Some determinants of the reinforcing and punishing effects of timeout.
Timeout only punishes when the regular room beats the booth—strip sensory payoffs inside timeout and enrich the main setting.
01Research in Context
What this study did
The team worked with children who had autism or intellectual disability.
They used timeout after disruptive behavior, but changed two things: how fun the room was and whether kids could still play with sensory toys during timeout.
The design flipped back and forth four times so each child served as their own control.
What they found
Timeout backfired when kids kept their sensory toys inside the booth; problem behavior rose.
When the toys stayed in the classroom and the room had music, games, and praise, timeout cut disruption.
The same child could show both patterns within one week.
How this fits with other research
Davis et al. (1974) saw the same rebound a few years earlier with adults making repeated errors.
Rutter et al. (1987) later stretched the idea to avoidance schedules, proving timeout can reinforce across very different tasks.
Wahler (1969) already warned that timeout works best when parents also pour attention into the regular setting, matching the enrichment rule shown here.
Why it matters
Before you write a timeout plan, audit the classroom. Remove sensory payoffs inside the booth and load the ongoing area with stronger fun: music, toys, praise, peers. If the break room is nicer than the work room, kids will work to get sent there. Flip the value and timeout becomes a true punisher.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Remove any sensory items from your timeout area and add two high-preference activities to the classroom before the next session.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Some determinants of the reinforcing and punishing properties of timeout were investigated in two experiments. Experiment I began as an attempt to reduce the frequency of tantrums in a 6-yr-old autistic girl by using timeout. Unexpectedly, the result was a substantial increase in the frequency of tantrums. Using a reversal design, subsequent manipulations showed that the opportunity to engage in self-stimulatory behavior during the timeout period was largely responsible for the increase in tantrums. Experiment II was initiated following the failure of timeout to reduce the spitting and self-injurious behavior of a 16-yr-old retarded boy. Using a multiple-baseline design, the nature of the timein environment was shown to be an important determinant of the effects of timeout. When the timein environment was "enriched", timeout was effective as a punisher. A conception of timeout in terms of the relative reinforcing properties of timein and timeout and their clinical implications are discussed.
Journal of applied behavior analysis, 1977 · doi:10.1901/jaba.1977.10-415