Association for Behavior Analysis International

Timeout is a commonly used punishment procedure within clinical and parental practices, and when implemented properly, can be effective in reducing problematic behavior. Depending on the procedure, timeouts can function as either reinforcing stimuli or aversive stimuli. Despite the prevalence of timeout in practice, there is still much to learn about the conditions that make timeout an effective aversive or reinforcing stimulus and thus, the conditions under which timeout procedures will be effective behavior management strategies. The present symposium arranges four recent basic and applied timeout studies. The first presentation describes a laboratory evaluation of the effects of response-independent pellets delivered during timeouts on the effectiveness of timeout punishment of rats’ lever-pressing. The second presentation describes a laboratory evaluation of the effects of the timeout duration and food delivery rate during time-in on rats’ timeout avoidance. The third presentation describes a laboratory evaluation with pigeons to disentangle the confounded components (e.g., contingent work and timeout) that underlie positive practice overcorrection procedures. The fourth presentation describes a clinical evaluation of combining a differential reinforcement of other behavior with a timeout procedure to reduce unsafe playground behavior of young children. The symposium will conclude with a discussion led by Dr. Michael Perone.

Research has been concerned with the conditions that make timeout from positively reinforcing contexts most effective as a negative reinforcer. Toegel et al. (2022) found that the quality and rate of food delivery during time-in affected the aversiveness of timeout as measured by rats’ avoidance behavior. The present experiment replicated and extended this work. During time-in, non-contingent food pellets were delivered to rats on a variable-time 30-s schedule. Signaled timeouts were scheduled every 30 s. Each lever press postponed the onset of timeout by 30 s. The time-in and timeout components were signaled by the presence or absence of white noise and general illumination by the houselight, respectively. The duration of timeout and rate of pellet delivery during time-in were manipulated across conditions, and the aversiveness of timeout was measured by avoidance response rate and avoidance proficiency (the percentage of timeouts that were avoided). The effect of timeout duration depended on the rate of pellet delivery during time-in.

Positive practice overcorrection (PPOC) is a procedure used to decrease challenging behavior in academic, clinical, and home settings (Doleys et al., 1976; Carey & Bucher, 1983; Cole et al., 2000). When challenging behavior occurs, an individual is required to complete a task, which requires effort and often involves practicing appropriate behavior. The procedure involves both contingent work and timeout (TO) from the reinforcing environment. The purpose of the current study is to examine the mechanisms underlying the effectiveness of PPOC procedures by disentangling the confounded components of the procedure within an animal model. In Experiment 1 (single response), there is only 1 source of reinforcement; the same behavior occasionally produces reinforcement and PPOC/TO. In Experiment 2 (concurrent), there is an alternative source of reinforcement without PPOC/TO. In both experiments, a TO without work is yoked to the average duration to complete the terminal PPOC work (i.e., FR) to determine if the reduction in the behavior is due to the contingent work or the TO from reinforcement. In Experiments 1 and 2, both PPOC and TO suppressed responding, however in Experiment 2, PPOC produced more suppression than the yoked TO of the same duration. Limitations and implications are discussed.