Rethinking reinforcement: allocation, induction, and contingency.
Reinforcement may be nothing more than time allocation, behavior induction, and correlation—so measure those pieces before claiming a reinforcer strengthened behavior.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Baum (2012) wrote a theory paper. It says we should drop the word reinforcement.
Instead, talk about three things: where time is spent (allocation), what behaviors pop up together (induction), and how events correlate with responses (contingency).
No new data were collected. The paper re-examines old findings through this new lens.
What they found
The author argues that reinforcement is just a correlation, not a power that strengthens behavior.
When food follows a peck, the bird allocates more time to pecking and induces linked moves.
We call the shift reinforcement, but only the correlation, allocation, and induction really happened.
How this fits with other research
Kuroda et al. (2018) later tested pigeons. They proved that pure response-food correlation can drive higher response rates even when every peck still pays. Their lab data give muscle to M’s 2012 claim.
Cowie et al. (2016) reviewed choice studies and reached a similar end: stimulus correlations, not the reinforcer itself, steer behavior. Together these papers extend the 2012 line.
Timberlake (1993) and Zigman et al. (1997) already said reinforcement is about systems or environmental control, not response strength. Baum (2012) keeps the systems spirit but swaps constraint language for allocation-induction talk, so the new paper partly supersedes the older frames.
Why it matters
If reinforcement is only a correlation, you should audit your sessions for unintended response-reinforcer pairings. Check time allocation graphs, note induced collateral responses, and question whether your reinforcer really strengthened the target or just rode the same correlation wave.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Plot each learner’s time allocation across responses and look for induced behaviors that rise with the target—then decide if the reinforcer truly drove change or just tagged along.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
The concept of reinforcement is at least incomplete and almost certainly incorrect. An alternative way of organizing our understanding of behavior may be built around three concepts: allocation, induction, and correlation. Allocation is the measure of behavior and captures the centrality of choice: All behavior entails choice and consists of choice. Allocation changes as a result of induction and correlation. The term induction covers phenomena such as adjunctive, interim, and terminal behavior-behavior induced in a situation by occurrence of food or another Phylogenetically Important Event (PIE) in that situation. Induction resembles stimulus control in that no one-to-one relation exists between induced behavior and the inducing event. If one allowed that some stimulus control were the result of phylogeny, then induction and stimulus control would be identical, and a PIE would resemble a discriminative stimulus. Much evidence supports the idea that a PIE induces all PIE-related activities. Research also supports the idea that stimuli correlated with PIEs become PIE-related conditional inducers. Contingencies create correlations between "operant" activity (e.g., lever pressing) and PIEs (e.g., food). Once an activity has become PIE-related, the PIE induces it along with other PIE-related activities. Contingencies also constrain possible performances. These constraints specify feedback functions, which explain phenomena such as the higher response rates on ratio schedules in comparison with interval schedules. Allocations that include a lot of operant activity are "selected" only in the sense that they generate more frequent occurrence of the PIE within the constraints of the situation; contingency and induction do the "selecting."
Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 2012 · doi:10.1901/jeab.2012.97-101