Functional considerations in the use of procedural timeout and in effective alternative.
Timeout can accidentally reward problem behavior when kids use it to escape work; switch to paced instruction plus reinforcement instead.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Researchers watched a special-ed classroom where timeout was used for problem behavior. They ran an ABAB reversal to see if timeout really punished the actions.
They also tried a new plan: slow-paced instructions plus praise for correct work. They compared both approaches in the same room.
What they found
Timeout did not shrink the problems. Instead, it let kids escape work, so the misbehavior grew. The timeout was acting like a reward, not a penalty.
When staff switched to paced instructions with praise, problem behavior dropped to almost zero. Kids stayed busy and calm.
How this fits with other research
Thomas (1968) showed timeout can punish pigeons when used on a fixed-ratio schedule. The lab result looked solid, yet the 1977 classroom found the opposite. The difference is the function: in the classroom, escape from tasks made timeout reinforcing, not punishing.
Matson et al. (1999) reviewed 30 years of studies and found that after a functional analysis, most teams drop punishment and pick reinforcement. The classroom data mirror that shift.
Prigge et al. (2013) later tested scheduled breaks in a dental clinic. Giving kids noncontingent escape cut problems without extra chair time. The same logic—schedule the escape instead of making kids act out to get it—extends the 1977 lesson to medical settings.
Why it matters
If timeout makes behavior worse, stop and ask what the child gains. When escape is the payoff, replace timeout with brief, paced tasks and immediate praise. You can test this in one session: give shorter work bursts, deliver tokens or compliments, and watch problem behavior fade.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Cut the current task into three smaller steps, deliver praise after each step, and remove timeout for one session to see if behavior improves.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Two single-subject experiments were conducted with students in special preschool classes. In Experiment I, the subject's disruptive, appropriate, and inappropriate play behaviors were measured as a function of three independent variables: reinforcement, a typical timeout procedure, and regularly paced teacher instructions. In an ABA reversal within a multiple baseline across two teachers, all three independent variables comprised the A conditions and procedural timeout was omitted in B. Experiment II examined a second subject's appropriate and inappropriate eating as a function of the same three variables. Two teachers conducted baseline and paced instruction-plus-reinforcement conditions in multiple baseline across teachers. Subsequently, one teacher performed a series of reversals and replications with various combinations of a typical timeout procedure and reinforcement mixed with paced instructions. The results of both experiments suggest that timeout did not produce response decrement in a punishment paradigm, but rather produced response increment in a negative reinforcement paradigm. These results prevailed, even though a reinforcer was operating in the environment before introducing timeout. Paced instructions (delivering instructions to the child at a set pace regardless of the child's behavior) appears to be an alternative when timeout is not effective and, in conjunction with reinforcement, was demonstrated to reduce inappropriate behavior to near zero.
Journal of applied behavior analysis, 1977 · doi:10.1901/jaba.1977.10-689