The relationship between observing behavior and food-key response rates under mixed and multiple schedules of reinforcement.

Pigeons pecked a food key on a fixed-interval 30-s schedule.

A second key let them "observe" and turn on colored lights.

Some sessions used a multiple schedule: red light during FI, green during extinction.

Other sessions used a mixed schedule: no lights, same FI/extinction order.

The team counted food-key pecks and observing pecks in each set-up.

With the multiple schedule, birds both observed and pecked the food key more.

With the mixed schedule, more observing meant fewer food-key pecks.

The direction of the link flipped depending on whether stimuli signaled the schedule.

Hymowitz (1973) saw little change in observing when schedule length or payoff size varied.

Hirota (1974) shows the same birds do change observing if the stimuli around them change.

Moxley (2002) later cut the grain rate or size and watching dropped.

Together the three papers say: stimuli matter most, then payoff size, then length.

Cohen et al. (1993) found that signaled components protect response rates from disruption.

T’s opposing correlations fit this idea: stimuli give behavior its context.

When you add or remove signals in a program, expect watching and working to shift together or apart.

Check both responses, not just the target one.

If a client seems "off task," try adding clear signals before you change reinforcer size.