Response and time allocation in concurrent second-order schedules.
Response count and time spent can give opposite pictures of preference—track both before concluding what the organism prefers.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Ramer et al. (1977) watched pigeons peck two keys at the same time. Each key ran its own second-order schedule. The birds had to finish small fixed-ratio units inside bigger variable-interval programs.
The team counted pecks and clocked seconds on each key. They wanted to see if the two numbers told the same story about choice.
What they found
Fewer required pecks pulled most responses to that side. Yet the birds still parked longer on the side that asked for more work. Response ratio and time ratio pointed in opposite directions.
The study shows that counting pecks and watching the clock are not the same measure. You need both to see what the bird truly prefers.
How this fits with other research
Smith et al. (1975) ran a near-copy of the set-up and saw the same split. Response and time again failed to match the reinforcement odds, backing the 1977 warning.
Locurto et al. (1976) came one year earlier. Their pigeons also under-matched when only interval schedules were used. G et al. added second-order ratios and still saw the gap, proving the problem is robust.
Szempruch et al. (1993) moved the task to adult humans. Some people matched, some ignored one side, and some did the opposite of matching. The bird data look tidy next to this human noise, yet both lines agree: one number is not enough.
Why it matters
If you track only responses during a concurrent reinforcement program, you may pick the wrong side as preferred. Add a simple timer or stop-watch. When response and time clash, look at task effort, not just rate. This keeps your treatment decisions straight with kids, clients, or pigeons.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Run a 5-minute concurrent reinforcer test: tally responses on each option and seconds spent on each—if they differ, reassess which option is actually easier.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Six pigeons were trained on two-key concurrent variable-interval schedules in which the required response was the completion of a fixed number of key pecks. When the required number of pecks was equal on the two keys, response- and time-allocation ratios under-matched obtained reinforcement rate ratios. A similar result was found when the required number of pecks was unequal, except that performance, measured in response terms, was biased to the shorter required number of pecks and was less sensitive to reinforcement-rate changes. No such differences were found in the data on time spent responding. When the variable-interval schedules were kept constant and the required numbers of pecks were systematically varied, response ratios changed inversely with the ratio of the required number of pecks, but time-allocation ratios varied directly with the same independent variable. Thus, on response measures, pigeons "prefer" the schedule with the smaller peck requirement, but on time measures they "prefer" the schedule with the larger peck requirement. This finding is inconsistent with a commonsense notion of choice, which sees response and time-allocation measures as equivalent.
Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 1977 · doi:10.1901/jeab.1977.27-61