Short-component multiple schedules: effects of relative reinforcement duration.
To see response rates line up with reinforcement duration, use five-second component swaps and separate response keys.
01Research in Context
What this study did
The team used pigeons in a chamber with two keys.
They set up a multiple schedule where each key gave food for different lengths of time.
The components switched every five seconds or every two minutes.
Birds either pecked the same key for both parts or used separate keys.
The goal was to see when the birds’ pecks matched the amount of food time.
What they found
Matching happened only with two things together: five-second switches and separate keys.
When the same key was used, or when parts lasted two minutes, matching vanished.
Slow alternation wiped out the link between peck rate and food duration.
How this fits with other research
SHETTLEWORTCHARNEY et al. (1965) first showed longer food access raises response rate; H et al. added the setup rules needed to see that effect.
Scull et al. (1973) found positive contrast needs the same response form; H et al. show matching needs different response places, not a contradiction but a boundary condition.
Reiss et al. (1982) later warned that shorter parts can fake higher rates if richer food rides along; H et al.’s rapid alternation is safe only when food rate is held steady.
McLean et al. (1981) tracked how sensitivity drops within a part; their early-peak rule supports using H et al.’s five-second window to catch the clearest matching.
Why it matters
If you run concurrent or multiple schedules in a functional analysis, keep each condition on its own key and flip fast, every few seconds.
Slow switches or one shared button can hide the true response-to-reinforcement match and lead you to wrong conclusions about what is reinforcing the behavior.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Put each schedule on its own button or card and cycle them every five seconds while you count responses.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Pigeons were exposed to multiple variable-interval 2-min variable-interval 2-min schedules of food presentation in which relative duration of food presentation was manipulated. When components alternated every 5 sec and were scheduled on separate response keys, relative response rates closely matched relative reinforcement duration in three of four pigeons. On the other hand, relative response rates were insensitive to relative reinforcement duration when components scheduled on a single response key alternated every 5 sec, and when components scheduled on separate response keys alternated every 2 min. Thus, both rapid alternation and spatial separation of components were necessary to produce approximate matching of relative responding to relative reinforcement duration. This finding contrasts with previous findings that only rapid component alternation is necessary for matching when relative rate of reinforcement is manipulated.
Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 1975 · doi:10.1901/jeab.1975.24-183