ABA Fundamentals

The relation of amount of reinforcement to performance under a fixed-in-terval schedule.

STEBBINS et al. (1959) · Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior 1959
★ The Verdict

Bigger, better reinforcers speed up fixed-interval responding and tighten stimulus control.

✓ Read this if BCBAs running FI or VI schedules who need quicker client responses without schedule redesign.
✗ Skip if Clinicians already using dense, high-quality reinforcers with no rate issues.

01Research in Context

01

What this study did

STEBBINS et al. (1959) worked with rats on a fixed-interval schedule.

They varied how sweet the sugar water payoff was.

Then they counted lever presses to see if stronger reinforcers made the rats work faster.

02

What they found

Rats pressed more often when the sugar water was sweeter.

The richer reward pushed response rates up under the same time-based schedule.

03

How this fits with other research

LeBlanc et al. (2003) later showed that bigger reinforcers also make behavior harder to disrupt and sharpen stimulus discrimination.

Lecavalier et al. (2006) reframed the same idea: rats tune their rate to the peak of the feedback curve, not just to how much they get.

Gulley et al. (1997) moved the test to people with intellectual disabilities and found that higher reinforcer rates decide which picture gains control in a matching game.

All four studies line up: stronger or more frequent reinforcement lifts response rate and strengthens stimulus control.

04

Why it matters

If you want faster or more accurate responding, first check the reinforcer, not the prompt.

Swap in a higher-quality edible, shorten the stretch before delivery, or add an extra chaser praise.

Watch the rate climb within the same FI or VI schedule you already run.

Free CEUs

Want CEUs on This Topic?

The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.

Join Free →
→ Action — try this Monday

Boost the edible size or switch to a preferred item for one FI program and count responses across three sessions.

02At a glance

Intervention
other
Design
single case other
Population
not specified
Finding
positive

03Original abstract

Manipulation of the concentration of a soluble nutrient has been employed as a method of varying amount of reinforcement. This method is advantageous for two reasons: first, it controls stimulation prior to ingestion, and, second, it reduces variation in required in- gestive activity. Guttman (1953, 1954) has shown that time to condition the bar-press response under regular reinforcement, resistance to extinction after regular reinforcement, and rate under fixedand variable-interval schedules are each directly related to the percentage sucrose concentration, from 0 to 32% used as reinforcement for food-deprived white rats.

Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 1959 · doi:10.1901/jeab.1959.2-351