Stimulus-food relations and free-operant postponement of timeout from response-independent food presentation.

Scientists placed pigeons in a box. Food dropped every so often, no matter what the bird did.

A red key lit up. If the pigeon pecked it, a short timeout was delayed. Longer delays needed more pecks.

The team wanted to know if the birds would keep pecking just to stall the quiet period.

Pecking slowed when the delay was long. The birds gave up sooner if the work looked endless.

Even when timeout came no matter what, the key light still changed peck speed. The link between light and food mattered as much as the delay rule.

Rose et al. (2000) ran almost the same box, but saw strong pecking. The big twist: they kept food rate the same whether the bird worked or not. That clean test proved pure timeout-avoidance can drive behavior, something McGee et al. (1983) missed.

Richardson et al. (2008) later showed richer or sweeter pellets make rats lever-press even harder to dodge timeout. They stretched the idea: the better the ongoing food, the worse the timeout feels.

Hirota (1971) did the first version with rats. The core effect—work to stop timeout—was already there. G et al. just added the puzzle of why pigeons sometimes quit.

Your client may escape demands to dodge a short break room. Check what toys or snacks stay available during that break. If the break looks empty, any work to avoid it will rise, just like richer pellets kept rats responding. Make the break brief, and keep strong reinforcers running during work periods, so the break feels less awful.