In a concurrent‐chains procedure, pigeons chose between equivalent mixed and multiple fixed‐interval schedules of reinforcement. In the first experiment, preference for the multiple schedule was higher when the probability of the shorter fixed interval was less than .50 than for complementary points, an outcome consistent with the delay‐reduction hypothesis of conditioned reinforcement and observing, but inconsistent with the uncertainty‐reduction hypothesis which requires symmetrical preferences with a maximum when the two intervals are equiprobable. A second experiment assessed preference for equivalent mixed and multiple schedules when each choice outcome resulted in two reinforcements, one on the longer and one on the shorter fixed interval. The order of the two fixed intervals was determined probabilistically. Pigeons again preferred multiple to mixed schedules, although multiple‐schedule preference did not vary systematically with the likelihood of the shorter fixed interval occurring first. The results from these choice procedures are consistent with those from the observing‐response literature in suggesting that the strength of a stimulus cannot be well described as a function of the degree of uncertainty reduction the stimulus provides about re