Variability of response location for pigeons responding under continuous reinforcement, intermittent reinforcement, and extinction.

Pigeons pecked a key while the researchers tracked exactly where each peck landed. The birds worked under three schedules: every peck paid (CRF), only some pecks paid (intermittent), or no pecks paid (extinction).

The team wanted to see if the payment rule changed how scattered or consistent the peck spots were.

Continuous reinforcement pulled pecks into almost the same spot every time. When payment stopped or became occasional, the birds pecked all over the key.

Reinforcement schedule acts like a dial: CRF tightens response location, extinction and intermittent loosen it.

Hamm et al. (1978) zoomed in on two intermittent schedules. They found fixed-interval produced loose, variable peck spots while fixed-ratio created tight, stereotyped spots. This refines the 1969 claim: not all intermittent schedules loosen topography equally.

Quilitch et al. (1973) tried to pay pigeons for being variable. Even with reinforcement available for different peck patterns, the birds still slid into stereotypy. Their result extends the 1969 finding by showing that schedule-induced stereotypy can override a direct contingency for variability.

Morris (1987) solved the stereotypy problem. Short timeouts after each response let the birds earn variability reinforcement three times more often. The study turns the 1969 descriptive rule into a practical procedure you can use to shape flexible behavior.

If you want tight, consistent responding, pay every correct response. If you want flexible, creative responding, thin the schedule or add brief pauses between responses. The same rule applies when you teach a child to write letters (keep strokes uniform) or solve novel problems (reward varied attempts).