The effect of two schedules of primary and conditioned reinforcement.
A stimulus once paired with food can keep behavior alive even when the schedule changes.
01Research in Context
What this study did
The team trained pigeons on two simple schedules. One group got food every time they pecked. The other group had to peck ten times for each food pellet.
After training, both groups were tested. Now every peck produced a brief light flash. No food followed the flash. The birds kept pecking to see if the flash would still keep them going.
What they found
Birds that first learned with free food pecked hardest when the flash came after every tenth peck. Their own training schedule did not matter. The flash, paired earlier with food, kept them working even on a new ratio.
How this fits with other research
Varley et al. (1980) later showed the same thing in chained schedules. A stimulus change before food boosted pecking, extending the 1962 idea to longer sequences.
Clark et al. (1970) found the opposite side of the coin. A flash tied to food hurt matching accuracy when it was given for wrong responses. Same mechanism, different task, different outcome.
Davison et al. (2010) refined the story further. They showed the flash works best when it signals exactly where and when food will arrive. Contingency and correlation, not just pairing, drive the effect.
Why it matters
Your praise, points, or bells are conditioned reinforcers. This study reminds you they keep power even when the schedule changes. Pair them clearly with the next backup reinforcer and deliver them right after the target response. You can thin the schedule later without losing the behavior.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →After each correct response, give your token or praise immediately, then fade to every 5-10 responses while keeping the backup reward strong.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Of 23 pigeons, 11 received continuous reinforcement for key pecking, and 12 received an FR 10 schedule of reinforcement. The birds were then tested without food, but with potential conditioned reinforcers presented either on the same schedule as in training, on the other schedule, or not at all. Each bird in the subgroup trained on CRF and tested with S(r)'s at FR 10 not only gave more responses in testing than did each bird in both subgroups receiving no S(r)'s, but also gave more responses than did each bird in the S(r) subgroup receiving CRF training and S(r)'s at CRF. Cumulative records are presented to show the effects of different schedules of conditioned reinforcers.
Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 1962 · doi:10.1901/jeab.1962.5-505