Response latency as a function of amount of reinforcement.
Smaller reinforcers make learners pause longer, so size matters as much as timing.
01Research in Context
What this study did
One rat pressed a lever for sweet water. The team changed only the sugar strength: a large share, a large share, or plain water.
They timed how long the rat waited between lever presses. Each concentration stayed in place for many sessions.
What they found
Weak a large share sugar made the rat pause longer. No sugar made pauses even longer and very jumpy.
Strong a large share sugar kept response times short and steady. Less reinforcement = slower, less reliable responding.
How this fits with other research
Davis et al. (1972) saw the same slow-down when they kept the treat the same size but made the rat wait for it. Both papers show less powerful reinforcement cuts response speed.
Charlop et al. (1990) moved the test to VR schedules. They found big reinforcers protect against long pauses that small reinforcers allow. The 1962 result holds in more complex schedules.
Barnard et al. (1977) looked at immediacy, not size. They got fast pecks when food followed the key peck quickly. CATANIDINSMOOR (1962) adds that the amount, not just the timing, must stay high.
Why it matters
When a client stalls after correct responses, check both the reinforcer size and the delay. A tiny edible or a long wait can both kill momentum. Try doubling the bite, not just the praise, and deliver it right away. Track latency for one week; you should see faster, steadier replies if magnitude was the culprit.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Measure the next five response-to-response times, then double the edible size and measure again.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Food-deprived rats were trained to press and hold down a telegraph key in the presence of a light. Subsequent release of the key during a tone was followed by 0.15 ml of a 20-percent sucrose solution as reinforcement. The Ss were subsequently shifted to a 0-percent and to a 5-percent solution from the 20-percent base line. The median RT and the variability of RT increased markedly as a result of the shift to the lower sucrose concentrations. For all Ss, the change in median and variability was greater for the shift to the 0-percent solution than for the shift to the 5-percent solution. It is probable that median RT and variability of RT are inversely related to amount of reinforcement.
Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 1962 · doi:10.1901/jeab.1962.5-305