ABA Fundamentals

PROPERTIES OF BEHAVIOR UNDER RANDOM INTERVAL REINFORCEMENT SCHEDULES.

FARMER (1963) · Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior 1963
★ The Verdict

Longer random-interval schedules reliably slow response rate in pigeons and people.

✓ Read this if BCBAs who shape steady work or waiting behavior in clinics or classrooms.
✗ Skip if Clinicians focused only on ratio programs like token economies.

01Research in Context

01

What this study did

FARMELong (1963) watched pigeons peck a key for grain.

The grain came on random-interval schedules.

The team changed how often grain could pop up and saw how fast the birds pecked.

02

What they found

When the wait-time for grain got longer, the birds pecked slower.

The response rate slid down in a smooth curve as the T/P value grew.

03

How this fits with other research

Iwata et al. (1990) later tested toddlers with the same random-interval rule.

The kids also pecked slower under RI than under a ratio schedule, so the pigeon curve extends to humans.

WERTHEIWENZEL et al. (1964) tried the same idea with random-ratio schedules and found no clear rate curve.

That looks like a clash, but the difference is schedule type: interval gives a tidy rate drop, ratio does not.

04

Why it matters

You now have a rule of thumb: longer interval equals lower response rate, across species.

When you set a reinforcement timer in a token board or DRO, expect behavior to calm as the interval stretches.

Use this curve to spot if your client’s rate is on track or if extra motivation is needed.

Free CEUs

Want CEUs on This Topic?

The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.

Join Free →
→ Action — try this Monday

Add ten seconds to your DRO interval and count if the client’s responses drop; compare to the J curve.

02At a glance

Intervention
not applicable
Design
single case other
Finding
not reported

03Original abstract

In a temporally defined system of reinforcement schedules, the fixed interval case is defined when reinforcement probability, P, is equal to unity for the first response in any cycle length, T; when P is less than 1.0, random interval schedules emerge wherein T/P specifies the expected interval between reinforcements. Key-pecking rates were found to be: (a) inversely related to T/P; (b) higher at T=1.0 second than at other T parameter values; (c) low and linear at several T and T/P values. The mean post-reinforcement pause, if initially small, increased, and if initially large, decreased, as T/P increased.

Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 1963 · doi:10.1901/jeab.1963.6-607