The effect of physical restraint on behavior under the differential-reinforcement-of-low-rate schedule.

Flory et al. (1974) worked with lab rats on a DRL 72-s schedule. The rats had to wait 72 seconds between lever presses to earn food.

Half the time the rats wore a soft harness that blocked grooming and rearing. The team wanted to see if stopping these side movements changed how well the animals timed their presses.

When the harness was on, the rats pressed more often and got less food. Without grooming or rearing, they could not wait the full 72 seconds.

The harness had no effect on a shorter DRL 18-s schedule. Only the large 72-s value needed the extra movements.

Bensemann et al. (2015) later saw the same pattern with people. Their DRO plan cut hand-flapping but made foot-tapping go up. Both studies warn: if you block or ignore other movements, the schedule can break.

Rogers-Warren et al. (1976) showed the fix: teach one clear alternative action instead of just stopping the old one. Their monkeys quit the target response faster when they earned treats for a new lever press.

Byrd (1972) helps explain why. Each stimulus keeps its own rule. So the rat’s grooming and lever press live under separate controls. Stopping grooming does not help the rat learn to wait; it just removes a useful timer cue.

Before you use a long DRL or DRO, plan what the client can do during the wait. Let them pace, count, or use a fidget. If you must block a problem movement, replace it with one clear alternative action. That keeps reinforcement up and frustration down.