When good news leads to bad choices

McDevitt and team looked at 40 years of pigeon experiments.

They asked: what happens when a light or sound tells the bird food is coming?

All studies used two keys. One key gave a small snack right away.

The other key gave a bigger snack later, but only after a long wait.

A signal appeared when the bird picked the small-immediate key.

The review counted how often the signal made pigeons choose the worse deal.

The signal almost always pushed pigeons toward the small-quick reward.

Birds lost up to half the food they could have earned.

The brighter or louder the signal, the stronger the bad choice.

Even smart pigeons with lots of training still fell for the trap.

Ward-Horner et al. (2017) saw the opposite: some pigeons pick the big-late pile when they have to work harder for it.

The two papers seem to clash, but the difference is what the bird sees.

McDevitt’s birds got a flashy cue right after the bad choice; Ward-Horner’s birds only saw the work ahead.

Signals that celebrate the wrong choice act like mini-slot machines.

Shahan et al. (2021) add a clinical angle: when you suddenly cut good reinforcement, problem behavior roars back.

Both lines show that how we signal reinforcement matters as much as the amount.

If you give praise or tokens right after a quick-but-shallow response, you may lock that response in.

Pause before you pair excitement with easy answers.

Instead, save the big praise for the bigger payoff.

Try fading the cue volume or delay it a few seconds.

Small changes in what the client hears or sees can steer them toward better long-term gains.