Pre-assessment exposure to schedule-correlated stimuli affects choice responding for tasks.

Two children first played a short game. Each picture on the screen was linked to its own reward rule. One picture always led to candy, the other never did.

After only six tries they took a break. Later the kids faced the same pictures again, but now they had to pick one and then do a small work task. The researchers counted how often they chose the picture that used to pay off.

Both kids picked the "helpful" picture more after the brief preview. They also started the work faster when that picture was on the screen.

A simple ABAB reversal design showed the effect came and went with the preview, so the quick taste of the rule was the key.

Sainsbury (1971) and Alba et al. (1972) already showed that any cue paired with reward becomes a mini-reward itself. The 2011 study just flips the order: feel the pairing first, then meet the choice.

Peterson et al. (2016) and Hodges et al. (2021) push the same idea into special-populations classrooms. They let kids with autism pick or sample items before work and also see higher compliance. Those papers extend this cue-preview trick to a new group and add magnitude tweaks.

Chou et al. (2010) looks like a contradiction: their kids slid toward free, non-contingent reward when schedules got thin. Here, the kids leaned into the contingent cue. The gap is about timing. C et al. exposed lean schedules during long sessions; E et al. gave only a tiny, error-free peek at the payoff rule, so the cue stayed tasty.

You can front-load a two-minute "preview" of the contingency before the real task. Show the card, deliver the reinforcer a few times, then start the lesson. It is a near-zero-cost way to soften later resistance and does not require extra tokens or toys. Try it during transitions to new work centers or before lengthy seat-work.