Timeout from concurrent schedules.
Timeout on one schedule flattens choice but does not reliably lower overall responding.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Dunn (1990) added short breaks to pigeons working on two VI schedules at once.
If a bird pecked on the left key, the lights went dark for a few seconds.
The team raised the break length and how often it happened across sessions.
What they found
Longer or more frequent breaks made the birds' choice less extreme.
They still pecked more on the richer side, but the gap shrank.
Total pecks and time spent did not change in a clear way.
How this fits with other research
Striefel (1972) saw the same shift with college students on fixed-ratio schedules.
Timeout pushed students toward the bigger ratio, just like it nudged pigeons toward the richer VI.
Ramer et al. (1977) warn that response count and time spent can tell different stories.
Dunn (1990) shows the same split: choice ratios moved, yet time ratios wobbled.
Why it matters
Timeout is not just a stop signal; it bends choice without always cutting total work.
If you run concurrent teaching loops, a brief pause on the easy side can rebalance a client’s effort.
Track both pecks and minutes—one may shift while the other stays flat.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →After a correct response on the easy task, give a 3-s blackout and watch if the learner drifts toward the tougher task.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Response-contingent timeouts of equal duration and frequency were added to both alternatives of unequal concurrent schedules of reinforcement. For each of 4 pigeons in Experiment 1, relative response rates generally became less extreme as the frequency of timeout increased. In Experiment 2, relative response rates consistently approached indifference as the duration of timeout was increased. Variation in time allocation was less consistent in both experiments. Absolute response rates did not vary with the timeout contingency in either experiment. In a third experiment, neither measure of choice varied systematically when the duration of a postreinforcement blackout was varied. In contrast to the present results, preference has been shown to vary directly with the parameters of shock delivery in related procedures. The pattern of results in the first two experiments follows that obtained with other manipulations of the overall rate of reinforcement in concurrent schedules. The results of the third experiment suggest that an intertrial interval following reinforcement is not a critical feature of the overall rate of reinforcement.
Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 1990 · doi:10.1901/jeab.1990.53-163