Behavioral strategies are often classified based on whether reinforcement is controlled by the value of the reinforcer. Value-sensitive behaviors, in which animals update their actions when reinforcer value is changed, are classified as goal-directed; conversely, value-insensitive actions, where behavior remains consistent when the reinforcer is removed or devalued, are considered habitual. Understanding the features of operant training that bias behavioral control toward either strategy is essential to understanding the cognitive and neuronal processes on which they rely. Using basic reinforcement principles, behavior can be biased toward relying on either process: random ratio (RR) schedules are thought to promote the formation of goal-directed behaviors while random intervals (RI) promote habitual control. However, how the schedule-specific features of these task structures relate to external factors to influence behavior is not well understood. Using male and female mice on distinct food restriction levels, we trained each group on RR schedules with responses-per-reinforcer rates matched to their RI counterparts to control for differences in reinforcement rate. We determined that food restriction level has a stronger effect on the behavior of mice following RR schedules than mice following RI schedules and that food restriction better predicted sensitivity to outcome devaluation than training schedule. Our results support the idea that relationships between RR or RI schedules with goal-directed or habitual behaviors, respectively, are more nuanced than previously appreciated and suggest that an animal's engagement in a task must be accounted for, together with the structure of reinforcement schedules, to appropriately interpret the cognitive underpinnings of behavior.