Avoidance of timeout from response-independent reinforcement.
Organisms will work hard to postpone even brief timeouts from free reinforcement, so treat timeout as a true punisher, not a gentle pause.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Hirota (1971) placed rats in a box where food dropped on its own every few seconds. If the rat did nothing, a timeout shut off the food for a short while.
The rat could press a lever to delay each timeout. The team asked: will the rat work just to keep the free food coming?
What they found
The rats pressed steadily. They treated the timeout like a tiny punishment and worked to avoid it.
When food dropped more often, the rats pressed even faster. Richer free food made the timeout feel worse.
How this fits with other research
Richardson et al. (2008) ran the same box and got the same lift in pressing with sweeter pellets, a clean direct replication.
McGee et al. (1983) later showed the opposite trend: longer delays before timeout cut pressing. This is not a clash—both agree that faster timeouts feel more aversive and drive more work.
Rose et al. (2000) proved the point is not the food. Pigeons pressed to postpone timeout even when pressing earned zero extra pellets—pure escape from the pause itself.
Why it matters
Timeout is not neutral. Clients will act to dodge it even when reinforcement keeps flowing. Use short, clear timeout signals and keep the ongoing schedule rich if you want the break to suppress problem behavior. Watch for avoidance responses—like leaving the area or stalling—that could accidentally be strengthened.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Track how many times your client tries to escape or delay the timeout chair—those avoidance moves are operant behavior you can graph.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Responses on a lever by rats postponed scheduled timeouts, or periods during which the delivery of response-independent food was withheld. The effects of a number of experimental variables were examined and the conclusions drawn are that the functional relations describing free-operant avoidance of timeout from response-independent reinforcement are similar to those for avoidance of electric shock and that both phenomena are sensitive to the same parametric manipulations. Results suggest that high frequency of food delivery in timein maintains a higher rate of timeout avoidance than low frequency. The evidence argues against an interpretation in terms of adventitious food-reinforcement of the timeout avoidance response. Finally, the effects of scheduling timeouts independently of responding and of omitting timeouts confirm the view that timeouts can be aversive and may act as punishment for responding.
Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 1971 · doi:10.1901/jeab.1971.15-319