The post-reinforcement pause.
Larger fixed-ratio schedules reliably lengthen the post-reinforcement pause in non-human animals.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Researchers watched pigeons peck a key for food. They made the birds work harder each time. The ratio went from 5 pecks to 120 pecks per bite.
They timed how long the birds paused after each reward. They also counted pecks per minute.
What they found
Longer ratios made longer pauses. A bird might wait 2 seconds after FR 5, but 40 seconds after FR 120.
Response rate dropped too, but not as neatly. Some birds slowed a lot, others only a little.
How this fits with other research
KIEFFETHOMAS (1965) found the same pause-lengthening in rats. This shows the pattern holds across species.
Fantino (1969) later showed pauses also grow on fixed-interval schedules. The pause is not just a ratio thing.
Gettinger (1993) built on this work 27 years later. He split behavior into pause versus running. He proved the pause, not the run, causes ratio strain.
Hart et al. (1980) added a counter to FR schedules. The counter made pauses even longer. This gives you a tool to test pause sensitivity in your learners.
Why it matters
When you raise the response requirement, expect a longer wait before work starts. Watch the pause, not just the speed. If the pause gets too long, the ratio may be too big. You can spot trouble early and adjust.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Time the pause after each reward on your current FR schedule. If it grows above 5 seconds, drop the ratio by one-third and reassess.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Measurements of the post-reinforcement pause and response rate were obtained from four birds on a range of fixed ratio schedules from 25 to 150. The results indicated a consistent increase in the length of the pause as the ratio was increased. Response rate tended to decrease, but these data were less consistent and some reversals were apparent.
Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 1966 · doi:10.1901/jeab.1966.9-131