Varying response-reinforcer contiguity in a recycling conjunctive schedule.

Emmelkamp et al. (1986) worked with pigeons on a recycling conjunctive schedule. The birds had to meet two requirements: peck a set number of times and wait a set time before food arrived.

The team tweaked how soon the food followed the final peck. They watched how this small change shaped the whole pattern of responding.

When food came right after the last peck, birds showed a clear pause-respond-pause loop. When the food was delayed, the pattern flipped into smooth fixed-interval scallops.

In short, tightening or loosening the response-reinforcer link turned the same schedule into two different-looking performances.

Pierce et al. (1983) had already broken down fixed-interval scallops into three parts: pause, interim, and terminal. M et al. now show you can create those same parts on a very different schedule just by moving the food delivery closer or farther from the final response.

Catania (1972) proved you can keep response rate steady with one key if you control local contingencies. M et al. extend that idea: local contiguity, not the schedule name on the wall, drives the shape of responding.

Cox et al. (2015) later showed the same contiguity principle works with humans and picture clarity. The 1986 pigeon findings scaled up to people, strengthening the generality of the rule.

When you build a token system or a chained schedule, think about the gap between the client's last response and the payoff. A tiny delay can turn a steady pace into a scallop with long pauses. If you want uniform work, deliver the reinforcer immediately; if you want a pause before a burst, insert a brief gap. Test both setups in your next session and watch the pattern flip.