Timeout and concurrent fixed-ratio schedules with human subjects.

College students pressed buttons on two schedules. One schedule asked for a few presses. The other asked for many presses. After they finished either schedule, a timeout paused the game.

The researchers made the timeout longer or shorter to see if students would switch from the easy schedule to the harder one.

Longer timeouts pushed students to pick the bigger work requirement. When the ratio gap was large, they needed even longer timeouts to make the switch.

Timeout acted like a cost. The costlier the short schedule became, the more the students chose the long schedule.

Dunn (1990) saw the same pattern in pigeons. Timeout made the birds less extreme in their choice, just like the students. The bird data were messier, but the trend matched.

Blakemore et al. (2025) tested humans on concurrent schedules without any timeout. They still saw strong preference shifts, proving that ratio size alone drives choice. Adding timeout, as Striefel (1972) did, simply speeds the shift up.

Szempruch et al. (1993) found that some humans follow unspoken rules while others do not. Striefel (1972) kept rules quiet by using a game-like task. The timeout effect held anyway, showing the procedure works even when rules are weak.

If a client keeps picking the easy task, a brief pause after that task can nudge them toward the harder one. Start with a short pause and lengthen it until the switch happens. Track the ratio gap; bigger gaps need longer pauses. Use this tactic in skill-building or token boards where one option is clearly lighter work.