Matching to relative reinforcement frequency in multiple schedules with a short component duration.
Behavior keeps matching payoff ratios even when schedules swap every 30 seconds, so brief rotating conditions in therapy will still shape choice.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Researchers ran pigeons in a chamber with two side keys.
Each key paid off on its own variable-interval schedule.
The schedule on each key changed every 30 seconds.
Birds could only peck the key that was currently lit.
The team asked: do short, quickly alternating components still produce matching?
What they found
The birds’ pecks on each key almost perfectly matched the pay rate.
If left key paid 70% of food, about 70% of pecks hit that key.
Matching held even though components lasted just half a minute.
The result shows the law works in fast-changing multiple schedules.
How this fits with other research
Oliver et al. (2002) moved the same rule into homes.
They showed severe problem behavior tracks caregiver attention ratios, just like pigeon pecks track grain.
The lab principle now guides functional analyses you run every day.
Hastings et al. (2001) later asked if bigger reinforcers warp the ratio.
They kept magnitude constant and still saw matching, proving rate, not size, drives the relation.
Together the papers draw a straight line: whether it’s grain, escape, or praise, behavior splits to match the split of payoff.
Why it matters
You now know matching holds even when reinforcement contingencies flip every 30 seconds.
In practice, that means brief, rotating reinforcement periods in classrooms or clinics will still shape behavior in proportion to payoff.
Use this when you design token boards, alternating DRO, or brief FCT sessions.
Keep the relative rate of reinforcement in mind, not just the amount, and the behavior ratio will follow.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Track the exact minute-by-minute rate of attention you give each client during group work, then adjust to the ratio you want to see in their on-task behavior.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Three pigeons performed on two-component multiple variable-interval variable-interval schedules of reinforcement. There were two independent variables: component duration and the relative frequency of reinforcement in a component. The component duration, which was always the same in both components, was varied over experimental conditions from 2 to 180 sec. Over these conditions, the relative frequency of reinforcement in a component was either 0.2 or 0.8 (+/-0.03). As the component duration was shortened, the relative frequency of responding in a component approached a value equal to the relative frequency of reinforcement in that component. When the relative frequency of reinforcement was varied over conditions in which the component duration was fixed at 5 sec, the relative frequency of responding in a component closely approximated the relative frequency of reinforcement in that component. That is, the familiar matching relationship, obtained previously only with concurrent schedules, was obtained in multiple schedules with a short component duration.
Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 1971 · doi:10.1901/jeab.1971.15-205