Travel time and concurrent-schedule choice: retrospective versus prospective control.
A simple heads-up about the walk ahead keeps learners focused and cuts dawdling.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Pigeons pecked two keys for food.
Each key paid off on its own timer.
To switch keys the bird had to fly down a short or long alley.
A red light sometimes lit up and told the bird how long the trip would be.
Other times the light gave no hint.
The team watched how long birds stayed on each key and how often they switched.
What they found
When the red light signaled a long trip, birds stayed longer on the new key before switching again.
They also picked the richer key more often.
If the last trip had been long but no light warned them, birds still spent more time on the new key.
The warning only helped if it came before the trip.
How this fits with other research
Jessel et al. (2016) tested kids with autism moving from a fun room to a boring room.
Kids dragged their feet until the team hid quick prizes in the boring room.
That study moves the pigeon rule into real life: tell the learner good stuff waits ahead, even if the walk is long.
Ellingsen et al. (2014) also used lights to signal what came next.
They showed pausing is an operant you can turn up or down with cues, just like travel time changes choice.
Together the three papers say the same thing: signals about the future control behavior now.
Why it matters
Tell learners what the next area gives them before they move.
Say, “We’ll do two quick puzzles, then iPad,” while you walk together.
The warning cuts dawdling and keeps work quality high when they arrive.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Before leaving the table, tell the learner exactly what reinforcer waits in the next area and how far it is.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Six pigeons were trained on concurrent variable-interval schedules in which two different travel times between alternatives, 4.5 and 0.5 s, were randomly arranged. In Part 1, the next travel time was signaled while the subjects were responding on each alternative. Generalized matching analyses of performance in the presence of the two travel-time signals showed significantly higher response and time sensitivity when the longer travel time was signaled compared to when the shorter time was signaled. When the data were analyzed as a function of the previous travel time, there were no differences in sensitivity. Dwell times on the alternatives were consistently longer in the presence of the stimulus that signaled the longer travel time than they were in the presence of the stimulus that signaled the shorter travel time. These results are in accord with a recent quantitative account of the effects of travel time. In Part 2, no signals indicating the next travel time were given. When these data were analyzed as a function of the previous travel time, time-allocation sensitivity after the 4.5-s travel time was significantly greater than that after the 0.5-s travel time, but no such difference was found for response allocation. Dwell times were also longer when the previous travel time had been longer.
Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 2000 · doi:10.1901/jeab.2000.73-65