Secondary reinforcement and number of primary reinforcements.
A conditioned reinforcer gets stronger each time you pair it with food, but the boost slows after the first several pairings.
01Research in Context
What this study did
E and coworkers worked with pigeons in a small lab chamber.
The birds pecked a key on a variable-interval schedule.
Each food pellet came with a short red light. Later the light alone kept the birds pecking.
The team changed how many pellets each red light had been paired with.
What they found
More food pairings made the red light a stronger reinforcer.
Pecking speed went up, but not in a straight line.
Doubling the pairings did not double the response rate.
How this fits with other research
Todorov et al. (1984) later showed that how often you get food matters more than how big each piece is.
Wilkie et al. (1981) found that smaller food drops shift the response curve right, so you need more frequent delivery to keep rates high.
Together these studies tell the same story: reinforcer power grows with amount and with rate, but in a curved, not linear, way.
Why it matters
When you condition tokens, praise, or stickers, pair them with primary reinforcers many times.
Do not expect behavior to double just because you doubled the pairings.
Watch the response curve level off and adjust schedule density instead of chasing ever bigger jackpots.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Count how many times each token or ‘Good job!’ has been followed by a treat this week; if the count is low, add five more pairings before you expect faster responding.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Pigeons' pecks on either of two concurrently available response keys produced secondary reinforcers according to independent one-minute variable-interval schedules. Different secondary reinforcers, in the presence of which the rates of primary reinforcement were equal, were associated with each key. The rate of pecking maintained by each secondary reinforcer varied directly, but nonproportionally, with the number of primary reinforcements given in the presence of the secondary reinforcer.
Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 1968 · doi:10.1901/jeab.1968.11-9