ABA Fundamentals

The effect of multiple S periods on responding on a fixed-interval schedule: IV. Effect of continuous S with only short S probes.

Dews (1966) · Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior 1966
★ The Verdict

Fixed-interval scallops survive when a large share of the interval is extinction, so schedule control doesn’t need continuous reinforcement.

✓ Read this if BCBAs shaping communication or self-help responses under FI or FI-like schedules in clinics or classrooms.
✗ Skip if Practitioners using only rich VR or dense DRH schedules with no plans to thin.

01Research in Context

01

What this study did

Pigeons pecked a key on a fixed-interval 500-second schedule. Most of the time the key stayed dark, meaning pecks had no effect. Every 30 or 60 seconds the key lit green for 3 seconds; during these short probes food could set up.

The dark periods acted like mini-extinction sessions. Researchers wanted to know if the birds still showed the classic FI "scallop" when almost the whole interval blocked reinforcement.

02

What they found

The birds still paused right after food, then gradually sped up. Response rates were lowest early and highest just before the next food chance. The familiar curved pattern stayed intact even though a large share of the interval was extinction time.

Short green probes were enough to keep the scallop alive. The birds didn’t need steady access to reinforcement to show schedule control.

03

How this fits with other research

Pierce et al. (1983) later zoomed in and found the scallop is really three flat steps—pause, interim, terminal—not smooth acceleration. Their micro-view adds detail to the same curve Dews (1966) first defended against "mediating behavior" ideas.

McKearney (1970) swapped food for electric shock and still got the scallop. Together the three studies show the pattern is stubborn: it survives brief extinction, it survives shock, and it’s made of discrete stages.

Landa et al. (2016) used a similar on-off design in PECS training. They kept the picture card available only during reinforcement periods, paralleling the brief green probes here. Both papers show stimulus control can be tightened by limiting access to the "go" signal.

04

Why it matters

You can thin reinforcement heavily and still keep schedule-shaped behavior. In practice, give clients short, clear windows to earn reinforcement while the rest of the interval is extinction or DRO time. The scallop will hold, so use brief S-delta probes to stretch inter-reinforcement times without losing the response pattern.

Free CEUs

Want CEUs on This Topic?

The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.

Join Free →
→ Action — try this Monday

Insert 3-second reinforcement windows every 60 seconds while keeping the rest of the interval on extinction; watch the scallop stay intact as you thin.

02At a glance

Intervention
not applicable
Design
single case other
Finding
not reported

03Original abstract

Pigeons were studied under FI 500 sec in which an S(Delta) was present throughout the interval except during the terminal 50-sec segment and one earlier 50-sec segment. Very little responding occurred during the presence of S(Delta). The rate of responding in the earlier 50-sec S(D) segments was lower than in the terminal S(D) segment. There was a clear trend for the rate of responding in the earlier S(D) segment to be progressively higher the later it occurred in the course of the FI 500 sec. This trend was shown roughly to parallel the increasing rate of responding in a conventional FI 500 sec with no interruption by S(Delta). Since the changing tendency to respond through the FI survives massive disruption by S(Delta), it is concluded that the control of responding through the FI does not require continuous mediating behavior. It is suggested that it is the decaying retroactive influence of the reinforcer on responses that occurred longer and longer before the reinforcer occurred which produces the familiar scalloped pattern of responding under FI schedules.

Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 1966 · doi:10.1901/jeab.1966.9-147