Temporal control of behavior: schedule interactions.

The researchers wanted to see what happens when you reward long pauses. They used a fixed-interval 60-second schedule. Pigeons had to wait more than 30 seconds after food before the next peck would count.

They also tested other rules that paid for long gaps between responses. The goal was to find out if reinforcing pauses would make them longer.

Paying for long pauses backfired. The birds paused less, not more. Pause length followed the shortest time rule in effect, not the average time to food.

In plain words, behavior locked onto the tightest deadline it faced.

Glynn (1970) showed that pauses grow with longer FI values, but the new rule trumped that trend. The earlier work said pause equals the interval; the 1978 study adds that if you slap a shorter cutoff on top, the cutoff wins.

Stoddard et al. (1988) later saw the same power of tight rules in people. Adding a brief limited-hold to an FI wiped out clock-watching. Both papers prove the leanest contingency drives the response.

Okouchi (2003) extended the idea to history effects. Past reinforcement rates still shaped current pauses, yet the tightest present rule stayed boss. Time context matters, but the shortest timer still tops the stack.

If you add extra timing rules to an FI or DRL, expect behavior to hug the narrowest window. Reinforcing long waits can shrink them when a shorter backup rule lurks. Check your whole schedule package: the leanest limit will steal control.