Paired baseline performance as a behavioral ideal.

Boucher (1981) wrote a theory paper. He asked: Do animals on ratio schedules drift back to their old baseline rate? Many models say yes. The author said no.

He used math and logic, not birds or people. The paper is short and dense. It targets the idea that organisms always maximize reinforcement.

The author found a hole in the base-point story. On ratio schedules, the response rate does not always slide toward the original level. Reinforcement rate can drop and the animal still keeps the new rate.

This breaks the simple rule "more responses = more food." The animal is not a tiny economist.

Yuwiler et al. (1992) tested college students, not pigeons. Students picked between fixed and progressive ratios. Their choices saved work and matched the optimality model. Humans, at least, moved toward better payoff.

WERTHEIWENZEL et al. (1964) ran pigeons on random-ratio schedules for 40–50 days. No tidy link appeared between reward chance and response rate. The messy data support J’s point: ratio schedules do not guarantee a smooth walk back to baseline.

Iwata et al. (1990) pushed even younger. Toddlers pressed levers more on random-ratio than random-interval parts. Schedule control shows up early, but the study never checked if rates drifted toward any baseline.

When you shape a new skill, do not assume the client will automatically slide back to the old rate once reinforcement thins. Check the actual trend line. If the rate stays flat or drops, the baseline idea may not help you. Use visual analysis, not the old "return-to-baseline" rule, to decide your next step.