The effects of a local negative feedback function between choice and relative reinforcer rate.

Michael and team worked with pigeons in a lab.

The birds pecked two keys for food on concurrent VI schedules.

The twist: the more time a bird spent on one key, the less food that key gave later.

They called this a negative feedback loop.

The team then made that loop stronger or weaker to see what happened.

When the feedback got steeper, birds spent less time on the richer key.

The drop showed up in long sessions, not in quick peck-for-peck choices.

In plain words, big future penalties can shrink overall preference even if each peck still pays.

DeRoma et al. (2004) first showed pigeons shift choice fast after each food drop.

Davison et al. (2010) used the same setup but added the feedback rule.

The new study extends the 2004 work by proving molar rules can override those fast shifts.

Fahmie et al. (2013) found that past change-over delays can later boost preference.

Together, the three papers show both history and future consequences steer choice.

Van Hemel (1973) and Green et al. (1975) tracked moment-to-moment peck rates.

Their local patterns still appeared here, but the molar feedback ruled the day.

No clash exists; the studies just zoom in at different time scales.

If you use token boards or DRO, remember that future loss can cut behavior now.

Try adding a mild penalty for staying too long on one task.

Watch the whole session, not just the last minute, to see the effect.