Response acquisition under direct and indirect contingencies of reinforcement.

Staats et al. (2000) compared two ways to teach kids with developmental delay to open a container.

In the direct condition the reward was already inside the container.

In the indirect condition the reward sat on a nearby shelf.

Six children experienced both setups in an alternating-treatments design.

Five of the six kids learned the skill faster when the reward was inside the container.

The indirect setup created extra reaching and grabbing that got in the way of learning.

Direct contingencies cut these off-task moves and speeded mastery.

van Timmeren et al. (2016) and Majdalany et al. (2016) later saw the same speed edge for immediate reinforcement in children with autism during discrete-trial and tact lessons.

Their data extend the 2000 finding to a new population and to brief, second-level delays.

Cariveau et al. (2022) looks like a contradiction at first glance. They found that waiting a few trials before giving better-quality reinforcement sped mastery.

The difference is what gets delayed. H et al. delayed the whole contingency; Tom et al. delayed only the upgrade to a better reinforcer while still giving praise right away.

Both papers agree: keep the basic response-reinforcer link tight.

When you design teaching tasks, put the reinforcer inside or attached to the finished product. This simple move keeps the response-reinforcer contingency direct and blocks silly reaching that wastes time. Try it next session with container play, puzzle completion, or putting coins in a bank.