Response strength in multiple periodic and aperiodic schedules.
Fixed and variable schedules with the same reinforcement rate fail equally fast; schedule type alone does not create extra strength.
01Research in Context
What this study did
The team put pigeons on two-key multiple schedules.
Each key gave the same average food per minute.
One key used fixed-time cycles.
The other used variable-time cycles.
They then tested how long the birds kept pecking during extinction and during free food.
What they found
Fixed and variable schedules broke down at the same speed.
No extra pecks came from the fixed pattern.
No extra pecks came from the variable pattern.
Equal rates meant equal staying power.
How this fits with other research
Cohen et al. (1993) later showed the same equal rates do NOT protect behavior equally.
They used multiple schedules and saw that higher-rate components survived longer against disruption.
The trick is the procedure: the 1980 study looked at extinction and satiation alone.
Cohen et al. (1993) added extra food outside the schedule, a stronger test of momentum.
SHETTLEWORTCHARNEY et al. (1965) already knew richer components run faster; the 1980 finding says richness alone, not its fixed or variable wrap, sets the ceiling.
Why it matters
When you balance reinforcement rate across settings, do not expect fixed or variable timing to add hidden strength.
If you need tougher behavior, raise the rate or add stimuli linked to high-rate components, not the schedule pattern itself.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Check that your high-rate components really deliver more reinforcement, not just different timing, before counting on them to survive extinction.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Responding in multiple periodic and aperiodic schedules of equal mean reinforcement rate was examined during extinction, satiation, and in the presence of various free-food schedules. In Experiments I and II, pigeons were trained on multiple variable-interval-fixed-interval schedules. Decreases in the rate of responding due to extinction, satiation, or food schedules were approximately equal regardless of the temporal pattern of reinforcer presentation. In Experiment III, pigeons responded on a two-component multiple schedule in which each component was a two-member homogeneous response chain terminating in a fixed-interval schedule during one component and in a variable-interval schedule during the other. The length of both terminal links was varied over a series of conditions. Initial-link responding in the fixed-interval component was reduced more by increasing terminal-link length than was initial-link responding in the variable-interval component. However, no differences in resistance to satiation and extinction were obtained across the fixed and variable components. If the relative decrease in responding produced by satiation and extinction is used as an index of the "value" of the conditions maintaining responding, then these data suggest that fixed and variable schedules of equal mean length are equally valued. This conclusion, however, is not consistent with findings of preference for variable over fixed schedules obtained in studies using concurrent-chain procedures.
Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 1980 · doi:10.1901/jeab.1980.33-221