Conjoint schedules of timeout deletion in pigeons.
One simple response can both earn a reward and cancel an upcoming aversive, and animals will choose that response even when rewards are equal.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Four pigeons pecked two keys in a chamber.
Each key paid food on its own VI schedule.
One key also canceled an upcoming 5-s blackout when pecked.
The birds could stay on one key or switch keys at any time.
Sessions ran until choice stabilized.
What they found
Three birds soon favored the key that gave both food and blackout removal.
Their preference grew even though food rates were the same on both keys.
The fourth bird split evenly, still showing the effect in shorter runs.
One response was now controlled by two pay-offs at once.
How this fits with other research
Dunham et al. (1969) first showed that a single peck can cancel a blackout.
Dougan (1992) adds food to the same peck, proving pigeons can track both events together.
Corrigan et al. (1998) looks opposite: unsignaled food delays cut pecking hard.
The difference is control. In Dougan (1992) the bird ends the bad event. In Corrigan et al. (1998) the bird just waits.
McReynolds (1969) moves the idea to kids. Brief timeout removal plus praise shaped clearer speech in a preschooler.
Together the papers show timeout deletion works from birds to children.
Why it matters
You can bolt an aversive-removal contingency onto any reinforcer you already use.
A learner who can cancel the next break, the next loud room, or the next demand will work harder for the same treat.
Try adding a tiny escape option to your reinforcement plan and watch engagement rise.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Let the learner press a button that gives praise and also skips the next 30-s room lights-off period; record if requests rise above baseline.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
This experiment attempted to bring behavior under joint control of two distinct contingencies, one that provided food and a second that extended the periods during which that food was available. Pigeons' responses on each of two keys were reinforced according to a single random-interval schedule of food presentation except during signaled timeout periods during which the schedule was temporarily disabled. By means of a conjoint schedule, responses on the initially less preferred key not only produced food but also canceled impending timeouts. When behavior came to predominate on this conjoint alternative, the consequences of responding on the two keys were reversed. Responding in 3 of 4 pigeons proved sensitive to the conjoint scheduled consequences, as evidenced by systematic shifts in response rates favoring the conjoint key. In 2 of these 3 pigeons, sensitivity to the conjoint contingency was evident under time-in:timeout ratios of 2:1 (time-in = 120 s, timeout = 60 s) and 1:5 (time-in = 30 s, timeout = 150 s), whereas for the other pigeon preference for the conjoint key was observed only under the latter sequence of conditions. There was only weak evidence of control by the conjoint scheduled consequences in the 4th subject, despite extended training and forced exposure to the conjoint alternative. The overall pattern of results is consistent with studies of timeout avoidance but also shares features in common with positively reinforced behavior.
Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 1992 · doi:10.1901/jeab.1992.58-349