TEMPORALLY SPACED RESPONDING BY PIGEONS: DEVELOPMENT AND EFFECTS OF DEPRIVATION AND EXTINCTION.

Pigeons pecked a key on a DRL 20-s schedule. They had to wait 20 s between pecks to earn food.

The experimenter then added extinction or changed food deprivation. He watched how wait times and overall peck rate shifted.

Birds soon settled into a steady rhythm. Most waits landed just after the 20-s mark.

When food was removed or birds were less hungry, total pecks dropped and the wait-time curve flattened.

Richardson (1973) ran the same DRL plan and also saw big rate cuts, even when food payoff matched a VI schedule. The two studies line up: DRL alone controls timing.

FERRARO et al. (1965) stretched the requirement to 60 s with rats. They found waits clump in runs—one long wait makes the next one long. The 1964 pigeon data look smoother, showing species and timing matter.

Schwartz et al. (1971) gave pigeons an extra key to peck anytime. Accuracy jumped from 10 % to 75 %. The 1964 birds managed without help, proving the baseline works, yet collateral keys can boost precision.

DRL is your go-to for slowing impulsive clients. This paper shows the schedule itself teaches wait-time, and you can fine-tune it with reinforcer size or brief extinction. If progress stalls, add a mediating toy or button like B et al. did. Start with 20 s, measure wait-time curves, and adjust hunger or reinforcement density to shape flatter, more stable pauses.