Reductions in shock frequency and response effort as factors in reinforcement by timeout from avoidance.

Chandler et al. (1992) asked why rats press a lever that gives them a break from an avoidance schedule. They tested two ideas: does the break work because it lowers how often shocks occur, or because it lets the rat rest from the effort of pressing?

They used a single-case design with lab rats. The animals could press one lever to avoid shock and a second lever to earn a short timeout from the whole schedule.

The rats kept pressing the timeout lever even when it no longer reduced shock rate. What kept them going was the chance to rest from the hard work of avoidance. Effort reduction, not shock reduction, drove most of the responding.

Yet both factors shaped how long the timeout response lasted when the team later removed the payoff. Responses faded faster when shocks had actually dropped during timeout.

Bell (1999) followed up and showed the timeout response can linger for over twenty sessions after the avoidance task is gone. This supports K et al.'s point that timeout is a powerful reinforcer once learned.

Hirota (1971) and Green et al. (1975) had already shown that animals will work to avoid or obtain timeout. K et al. drilled deeper, asking which property of timeout matters most.

Richardson et al. (2008) later switched from shock to food loss and found the same pattern: higher reinforcement rates during time-in make animals work harder to escape timeout. Together these studies build a line of evidence that timeout is both a reinforcer and an aversive event, depending on how you arrange it.

If you use brief breaks in practice, know that clients may value the rest from effort more than the removal of something unpleasant. When you want to thin a break schedule, reduce the effort of the task first, not the aversives. Also, expect any response that earns a break to stick around; plan an extinction or replacement program early.