Effects of lick-contingent timeout on schedule-induced polydipsia.
Timeout from reinforcement can slash schedule-driven side behaviors, and the effect grows when the timeout also delays the next reinforcer.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Flory et al. (1974) worked with lab rats that drank too much water during food schedules. They made every extra lick cost a brief timeout from the food schedule. They tested different timeout lengths to see how drinking changed.
The team wanted to know if timeout could stop 'schedule-induced polydipsia'—the odd over-drinking that happens when food comes at set times.
What they found
Longer timeouts cut licking and water intake more and more. The biggest drops came when the timeout also stretched out the time between food pellets. Timeout works best when it both removes the chance to drink and delays the next bite.
How this fits with other research
Harris et al. (1973) used mild electric shock instead of timeout. Shock cut licking, but the rats still pressed a lever for food. Both studies show you can punish adjunctive drinking, yet the punished behavior bounces back once the consequence stops.
Hirota (1971) showed rats will press a lever just to postpone timeout from food. Flory et al. (1974) flipped this idea: they made the unwanted behavior itself trigger the timeout. Together they prove timeout is aversive enough to drive both avoidance and suppression.
Byrne et al. (2017) later found that even a 10- to 38-second delay between the response and the timeout still cut lever pressing, especially when a signal marked the delay. Their data widen the window: timeout does not have to be instant to work.
Why it matters
If a client engages in odd, repetitive behavior between reinforcers—like excessive drinking, hand-flapping, or rocking—try linking that behavior to a brief timeout from the ongoing reinforcer. Start with a short timeout and lengthen it only if needed. Signal when the timeout begins so the learner knows reinforcement is paused. Pair this with rich reinforcement for desired behavior to keep the overall session positive.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Identify one adjunctive behavior, set a 10-s timeout that also postpones the next reinforcer, and measure its rate before and after you add the contingency.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Rats bar pressing on a 1-min fixed-interval schedule for 45-mg food pellets became polydipsic when water was concurrently available. They were then exposed to conditions in which each lick on the drinking tube produced a timeout period during which the food-schedule lever was retracted and the fixed-interval timer either did or did not continue to operate. Licks occurring within a timeout period extended its duration. As the duration of the lick-initiated timeout period was increased logarithmically through four values from 10 sec to 80 sec, lick rates as well as water intake rates generally decreased for all three subjects. As timeout duration was progressively increased, the rate of licks occurring in the absense of, but producing, timeouts decreased for all three rats, whereas the rate of licks occurring in the presence of timeout periods remained essentially constant. Water-intake rates and, with one exception, lick rates were suppressed more by timeout periods during which the fixed-interval timer did not continue to operate. These results indicate that lick-contingent timeout from positive reinforcement reduces schedule-induced drinking, and this suppressive effect is greater when the timeout period necessarily increases the interreinforcement interval beyond its minimum duration than when it does not.
Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 1974 · doi:10.1901/jeab.1974.21-45