The spatial distribution of behavior under varying frequencies of temporally scheduled water delivery.
Where reinforcement lands is where the body goes—arrange space on purpose, not by habit.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Researchers watched rats move around a big box. Water dripped at three spots on a timed schedule. The team changed how often each spot gave water.
They tracked where the rats spent every second for many sessions. No lever press or nose poke was needed. The water just arrived on a clock.
What they found
Rats parked themselves near the spot that gave the most water. Time in each place matched the water ratio almost perfectly.
One height level always won. Even when side spots paid more, rats still hugged the tall center wall.
How this fits with other research
Rilling et al. (1969) first showed pigeons divide time the same way they divide rewards. Lancioni et al. (2000) proves the rule still works when the reward is place, not pecks.
Deluty et al. (1978) ran the mirror image: rats matched time to shock locations. Together the papers say, "Organisms track rates, good or bad, and park accordingly."
Richman et al. (2001) added distance. They put earn and take levers far apart and saw rats stash more food. That study plus this one tells us space is not background—it is part of the schedule.
Why it matters
Your client may be "matching" the room, not the task. If most tickles, snacks, or bubbles land near the left shelf, the child will live there. Spread high-pay items around to pull movement and cut stereotypy. Check height too—kids climb when the good stuff is up high.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Put the strongest reinforcer at the spot you want the client to use more.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Two studies evaluated the effects of response-independent water deliveries on the location (on the floor of the experimental chamber) and position (height) of rats' behavior. In both experiments, fixed-time schedules delivered water in two dispensers that were located at opposite ends of the chamber. In Experiment 1, the two schedules provided complementary frequencies of water deliveries while the overall number of deliveries stayed constant. In Experiment 2, one of the schedules delivered water twice as frequently as the other; this proportion was kept constant while the overall density of water deliveries changed systematically. In both experiments, a single position (height) of behavior was dominant. Also, the percentage of time allocated to each dispenser was roughly proportional to the percentage of water deliveries associated with the dispensers. These data and additional considerations support the importance of examining the spatial properties and patterning of behavior.
Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 2000 · doi:10.1901/jeab.2000.73-195