The effects of a variety of instructions on human fixed-interval performance.

Saunders et al. (1988) asked adults without disabilities to press a key on a fixed-interval schedule.

Some people first heard many different rules about several schedules. Others heard one clear rule or almost no rule.

Later everyone worked on the same FI schedule while the team watched their response timing.

People who had seen varied instructions earlier now waited longer before pressing.

Their pauses looked like normal FI scallops, showing the schedule still controlled them.

Single-rule and minimal-rule groups looked the same, both less sensitive to the timing.

Kendrick et al. (1981) already showed that telling adults to hurry shortens FI pauses. R et al. add that giving many rules across schedules can protect those pauses later.

Alsop et al. (1995) later found that thinning reinforcement weakens rule control more when the cue is spoken. Together the two papers warn that both schedule thinning and sparse rules can erode verbal control.

Rogers-Warren et al. (1976) added a clock and also saw calmer FI responding. Varied instructions and external clocks seem to do the same job: keep the schedule, not the words, in charge.

When you teach a new schedule, mix several brief rules instead of drilling one. This keeps the actual contingency in control after the rules fade. Try it during staff training or when shaping waiting with verbal adults. State one rule today, a different one tomorrow, then let the schedule speak.