Local temporal pattering of operant behavior in humans.

Researchers asked college students to press a key at a steady pace. A computer paid them on a random-interval schedule, but only if each press came after a target pause.

The goal was to shape the exact time between responses, not just the press itself. The session lasted 30 minutes.

Most students hit the target pause within the half-hour session. The closer their words matched the real rule, the more accurate their timing became.

MCMILLAN et al. (1965) first showed that shaping can sculpt millisecond-precise bar presses in adults. Charlop et al. (1985) moved the same idea to interresponse times, proving the tactic still works two decades later.

Pouthas et al. (1990) extended the idea to children. Kids under eight timed their presses without talking about rules. By eleven, they said things like “wait two seconds” and their presses sharpened. The adult study lines up with the older kids: words and timing went hand in hand.

Shimp (1973) used pigeons and got similar IRT control with synthetic schedules. The cross-species match says the process is basic, not special to humans.

If you need a client to wait a set time before a response, thirty minutes of paced random-interval reinforcement can do it. Ask the client to describe the rule out loud; accurate self-talk predicts better timing. Use the probe with older kids and adults, then fade the schedule once the rhythm sticks.