Variable-interval schedules of timeout from avoidance.
Timeout can reinforce behavior when it suspends an aversive schedule, so check its function before using it as punishment.
01Research in Context
What this study did
The team set up a lab cage where pressing a lever normally avoided mild shock.
They then added a twist: pressing could also earn a short timeout that paused the whole shock schedule.
The timeout was delivered on a variable-interval plan, meaning it popped up unpredictably across time.
They watched whether animals kept pressing just to grab those brief schedule breaks.
What they found
Animals worked hard for the timeout even though it produced no food, toys, or lights.
The break from the shock schedule itself acted as the reinforcer.
This showed timeout is not just a punisher; it can strengthen behavior when it suspends an aversive contingency.
How this fits with other research
Glover et al. (1976) ran an earlier study that tweaked timeout length and saw mixed results. Their work is a direct predecessor; it mapped how long a timeout must last to calm responding without ruining efficiency.
Solnick et al. (1977) found timeout can reward problem behavior if the regular room is dull. That clinical result lines up with M et al.; both prove timeout can reinforce when the ongoing setting is worse than the break.
Davis et al. (1974) showed timeout accidentally fed stereotyped errors. Their cautionary tale matches the new finding: if the break feels good, you may be feeding the very response you want to stop.
Why it matters
Before you use timeout to punish, ask: what is the client escaping? If the task or setting is aversive, your timeout may reinforce. Try giving brief task breaks as rewards for correct responses instead of using timeout for errors, and watch whether problem behavior still climbs.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Track whether the client tries to earn timeout; if yes, swap timeout for a brief, scheduled break given after correct responses.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Rats were trained on concurrent schedules in which pressing one lever postponed shock and pressing the other occasionally produced a 2-min timeout during which the shock-postponement schedule was suspended and its correlated stimuli were removed. Throughout, the shock-postponement schedule maintained proficient levels of avoidance. Nevertheless, in Experiment 1 responding on the timeout lever was established rapidly, was maintained at stable levels on variable-interval schedules, was extinguished by withholding timeout, was reestablished when timeout was reintroduced, and was brought under discriminative control with a multiple variable-interval extinction schedule of timeout. These results are in contrast with Verhave's (1962) conclusion that timeout is an ineffective reinforcer when presented to rats on intermittent schedules. In Experiment 2 the consequence of responding on the timeout lever was altered so that the shock-postponement schedule remained in effect even though the stimulus conditions associated with timeout were produced for 2 min. Responding extinguished, indicating that suspension of the shock-postponement schedule, not stimulus change, was the source of reinforcement. By establishing the reinforcing efficacy of timeout with standard variable-interval schedules, these experiments illustrate a procedure for studying negative reinforcement in the same way as positive reinforcement.
Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 1987 · doi:10.1901/jeab.1987.47-97