Response-dependent and response-independent timeout from an avoidance schedule.
Even free timeout from avoidance can reinforce behavior, so watch what your breaks are feeding.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Researchers compared two kinds of timeout from an avoidance task. In one, the animal had to press a lever to earn a 30-second break. In the other, the same breaks came free on a fixed-time schedule, no lever press needed. Each animal served in both conditions so the team could see if the free breaks still changed behavior.
What they found
Both kinds of timeout raised the rate of lever presses that produced the warning signal. The free-break condition worked best after the animals had first experienced the response-dependent version. Timeout, even when noncontingent, acted like a positive reinforcer.
How this fits with other research
SIDMAN (1962) first showed monkeys would work to escape an avoidance schedule, proving timeout can reinforce. Mann et al. (1971) adds the twist that the break does not have to be earned; free breaks still lift response rates, especially after the animal learns breaks exist. Davison et al. (1991) and Davison et al. (1995) later used the same baseline to test drugs. They found d-amphetamine and cocaine push timeout-maintained responding even higher, showing the reinforcing strength of these breaks. Together the four papers build a line: timeout from avoidance is reinforcement, it can be response-independent, and drugs magnify the effect.
Why it matters
If you use brief breaks to manage escape or avoidance behavior, know the break itself can strengthen the very responses you are seeing. Noncontingent breaks may still feed the cycle, especially after the client has tasted contingent ones. Track whether your 'cool-down' time is making the target response more frequent.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Count the target response before and after each noncontingent break for one session to see if the break is strengthening the behavior.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
While rats were responding in a single-lever apparatus to avoid electric shock, a signal was presented and followed by a 5-min timeout period when all shocks were omitted. For the response-dependent member of each yoked pair, the first response 60 sec after onset of the pre-timeout signal terminated the signal and initiated timeout. The other, yoked animal was exposed to the same sequence except that signal termination and timeout onset were response independent. Under the response-dependent condition, response rates in the presence of the signal increased relative to baseline rates. Rate increases also occurred when timeout was response independent, but were of lesser magnitude and reliability. Subsequent reversal of the yoking arrangement produced stable and equivalent rate increases under both conditions. Other findings were that increased rates in the presence of the signal diminished when timeout was omitted but were maintained for a time on an avoidance-extinction baseline. In general, the results supported the conclusion of previous experiments that timeout from avoidance can serve as a positive reinforcer. The finding that response-independent presentation of timeout produced rate increases, particularly after a history with response-dependent timeout, was interpreted in terms of adventitious reinforcement of previously established behavior.
Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 1971 · doi:10.1901/jeab.1971.16-123