Pavlovian contingencies and resistance to change in a multiple schedule.
A simple cue before delayed reinforcement keeps behavior strong when times get tough.
01Research in Context
What this study did
The team ran a multiple-schedule lab test.
They compared three delay types: immediate, signaled, and unsignaled.
The goal was to see which setup best shields response strength from disruption.
What they found
Unsignaled delay made the response drop fastest.
Signaled delay held up almost as well as no delay.
The cue, not just the contingency, guarded the behavior.
How this fits with other research
Oliver et al. (2002) later added more proof. They showed richer schedules fight disruption better, even when time stays the same.
WALLETHOMAS et al. (1963) and Wilkie et al. (1981) used shocks instead of delays. They also found that safety signals keep behavior steady, backing the cue-value idea.
Henton (1972) showed shock can either raise or lower rates, depending on the schedule. This supports the view that signaling, not the event itself, drives the change.
Why it matters
Your learners’ cues act like mini contracts. If a reinforcer is coming but no signal marks it, the response is fragile. Add a clear signal—words, lights, or tokens—and the same reinforcer now protects the skill against later setbacks like attention shifts or leaner schedules. When you thin reinforcement, keep the signal; it is the glue that holds the behavior in place.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Add a brief visual or verbal signal right before every delayed reinforcer you deliver today.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
According to theoretical accounts of behavioral momentum, the Pavlovian stimulus—reinforcer contingency determines resistance to change. To assess this prediction, 8 pigeons were exposed to an unsignaled delay‐of‐reinforcement schedule (a tandem variable‐interval fixed‐time schedule), a signaled delay‐of‐reinforcement schedule (a chain variable‐interval fixed‐time schedule), and an immediate, zero‐delay schedule of reinforcement in a three‐component multiple schedule. The unsignaled delay and signaled delay schedules employed equal fixed‐time delays, with the only difference being a stimulus change in the signaled delay schedule. Overall rates of reinforcement were equated for the three schedules. The Pavlovian contingency was identical for the unsignaled and immediate schedules, and response—reinforcer contiguity was degraded for the unsignaled schedule. Results from two disruption procedures (prefeeding subjects prior to experimental sessions and adding a variable‐time schedule to timeout periods separating baseline components) demonstrated that response—reinforcer contiguity does play a role in determining resistance to change. The results from the extinction manipulation were not as clear. Responding in the unsignaled delay component was consistently less resistant to change than was responding in both the immediate and presignaled segments of the signaled delay components, contrary to the view that Pavlovian contingencies determine resistance to change. Probe tests further supported the resistance‐to‐change results, indicating consistency between resistance to change and preference, both of which are putative measures of response strength.
Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 1999 · doi:10.1901/jeab.1999.72-81