Textbooks in learning and behavior commonly describe performance on fixed-ratio schedules as "break and run," indicating that after reinforcement subjects typically pause and then respond quickly to the next reinforcement. Performance on variable-ratio schedules, on the other hand, is described as steady and fast, with few long pauses. Beginning with Ferster and Skinner's magnum opus, "Schedules of Reinforcement" (1957), the literature on pausing under ratio schedules has identified the influences on pausing of numerous important variables, in particular ratio size and reinforcement magnitude. As a result, some previously held assumptions have been called into question. For example, research has shown that the length of the pause is controlled not only by the preceding ratio, as Ferster and Skinner and others had assumed (and as implied by the phrase "postreinforcement pause"), but by the upcoming ratio as well. Similarly, despite the commonly held belief that ratio pausing is unique to the fixed-ratio schedule, there is evidence that pausing also occurs under variable-ratio schedules. If such widely held beliefs are incorrect, then what about other assumptions? This article selectively examines the literature on pausing under ratio schedules over the past 50 years and concludes that although there may indeed be some common patterns, there are also inconsistencies that await future resolution. Several accounts of pausing under ratio schedules are discussed along with the implications of the literature for human performances, most notably the behaviors termed "procrastination". (Contains 1 figure and 1 footnote.)