Temporal control of behavior and the power law.

DeVellis et al. (1979) watched rats press a lever under fixed-interval schedules.

They changed only the FI length and measured how long the rat waited after each food pellet.

The goal was to see if the pause grows by a fixed number of seconds or by a steady ratio.

The pause followed a power law.

Double the FI, multiply the pause by the same factor every time.

This means time itself, not extra seconds, controls the wait.

Bauman et al. (1996) got the same power link under progressive-interval schedules, so the rule holds when intervals keep growing.

Frame et al. (1984) stretched pauses by flashing a long light before each VI reinforcer; external cues can mimic the internal clock, showing two levers for the same outcome.

Flory et al. (1974) saw power-law scaling in DRL inter-response times, hinting one math shape governs many timing tasks.

Green et al. (1999) say no inner timer is needed; reinforcement dynamics alone can build the curve F et al. plotted.

If your learner stalls after reinforcement, check the schedule, not the clock.

Lengthening FI by a set ratio will predictably stretch the pause, letting you shape calm waiting without surprise.

Use this scaling rule to plan thin schedules in token boards, toilet timing, or DRO intervals—double the time, expect a multiplied pause, then reinforce.