At the same time, the matching of relative sequence proportion and relative reinforcement rate supports a matching account.
Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 1982 · doi:10.1901/jeab.1982.37-97