Reinforcement value and fixed‐interval performance
Even tiny delays or weaker deprivation slash response rates on fixed-interval schedules.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Buriticá et al. (2017) tested how making a reinforcer weaker changes behavior on fixed-interval schedules.
They used brief delays and lower food deprivation to cut reinforcer value.
The team watched how these small changes altered response rate and pause length.
What they found
When the reinforcer lost value, response rates dropped and pauses grew longer.
Other timing signs moved in mixed directions, but the main trend was clear: weaker reinforcers hurt performance.
How this fits with other research
Vos et al. (2013) saw the same drop on fixed-ratio schedules, so the damage is not schedule-specific.
Leon et al. (2016) later showed that edible reinforcers survive delay better than tokens, giving you a practical workaround.
Repp et al. (1992) looked at children and found that kids who already like waiting showed the same long-pause/low-rate pattern, turning the "problem" into a predictor.
Why it matters
If you run FI schedules in classrooms or clinics, keep reinforcers immediate and top-value.
Skip token delays unless you have tested they still work.
A two-second wait can stall the whole interval, so deliver praise or edibles right on the mark.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Deliver the reinforcer within one second on every FI trial this week and watch response rate climb.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
The concept of reinforcement value summarizes the effect of different variables, such as reinforcement delay, reinforcement magnitude, and deprivation level, on behavior. In the present set of experiments, we evaluated the effect of reinforcement devaluation on performance under FI schedules. The literature on timing and reinforcement value suggests that devaluation generates longer expected times to reinforcement than the same intervals trained under control conditions. We devalued reinforcement with delay in Experiments 1A, 1B, and 2, and diminished deprivation in Experiments 3A and 3B. Devaluation reduced response rates, increased the number of one-response intervals, and lengthened postreinforcement pauses, but had inconsistent effects on other timing measures such as quarter life and breakpoint. The results of delayed reinforcement and diminished deprivation manipulations are well summarized as reinforcement devaluation effects. These results suggest that devaluation may reduce stimulus control. In addition, we argue that the process by which delayed reinforcement affects behavior might also explain some effects observed in other devaluation procedures through the concept of reinforcement value.
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 2017 · doi:10.1002/jeab.279