Choice and foraging.

Researchers watched pigeons peck keys in a two-step game. First the birds had to wait a set time. Then they could pick a key that gave food right away or one that made them wait longer.

The team changed only the first wait. Sometimes it was short, sometimes long. They counted how often birds took the longer final delay after each first wait.

After long first waits, pigeons accepted the longer final delay about twice as often. After short first waits, they rarely took the extra delay.

The data lined up with delay-reduction math: the longer the search, the more valuable any reward feels, even if it is slower.

Kydd et al. (1982) ran a near-copy study the same year. They equated total delay and saw no choice shift. The two papers seem to clash, but the trick is timing. N et al. let the first wait vary; R et al. kept total wait flat. When total wait is locked, birds stop caring about extra seconds.

Steege et al. (1989) later added humans. People chased overall rate, while pigeons still followed delay-reduction. The bird rule held; the species just used it differently.

Soreth et al. (2009) stretched the idea further. They showed that one rare quick payoff in a random schedule can pull choice toward that side. Again, local short waits steer the decision.

If a client has just waited a long time for your attention, they may now accept a longer task or bigger work requirement. Use that moment to place the harder skill. After short waits, keep demands light and reinforcement fast. Track the client's "search" time—how long since last reinforcement—and let that guide when you stretch the schedule.