Response deprivation, reinforcement, and economics.
Reinforcement is about access gaps, not about the item—schedule the gap, not the gift.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Allison (1993) wrote a theory paper. He asked, "What if reinforcement is not about the thing, but about the chance to do it?"
He said we should talk about "response-deprivation schedules" instead of "reinforcers." The rule is simple: if a kid gets less time to draw than she wants, drawing becomes reinforcement.
What they found
The paper found no new numbers. It gave a new lens: any activity can be reinforcement if you first cut access enough.
Reinforcement is not magic inside toys or candy. It is the gap between how much you want to do it and how much you are allowed.
How this fits with other research
Hastings et al. (2001) took James' idea and gave it a name: response deprivation is an establishing operation. Same idea, new label.
CARLTON (1962) showed the flip side. Less deprivation and smaller rewards made animal responses more varied. James says deprivation drives power; L shows its size changes flexibility.
Selekman (1973) mixed deprivation with extinction. When stimulus control was weak, deprivation quadrupled resurgence. James sets the rule; W shows how it can backfire if cues are weak.
Why it matters
Next time you pick a reinforcer, stop asking "Is this edible or fun?" Ask "How much access does my learner already have?" Then restrict that access and use the activity as the reward. You will need fewer tangibles and get stronger motivation.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Cut a learner's free-play art time by five minutes, then deliver those minutes contingent on finished math problems.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Reinforcement of an instrumental response results not from a special kind of response consequence known as a reinforcer, but from a special kind of schedule known as a response-deprivation schedule. Under the requirements of a response-deprivation schedule, the baseline rate of the instrumental response permits less than the baseline rate of the contingent response. Because reinforcement occurs only if the schedule deprives the organism of the contingent response, reinforcement cannot result from any intrinsic property of the contingent response or any property relative to the instrumental response. Two typical effects of response-deprivation schedules-facilitation of the instrumental response and suppression of the contingent response-are discussed in terms of economic concepts and models of instrumental performance. It is suggested that response deprivation makes the contingent response function as an economic good, the instrumental response as currency.
Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 1993 · doi:10.1901/jeab.1993.60-129