Choice of timeout during response-independent food schedules.
Timeout choice is driven by food-delivery rate and stimulus change, not just avoidance.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Lydersen et al. (1980) let lab rats choose to take a timeout while free food kept dropping.
The team changed how fast the food came and what lights were on.
They watched how often and how long the rats stayed in timeout.
What they found
The rats picked short timeouts when food arrived quickly.
They stayed out longer when food was slow or the room light changed.
Food rate and signals, not just escape, guided their choice.
How this fits with other research
Hirota (1971) first showed rats will press a lever to avoid the same timeout.
That paper proved timeout is aversive; this one shows animals also weigh food flow and cues before opting in.
Richardson et al. (2008) later repeated the avoidance finding and added that sweeter, faster pellets make rats work harder to stay out.
Together the three studies tell one story: timeout is punishing, but its punch depends on how rich and predictable the ongoing food is.
Why it matters
When you use timeout, think about the reinforcement rate the client is leaving.
A dense, steady schedule makes timeout more attractive, so brief breaks may fail.
Keep the "time-in" environment rich and consistent, and pair it with clear signals, if you want timeout to stay effective.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Track the client’s reinforcement rate right before timeout; if it’s high, shorten or adjust the break to keep it effective.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Rats' lever pressing terminated visual or auditory stimuli associated with fixed-time or variable-time schedules of food delivery and produced a timeout period during which food delivery could not occur. Lever pressing during a timeout period reinstated the food-associated stimuli and again permitted food delivery according to the fixed-time or variable-time schedules. The mean interfood interval ranged from 1 minute to 16 minutes (variable-time schedules) or 32 minutes (fixed-time schedules); the timer controlling schedule intervals did not stop during timeout periods. The percentage of session time spent in timeout increased when the mean interfood intervals were lengthened and decreased when the mean interfood intervals were shortened. Timeouts were initiated most frequently about half way between successive food deliveries (fixed-time schedules) or after 15 seconds or more had lapsed since the last food delivery (variable-time schedules). Elimination of food delivery increased the percentage of session time spent in timeout, and elimination of the timeout contingency decreased lever press rates. When timeout was produced only when the lever was held in the depressed position, little time was spent in timeout. The main determinants of timeout initiation and termination appeared to be the rate of food delivery, freedom of movement during timeout, and the stimulus change associated with initiation and termination of timeout.
Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 1980 · doi:10.1901/jeab.1980.33-59