Psychological distance to reward: A human replication.
Segmented schedules feel longer and get picked less, so keep token or timing systems smooth and unbroken when you can.
01Research in Context
What this study did
The lab set up two video-game style schedules on one screen. College students could click left or right to earn nickels.
Both sides paid on fixed-time or fixed-interval clocks. One clock ran straight through. The other broke the same wait into short colored segments.
The students picked which side to play for 45-minute sessions. No one told them how the timers worked.
What they found
Students almost always chose the unsegmented schedule. The segmented one felt longer even though real wait time was equal.
The result copied earlier pigeon data. Breaking a schedule into pieces makes the reward feel farther away.
How this fits with other research
Emmelkamp et al. (1986) used the same human lab set-up but asked a different question. They showed that with clear lights, instructions, and practice, college students follow the matching law. Leung (1989) kept those supports and added schedule shape, proving the segmentation effect also holds for humans.
Rost (2018) later showed people like having choice only when payoff odds are uncertain. Leung (1989) shows people also care about how the wait is packaged. Together they warn that both uncertainty and schedule design steer preference.
Richman et al. (2001) moved the question into a classroom. Students earned tokens either from the teacher or from themselves. Like segmentation, who hands over the reinforcer changes how the deal feels. All three studies say delivery details matter as much as the payoff itself.
Why it matters
If you break a token board into too many tiny pieces, the learner may see the goal as farther away and lose interest. Try fewer, larger segments or a simple countdown. Check if the student picks the smoother schedule when given a choice. Small design tweaks can make reinforcement feel closer and work faster.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Cut your token board from ten stickers to five and watch if the learner reaches the goal faster.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Choice behavior in college students was examined in two experiments using the concurrent-chains procedure. In both experiments, the concurrent chains were presented on a microcomputer in the form of an air-defense game in which subjects used two radar systems to detect and subsequently destroy enemy aircraft. Access to one of two radar systems was controlled by a pair of independent concurrent variable-interval 60-s schedules with a 4-s changeover delay always in effect. In the terminal link, the appearance of an enemy aircraft was determined by a pair of differentially segmented fixed-time schedules (Experiment 1) or fixed-interval schedules (Experiment 2) of equal overall duration. In Experiment 1, the terminal-link duration was either 20 s or 40 s, and subjects preferred the unsegmented to the segmented intervals. In Experiment 2, the duration was either 10 s or 60 s, and the reinforcement contingencies required responding during the terminal link. Prior to the reinstatement of the initial link, subjects estimated the duration of the terminal-link schedule. Segmentation affected choice in the 60-s conditions but not in the 10-s ones. Preference for the unsegmented schedule was correlated with an overestimation of the durations for the segmented schedules. These results replicated those found in animal experiments and support the notion of increasing the psychological distance to reward by segmenting a time-based schedule of reinforcement.
Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 1989 · doi:10.1901/jeab.1989.51-343