Observing responses and informative stimuli.
Stimuli that predict rewards become rewards themselves and can keep clients looking and listening.
01Research in Context
What this study did
N and colleagues worked with pigeons in a small chamber. The birds could peck a key to see colored lights.
Some colors always came before food. Other colors always came before no food. The team counted how often the birds peeked at each color.
What they found
The pigeons pecked most when the color told them food was coming. The color itself became a tiny reward.
Even the color that meant 'no food' kept some pecks going. Information alone was enough to keep the birds watching.
How this fits with other research
Jenkins et al. (1973) ran almost the same setup and got the same result. Both labs show that food-linked stimuli act like candy for the eyes.
Jason et al. (1985) moved the test to college students. They found people only watched 'no-reward' cues if those cues helped them work faster. The 1971 rule still holds, but only when the information saves effort.
Thomson (1974) seems to disagree at first. His pigeons peeked most when the chance of food was 50-50, not 100%. The two studies differ in procedure: C varied uncertainty while N held it at zero or one hundred percent. Both agree that information drives looking.
Why it matters
You can turn neutral cues into mini-reinforcers just by pairing them with good news. Use a green card to signal 'break soon' or a chime to mean 'token coming.' The signal itself will keep clients attending while they wait. Keep the link clean: one cue, one outcome. If the cue stops predicting value, the magic dies.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Pick one neutral stimulus—like a colored index card—and pair it every time a preferred item follows; then use that card to hold attention during wait times.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Pigeons were trained on a trial procedure. A trial began with the illumination of a pecking key by a white light. After a fixed interval, a key peck could turn the key to one of two equi-probable colors and produce a delayed trial outcome-an equi-probable occurrence of either reinforcement or nonreinforcement. After a trial, the key turned dark and the trial ended. The response could be made into an observing response by correlating the key colors with the outcomes. Response rates in the fixed interval then increased to a level greater than when the colors and outcomes were uncorrelated. In another phase, the response produced only the colors. The trial outcomes occurred some seconds after the fixed interval without a response being required. Correlating the colors with the outcomes again increased response rates. In a second experiment, a further condition was added in which reinforcement was the outcome on every trial. Response rates were lower than when there were equi-probable reinforcement and nonreinforcement outcomes with correlated colors, and about the same as when there were equi-probable outcomes with uncorrelated colors. The results suggest that stimuli providing information about the probability of reinforcement are themselves reinforcing.
Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 1971 · doi:10.1901/jeab.1971.15-199