A note on chaining and temporal discrimination.

Four pigeons pecked two keys. To earn food they had to wait two seconds between pecks on key A, then peck key B.

The birds were free to peck key A any way they liked. The setup let the team see if the birds would invent their own little routines to hit the two-second mark.

Every bird built its own superstitious chain on key A. One bird bobbed its head twice, another side-pecked, and so on.

These self-made chains acted like built-in timers. They let the birds meet the two-second delay and still get food fast.

Wesp et al. (1981) later showed pigeons can learn four-color peck strings and still nail new color orders. Both studies prove birds can hold multi-step patterns, but K used fixed colors while A et al. let the birds freestyle their own timing moves.

Julià (1982) found reinforcement can sculpt how long a bird stays on one key. That result pairs well with A et al.: first the bird invents a timing chain, then later work shows you can tweak that very chain length with rewards.

Fantino (1967) looked at cyclic-interval schedules and saw birds mostly pause after food, then peck at a steady clip. That seems to clash with A et al., but the difference is the task. E used long fixed intervals where steady pecking worked; A et al. used a short two-second DRL where any steady pecking would lock out food, so birds had to invent breaks.

Your learners may invent their own response chains when timing rules are tricky. Watch for quirky hand waves, extra taps, or odd pauses. These homemade chains can help the learner succeed, but they can also block smoother, faster ways to respond. If you want to replace a superstitious chain, reinforce a simpler, more efficient sequence and the old chain will fade.