The behavioral effects of some temporally defined schedules of reinforcement.

HEARST (1958) watched how animals press a lever when the rules for food change.

Some animals had to wait a set time before the next food came. Others had to press a set number of times.

The team drew the presses on a rolling sheet of paper. They looked at the line’s shape and how fast it climbed.

Wait-time rules made animals pause, then press fast at the end. The paper shows a scallop shape.

Press-count rules made animals press fast from the start. The line shoots straight up.

When food stops, the two lines die out in different ways. The pattern tells you which rule was in place.

Morse et al. (1966) swapped food for shock escape. The same scallop and burst showed up. This says the rule, not the treat, drives the shape.

McKearney (1970) went further and gave shock for pressing. The old shapes still held, proving they are stubborn.

Branch et al. (1981) found a twist: when shock keeps the behavior alive, ratio rules weaken pressing. The 1958 picture is true only when the consequence feels good.

Whitehead et al. (1975) moved the rules to kids learning picture names. Medium ratio schedules beat non-stop praise. The lab pattern now helps in classrooms.

You run schedules every day: token boards, DRO, FR-3 for mands. Know the built-in pause or burst you are buying. If the reinforcer is harsh or the learner is new, favor interval rules. If you want speed and the kid loves the item, use small ratio chunks. Check the cumulative record on your data sheet—scallop or straight line tells you whether the schedule is doing what you hoped.