An empirical investigation of time-out with and without escape extinction to treat escape-maintained noncompliance.
Blocking escape after time-out lifts compliance when kids say no to dodge work and reinforcement is so-so.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Emerson et al. (2007) asked a simple question. If a child says no to get out of work, does blocking that escape make time-out work better?
They tested four kids whose noncompliance was escape-maintained. Each child got two time-out plans in an alternating-treatments design. One plan was plain time-out. The other plan added escape extinction — after time-out the child still had to do the task. No exit door.
What they found
Every child complied more when escape extinction was added. Plain time-out helped a little. Time-out plus 'you still have to do it' helped a lot.
The boost showed up fast and stayed across sessions.
How this fits with other research
Carter (2010) and Au-Yeung et al. (2015) seem to disagree. They got big compliance gains without any extinction. Their trick was to give highly preferred edibles for each follow-through. Kids worked to earn, not to escape.
The gap is real but explainable. E et al. kept reinforcement mild and constant. L and K cranked reinforcement up to favorite candy or iPad time. When payoff is huge, you can drop the extinction piece.
Slocum et al. (2025) extends the story. In a classroom RCT they found differential positive reinforcement and instructional fading beat extinction for speed of first suppression. Again, extinction is helpful, not mandatory if you engineer strong reinforcement or easier steps.
Why it matters
If your reinforcement options are weak — think neutral praise or small tokens — add escape extinction to time-out for escape-maintained noncompliance. It is a low-cost way to raise compliance. If you can offer a high-preference edible or fun activity, you may skip extinction and still win. Test both paths in your single-case probe and let the data pick.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Run a quick alternating-treatments probe: two days time-out alone, two days time-out plus 'finish the task,' graph compliance, and let the child choose the winner.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
The present study evaluates the effectiveness of two time-out (TO) procedures in reducing escape-maintained noncompliance of 4 children. Noncompliant behavioral function was established via a functional assessment (FA), including indirect and direct descriptive procedures and brief confirmatory experimental analyses. Following FA, parents were taught to consequate noncompliance with two different TO procedures, one without and one with escape extinction following TO release. Although results indicate TO without escape extinction is effective in increasing compliance above baseline levels, more optimal levels of compliance were obtained for all 4 children when escape extinction was added to the TO procedures already in place. Results indicate efficacy of TO with escape extinction when applied to escape-maintained noncompliance and are discussed as an initial example of the successful application of TO to behaviors maintained by negative reinforcement.
Behavior modification, 2007 · doi:10.1177/0145445506297725