We compared 2 variations of differential‐reinforcement‐of‐low‐rate (DRL) procedures: spaced‐responding DRL, in which a reinforcer was delivered contingent on each response if a specified interval had passed since the last response, and full‐session DRL, in which a reinforcer was presented at the end of an interval if the response rate was below criterion within the specified interval. We used a human‐operant procedure and analyzed within‐session responding to assess any similarities or differences between procedures. Data revealed a positive contingency between responding and reinforcement under the spaced‐responding DRL schedule and a negative contingency under the full‐session DRL schedule. Furthermore, 60% of the participants discontinued responding by the last full‐session DRL session. Implications for the appropriate procedural and taxonomical usage of both DRL schedules are discussed.