The momentum of human behavior in a natural setting.
Pay rate, not how fast the client moves, decides who keeps working when distractions show up.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Workers with intellectual disabilities sorted dinnerware in their group home. Two pay rates were tested: one plate every minute (VI 60-s) or one plate every four minutes (VI 240-s).
While they worked, staff turned on a loud TV. The team counted how many dishes were still sorted correctly.
What they found
The richer pay schedule kept sorting going when the TV blared. Workers made more money per minute, so the job held up better against distraction.
Extra free snacks, given for just being there, added even more protection. The job with lean pay almost stopped.
How this fits with other research
LeBlanc et al. (2003) first saw the same shield in pigeons: rich schedules protected both speed and accuracy. Mace et al. (1990) now show the rule works for adults with ID in a real job.
Thrailkill et al. (2018) flip the coin: rich schedules also make behavior return after you stop paying. High momentum helps during distraction, but it can fuel relapse later.
Reid et al. (2003) stretch the idea further: giving free toys made hand-flapping harder to stop. Momentum applies to self-stim, not just work tasks.
Why it matters
Use richer schedules when you need the client to stay on task amid noise, peers, or tablets. Thin the schedule later and add brief extinction bursts to cut relapse risk. One practical move: start table work at one reinforcer every 30 s, then slowly stretch to 2 min while watching for bounce-back.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Boost the schedule to VI 30-s for the first week of a new work task, then measure correct items when you add music or peers.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Adults with mental retardation in a group home received popcorn or coffee reinforcers for sorting plastic dinnerware. In Part 1 of the experiment, reinforcers were dispensed according to a variable-interval 60-s schedule for sorting dinnerware of one color and according to a variable-interval 240-s schedule for sorting dinnerware of a different color in successive components of a multiple schedule. Sorting rates were similar in baseline, but when a video program was shown concurrently, sorting of dinnerware was more resistant to distraction when correlated with a higher rate of reinforcement. In Part 2 of the experiment, popcorn or coffee reinforcers were contingent upon sorting both colors of dinnerware according to variable-interval 60-s schedules, but additional reinforcers were given independently of sorting according to a variable-time 30-s schedule during one dinnerware-color component. Baseline sorting rate was lower but resistance to distraction by the video program was greater in the component with additional variable-time reinforcers. These results demonstrate that resistance to distraction depends on the rate of reinforcers obtained in the presence of component stimuli but is independent of baseline response rates and response-reinforcer contingencies. Moreover, these results are similar to those obtained in laboratory studies with pigeons, demonstrating that the determination of resistance to change by stimulus-reinforcer relations is not confined to controlled laboratory settings or unique to the pigeon.
Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 1990 · doi:10.1901/jeab.1990.54-163