Procrastination by pigeons: preference for larger, more delayed work requirements.
Delay cuts the sting of work, so clients may volunteer for bigger jobs that start later.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Pigeons pecked two keys. One key gave a tiny job right away. The other key gave a bigger job later.
The birds could pick either side every trial. Scientists watched which key they chose.
What they found
Most birds picked the bigger job that came later. They acted like college kids who pick a paper due next week over a quiz today.
Delay made the small job feel worse, so the birds procrastinated by taking the delayed big job.
How this fits with other research
Fraley (1998) ran the same birds two years later and got the same pick. That repeat shows the effect is solid.
Vos et al. (2013) did the opposite test. They forced delays on pigeons in fixed-ratio work. Response rates dropped. Together the papers show: delay hurts when it is forced, yet birds will still choose delayed work if the other option feels worse right now.
Aman et al. (1987) swapped work for food. Pigeons also picked larger delayed food. The rule is the same: delay softens the aversiveness of the bigger thing.
Why it matters
When you give a client two task sizes, the one that starts right away can feel worse even if it is smaller. Build momentum by starting the small task immediately or by signaling a short wait before the big task. Keep reinforcement quick or clearly timed so delay does not twist client choice.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Offer a tiny task now and a larger task after a 30-second countdown; note which one the client picks.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
In three experiments, pigeons chose between alternatives that required the completion of a small ratio schedule early in the trial or a larger ratio schedule later in the trial. Completion of the ratio requirement did not lead to an immediate reinforcer, but simply allowed the events of the trial to continue. In Experiment 1, the ratio requirements interrupted periods in which food was delivered on a variable-time schedule. In Experiments 2 and 3, each ratio requirement was preceded and followed by a delay, and only one reinforcer was delivered, at the end of each trial. Two of the experiments used an adjusting-ratio procedure in which the ratio requirement was increased and decreased over trials so as to estimate an indifference point--a ratio size at which the two alternatives were chosen about equally often. These experiments found clear evidence for "procrastination"--the choice of a larger but more delayed response requirement. In some cases, subjects chose the more delayed ratio schedule even when it was larger than the more immediate alternative by a factor of four or more. The results suggest that as the delay to the start of a ratio requirement is increased, it has progressively less effect on choice behavior, in much the same way that delaying a positive reinforcer reduces it effect on choice.
Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 1996 · doi:10.1901/jeab.1996.65-159