The influence of prior choices on current choice.
Time already spent waiting can lock pigeons, and maybe humans, into staying with a losing option.
01Research in Context
What this study did
de la Piedad et al. (2006) worked with pigeons in a lab. The birds first had to wait on a random-time schedule. Then they could switch to a fixed-interval schedule that always paid off.
The team asked: does the time the bird already spent waiting change its choice to stay or switch?
What they found
Longer waiting on the random schedule made the pigeons less likely to switch. The birds acted as if the prior time invested pulled them to stay.
Even during extinction or when food was scarce, the past waiting history still shaped the next choice.
How this fits with other research
Grosch et al. (1981) and Lane et al. (1984) showed pigeons can wait for bigger rewards or change their mind during delays. Those studies looked at future payoff, not past time already spent.
Reed et al. (1988) extended the same delay ideas to teens with intellectual disability. All found that longer delays weaken preference for the big reward. Xochitl’s work flips the lens: it shows the delay you already lived through can glue you to the same option.
Smith (1996) and Fraley (1998) also saw pigeons’ timing and work choices drift after recent history. Xochitl tightens the picture by proving that mere prior waiting, not extra reinforcement, can bias the next choice.
Why it matters
Your clients may stick with a task, token board, or response form simply because they have already ‘waited’ on it. If the history is long but the payoff is thin, probe whether the learner is trapped by sunk time, not real reward. Build in clean break options or reset trials to wash out this history effect.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →After two minutes of non-reinforced waiting, offer a fresh choice board so the client can ‘start over’ instead of sticking from sunk time.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Three pigeons chose between random-interval (RI) and tandem, continuous-reinforcement, fixed-interval (crf-FI) reinforcement schedules by pecking either of two keys. As long as a pigeon pecked on the RI key, both keys remained available. If a pigeon pecked on the crf-FI key, then the RI key became unavailable and the crf-FI timer began to time out. With this procedure, once the RI key was initially pecked, the prospective value of both alternatives remained constant regardless of time spent pecking on the RI key without reinforcement (RI waiting time). Despite this constancy, the rate at which pigeons switched from the RI to the crf-FI decreased sharply as RI waiting time increased. That is, prior choices influenced current choice-an exercise effect. It is argued that such influence (independent of reinforcement contingencies) may serve as a sunk-cost commitment device in self-control situations. In a second experiment, extinction was programmed if RI waiting time exceeded a certain value. Rate of switching to the crf-FI first decreased and then increased as the extinction point approached, showing sensitivity to both prior choices and reinforcement contingencies. In a third experiment, crf-FI availability was limited to a brief window during the RI waiting time. When constrained in this way, switching occurred at a high rate regardless of when, during the RI waiting time, the crf-FI became available.
Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 2006 · doi:10.1901/jeab.2006.132-04