Reinforcement rate and interresponse time differentiation.

Kuch et al. (1976) worked with pigeons in a small lab space.

They used a new schedule that paid birds only if the pause between two pecks was long.

The team kept the overall rate of food the same while they changed the exact pause rule.

Birds quickly stretched the pause between pecks when that pause was rewarded.

The overall rate of food did not change the birds’ timing.

Reinforcing the exact pause beat the molar rate every time.

Weisman (1970) saw response rate drop when DRO paid birds for not pecking.

Both studies held total food rate steady, yet DR schedules still shifted behavior.

Pliskoff et al. (1972) showed the flip side: DRH for fast pecking raised rate in another key.

Together the three papers show that the local rule, not the global rate, drives timing.

McGeown et al. (2013) held rate constant across delayed rewards and saw no delay discounting.

That result seems to clash with O et al., but the 2013 study looked at choice between two fixed delays, not at shaping new pauses.

Different question, same rate-control trick — no real contradiction.

When you shape timing, pick the exact pause you want and reinforce only that pause.

Do not worry about how often the client earns tokens overall.

Set the DRL or DRO criterion, deliver the reinforcer, and let the local rule do the work.