Signalled reinforcement and multiple schedules.
A reinforcer cue must be all-or-nothing—halfway signalling drops responding instead of raising it.
01Research in Context
What this study did
The team compared signalled and unsignalled reinforcement. They used multiple schedules with variable-time and variable-interval components.
Some parts gave a cue every time reinforcement was coming. Other parts gave the cue only half the time. The rest gave no cue at all.
What they found
Full signalling created positive contrast. Responding rose high in the extinction part.
Half signalling flipped the effect. Rates dropped below baseline. The author calls this negative induction.
The cue linked to no food drove the change, not the food itself.
How this fits with other research
Pear et al. (1971) saw contrast fade after days. Marcucella (1976) shows why: fading starts when cues get mixed.
Marcucella et al. (1978) moved the test to concurrent schedules. They found signalling one side pushed the animal away from that side. Together the papers warn that any signal must be perfect or it backfires.
Whiting et al. (2015) and Hastings et al. (2001) took the lesson to clinic. They used full signals during FCT thinning. Problem behavior stayed low and gains transferred. The lab rule—100% cue or bust—now guides autism treatment.
Why it matters
If you use colored cards, timers, or token boards, commit fully. A cue that only sometimes predicts reinforcement can kill the very behavior you want. Check your schedules Monday: either signal every reinforcer or none at all.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Audit your signals—make each SD perfect or remove it; no partial cues.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
The responses of four pigeons were first reinforced in the presence of two different wave-lengths (green and red) on a two-ply multiple schedule with identical variable-interval 3-min schedules of reinforcement associated with each component. While the constant-component reinforcement schedule remained unchanged during the experiment, the schedule associated with the variable component was changed to (1) signalled variable time, (2) unsignalled variable time, or (3) signalled variable interval. The probability with which the availability of the reinforcer was signalled in the variable-interval schedules was either 0.5 or 1.0. Positive contrast occurred in both signalled variable-interval and variable-time schedules, but only when the availability of all the variable-component reinforcers was signalled. Signalling the availability of only 50% of the reinforcers in signalled variable-interval schedules resulted in negative induction. The present data suggest that positive behavioral contrast resulting from signalled reinforcer availability is due to the presence of an extinction-correlated stimulus.
Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 1976 · doi:10.1901/jeab.1976.26-199