Elimination of reinforced behavior: intermittent schedules of not-responding.
Reinforcing brief pauses can cut behavior more smoothly than punishment—build tiny DRO moments instead of delivering aversives.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Zeiler (1977) worked with pigeons that loved to peck a key for food. The team set up a fixed-ratio schedule: every time the bird paused from pecking for a short block, it earned a food pellet.
They compared this pause-pay plan to two other setups. One gave free food with no peck link. The other used mild punishment after each peck.
What they found
Paying for brief pauses cut pecking better than free food. The drop was smooth and steady, not a sudden plunge.
Punishment also cut pecking, but the line looked jagged. Birds showed burst-and-stop cycles. The DRO-like food made a cleaner, more stable reduction.
How this fits with other research
Foster et al. (1979) ran a near-copy study, only they used shock-free time instead of food. Their pigeons also pecked less, showing the same "reward for not doing it" logic works with both good and bad reinforcers.
HOLZ et al. (1963) had earlier shown punishment beats extinction and satiation. Zeiler (1977) adds a new tool: you can get the same cut without any aversive, just by paying for tiny pauses.
Green et al. (1987) later showed that even when you think punishment is working, the real power may be the shock-free pauses inside the procedure. Their finding supports D’s idea that reinforcing omission, not the punisher itself, drives the drop.
Why it matters
If you need to reduce a repetitive behavior, try reinforcing short breaks first. Pick a pause the client can already do—maybe two seconds without hand-flapping—and deliver a preferred item right after. No need for reprimands or timeout. Watch the rate fall smoothly, just like the pigeons’ pecking, and adjust the pause length as the behavior thins.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Start a 3-s DRO: deliver a token or snack only if the client goes three seconds without the target behavior, then thin the interval.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Pigeons' key pecking resulted in food according to either a variable-ratio or a variable-interval schedule. At the same time, food was available for not pecking for a specified time. The required time of not-pecking was segmented into not-responding units, and these units were followed by food according to a fixed-ratio schedule. Both unit duration and the number required were varied. In general, the shorter the time unit or the smaller the ratio, the lower was response rate. When total required not-responding time was constant, but changes in unit duration and the number required altered how the total was achieved, shorter units produced lower rates. Other conditions involved substitution of food delivered independent of responding for the not-responding schedule. With low and moderate total times to food presentation, the not-responding schedule produced lower rates; with the longest times, the response-independent schedule generated less responding. When considered in terms of relative frequency of food presentation available from a source other than pecking, the not-responding schedule reduced rate more effectively than did the response-independent schedule. Comparisons with other research suggested that food presented dependent on not responding compared favorably with punishment as a procedure for reducing response rate. Transient effects differed. Although punishment temporarily depresses rate when first imposed and temporarily enhances it when first removed, food given for not responding quickly generated steady-state rates.
Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 1977 · doi:10.1901/jeab.1977.27-23