The transitivity of choices between different response requirements.
Choice stays logical across different work demands, so a quick preference test gives you a stable reinforcer hierarchy.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Six hens pecked keys for grain. The birds faced pairs of schedules that asked for different numbers of pecks. Scientists checked if the birds' choices lined up in a logical order.
Each hen saw three schedule pairs in rotation. The team recorded which schedule the bird picked most often. They wanted to know if choice patterns stay consistent across different work requirements.
What they found
Every hen showed transitive choices. If she preferred A over B and B over C, she always picked A over C. The pattern held across all peck requirements.
The results mean we can rank schedules on a single number line. More pecks needed equals lower value, no matter what the other option is.
How this fits with other research
Henson et al. (1979) showed pigeons track reinforcement rate, not schedule trust. Hatton et al. (1999) adds that these rate-based choices stay orderly even when work rules change.
Dukhayyil et al. (1973) found kids work harder when they can pick their reinforcer. The hen data say the same ranking rules apply across species and response types.
Duker et al. (1996) used brief choice tests to predict what items will work as reinforcers. The transitivity result backs up that shortcut: if choices are orderly, a quick sample tells you the whole ladder.
Why it matters
You can trust a five-minute paired-stimulus test. If a client picks bubbles over stickers and stickers over music, bubbles will win every time. Use that top item first in your token board or DRO plan. No need to test every pair once you see a clear A-B-C order.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Run a three-item paired-choice test and teach staff to offer the clear winner first.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
This experiment tested the transitivity of hens' choices between response requirements differing in both form and number. In a concurrent second‐order schedule procedure, 6 hens chose between two alternatives by making either key‐peck or door‐push responses. The reinforcement rates on the two alternatives remained constant and equal throughout conditions, but the number of responses (i.e., key pecks or door pushes) required on each alternative was varied by changing the second‐order (fixed‐ratio) requirements. The preferences obtained from two pairings of response requirements allowed prediction of the preferences expected in a third pairing. No intransitivities were found, implying that the response requirements lie on a common unitary scale of value. For response‐based measures, the obtained preferences varied evenly around perfect, multiplicative prediction, and all satisfied strong transitivity, implying an underlying interval scale of value. For time‐based measures, only moderate transitivity was satisfied, implying only an ordinal scale of value. Time‐based measures were confounded with the differing times taken to complete each response requirement. The existence of such scales indicates that direct comparisons of different response requirements may be possible.
Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 1999 · doi:10.1901/jeab.1999.72-235