Progressive-ratio schedules: effects of later schedule requirements on earlier performances.

The team changed what happened after the last ratio in a progressive-ratio schedule. They tested three endings: extinction, a reversed progression, or a steady FR6. They watched how these endings changed pausing earlier in the sequence.

The study used single-case lab methods. Each session had the same early ratios. Only the final part differed.

Extinction at the end made pauses longer in earlier ratios. The reversed progression and FR6 made pauses shorter. The later schedule shaped behavior that came before it.

In short, remote contingencies matter. What waits after the 20th ratio changes how hard the animal works on the first ones.

Young et al. (2017) extends this idea. They showed that the size of the next reinforcer also alters pausing. Together, the two studies prove that both upcoming reinforcer value and upcoming schedule type control current pause length.

Harris et al. (2012) found a similar pattern using signaled delays. When the next ratio will delay reinforcement, the pause before it grows. The 2000 paper widens the lens: any upcoming negative change, not just delay, can lengthen pauses.

Crossman et al. (1973) is a predecessor. They mixed FR10 and FR100 components and saw pauses shrink when the large ratio became rare. Both papers agree: later schedule conditions feed back to earlier responding.

When you build token boards or large-ratio work tasks, remember the final step teaches the learner what to expect. Ending with easy reinforcement keeps early responding brisk; ending with extinction or hard ratios can slow the whole chain. Check your terminal contingencies first when you see long pauses mid-session.