The Efficacy and Misconceptions of the "Time-out" Procedure in Dog Training

Date: June 19, 2023

Last update: July 31, 2024

How to cite: Barata, R. (2023). The Efficacy and Misconceptions of the “Time-out” Procedure in Dog Training. Human-Animal Science.

The “Time-out” procedure, a behavioral intervention grounded in operant conditioning principles, is often misunderstood and unjustly criticized in dog training as “traumatizing.” I find it necessary to clarify and show the scientific basis of this concept, distancing the discussion from moralistic perspectives or ideological groups and focusing on empirical evidence.

Time-out is a form of negative punishment involving the loss of access to positive reinforcers for a brief period following the occurrence of an unwanted behavior. This technique temporarily denies an individual access to positive reinforcers after exhibiting unwanted behaviors. The primary objective of the time-out procedure is to decrease the frequency of these behaviors over time (Cooper et al., 1987). However, time-out procedures are often poorly applied, leading to minimal impact on problem behavior. For instance, using a time-out with a dog might fail if the designated time-out area is more enjoyable than where the dog misbehaved.

Similarly, in humans, sending a child to their room to act out at the dinner table might reinforce the behavior if the child dislikes dinner time. Parents also tend to use excessively long time-outs, forgetting that the goal is to promote appropriate behaviors, which can’t be reinforced if the child is isolated for extended periods. Time-outs should be brief, especially for young children. Even a one-minute time-out can effectively suppress unwanted behavior if followed by reinforcing appropriate behaviors once the child returns (Miltenberger, 2012).

There are two primary classifications of time-out strategies: Exclusionary and Nonexclusionary time-out.

Exclusionary Time-out: This strategy necessitates physically relocating the individual from the environment where the undesirable behavior transpired to a separate setting, thereby isolating them from the reinforcing context. For instance, a dog that exhibits behaviors such as jumping on visitors or lunging at food can be addressed using this approach. Upon the manifestation of the unwanted behavior, the dog is relocated to a designated tranquil area for a brief duration, limiting its access to the reinforcing stimuli in the original environment.
Nonexclusionary Time-out: Contrarily, this approach maintains the individual’s physical presence within the environment but restricts their access to positive reinforcers. This is typically executed by withholding the reinforcers that sustain the problematic behavior while keeping the individual in the same setting. For example, this strategy is employed if a cat scratches furniture or is agitated during feeding. The cat is transferred to a more suitable alternative, and access to the reinforcing behavior is momentarily curtailed. The cat remains in the same setting but is deterred from indulging in the problematic behavior.

Time-outs reduced hand-mouthing action to near-zero levels if they occurred on a schedule of continuous punishment, but the time-outs had much less effect if they were delivered on fixed interval schedules (Lerman, Iwata, Shore, & DeLeon, 1997).

Applying the time-out procedure results in a notable reduction in the frequency of undesirable behaviors. A supplementary strategy is differential reinforcement, which focuses on enhancing the frequency of alternative behaviors that can replace unwanted ones. Techniques such as differential reinforcement of alternative behavior (DRA) and other behavior (DRO) can be employed. Although DRA provides positive reinforcement for the exhibition of desired behaviors, DRO offers reinforcement contingent upon the non-occurrence of the undesirable behavior. Concurrently, the unwanted behavior undergoes extinction.

Considering that the time-out procedure is predicated on eliminating access to positive reinforcers linked with specific behaviors, it is necessary to offset this by devising methods to access positive reinforcement through techniques like DRA, DRO, or Noncontingent Reinforcement (NCR). By establishing alternative channels for individuals to obtain reinforcement, the allure of the undesirable behavior is weakened.

We must also distinguish between response cost, time-out procedures, and extinction within the scope of negative punishment. Response cost involves removing a specific reinforcer following undesirable behavior, such as taking away a dog’s favorite toy after it misbehaves. Unlike time-out, response cost does not temporarily remove the opportunity to earn reinforcers. Instead, it directly reduces the individual’s access to a particular reinforcer.

Response cost involves removing a specific reinforcer after a problem behavior. Response cost allows for adjustable punishment severity: minor aggression might result in the loss of dessert, while severe aggression could lead to losing both dessert and TV privileges. However, response cost requires identifying a reinforcer that will impact behavior, necessitating a more detailed analysis than a time-out (Miltenberger, 2012).

In contrast, time-out involves temporarily removing the individual from an environment where reinforcers are available. During a time-out, the individual is placed in a setting where they cannot access positive reinforcement, such as a dog being placed in a separate room or a child being sent to a quiet corner. The effectiveness of time-out depends on ensuring that the time-out environment is less reinforcing than the setting from which the individual was removed.

Negative punishment differs from extinction. Although both involve removing reinforcers to decrease behavior, extinction occurs when a behavior that previously produced a reinforcer no longer does, leading to the behavior stopping altogether.

Comparing Response Cost, Time-Out, and Extinction Response cost, time-out, and extinction procedures are similar in decreasing problem behavior. However, different processes are involved.

With extinction, the problem behavior is no longer followed by the reinforcing event that previously maintained the behavior.
With time-out, the individual is removed from access to all sources of reinforcement contingent on the problem behavior.
With response cost, a specific amount of a reinforcer that the person already possesses is removed after the problem behavior.

Studies in Dogs

I have searched for studies on time-outs for dogs. There are few studies on this topic, and some authors show reluctance to address specific issues. I could not find anything that directly discusses the effects of time-out on dog behavior modification. This reflects a trend in dog studies where the priority seems to be appealing to the audience with popular discussions, personal beliefs, and confirmation bias rather than strictly adhering to the scientific method. For instance, Blackwell et al. (2008) inaccurately categorized time-out as negative reinforcement, whereas it is classified as negative punishment. Furthermore, the study needed to provide a detailed discussion on time-out.

I found, however, a study on the duration of time-out. Nobbe et al. (1980) suggest a 3-minute time out for punishing aggressive behavior, but this extended duration seems optional for managing most non-aggressive social behaviors. Typically, dogs respond well to repeated time-outs lasting 1 or 2 minutes, although even shorter durations of 30 seconds can be very effective.

Conclusion

When applied judiciously in animal training, the time-out procedure is a powerful tool to modify unwanted behaviors. The distinction between Exclusionary and Nonexclusionary time-out strategies offers trainers flexibility, allowing them to personalize interventions based on the individual’s specific needs. Empirical studies underscore its efficacy in behavior modification even though the procedure has been subject to misconceptions and criticisms. As with all behavioral interventions, the key lies in understanding the nuances of the technique, ensuring the individual’s welfare, and applying it consistently and informally.

Functional assessment information also plays a role in determining the appropriate procedure for the problem (Lerman & Toole, 2021). Time-out would suit unwanted behavior maintained by attention or other positive reinforcers. However, time-out would not be appropriate for unwanted behaviors maintained by escape.

Time-out effectively addresses behaviors sustained by positive reinforcement, which may stem from social interactions or tangible rewards—temporarily revoking access to these reinforcing stimuli reduces the likelihood of problematic behavior occurring. The effectiveness of time-out is conditional and contingent on the contrasting characteristics of the time-in and time-out environments. Although time-out is most effective when applied continuously, the suppressed target behavior is more likely to reappear once continuous punishment is withdrawn. Therefore, time-out should initially be constantly implemented. Once an adequate level of suppression is achieved, an intermittent schedule should be introduced and adjusted as needed to maintain low levels of the behavior (Clark et al., 1973; Calhoun & Lima, 1977).

The time-in environment should be replete with reinforcing activities or interactions for optimal results. Transitioning an individual from this environment constitutes a time-out from positive reinforcement only if the time-in environment is inherently reinforcing and the time-out environment is neutral or less appealing (Solnick et al., 1977). This highlights the significance of a meticulously curated environment for the success of the time-out procedure.

The referenced studies further emphasize the importance of continuous research and adaptation in animal training to achieve optimal outcomes considering the present situation, the individual characteristics, and the correct habilitation and experience of the professionals.

References

Blackwell, E. J., Twells, C., Seawright, A., & Casey, R. A. (2008). The relationship between training methods and the occurrence of behavior problems, as reported by owners, in a population of domestic dogs. Journal of Veterinary Behavior, 3(5), 207–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jveb.2007.10.008

Calhoun, K.S.m & Lima, P.P. (1977). Effects of varying schedules of time-out on high and low-rate behaviors. J Behav Ther Exp Psychiatry, 8:189–194.

Clark, H., Rowbury, T., Baer, A., & Baer, D. (1973). Time-out as a punishing stimulus in continuous and intermittent schedules. J Appl Behav Anal, 6:443–455.

Cooper, J. O., Heron, T. E., & Heward, W. L. (1987). Applied behavior analysis. Columbus, OH: Merrill.

Lerman, D.C., Iwata, B.A., Shore, B.A., & DeLeon, I.G. (1997). Effects of intermittent punishment on self-injurious behavior: An evaluation of schedule thinning. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 30, 198–201.

Lerman, D. C., & Toole, L. M. (2021). Developing function-based punishment procedures for problem behavior. In W. W. Fisher, C. C. Piazza, & H. S. Roane (Eds.), Handbook of applied behavior analysis (2nd ed., pp. 352–373). New York: Guilford Press.

Miltenberger, R. G. (2012). Behavior modification: Principles and procedures (5th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Nobbe, D.E., Niebuhr, B.R., Levinson, M., & Tiller, J.E. (1980). Use of time-out as punishment for aggressive behavior. In B Hart (Ed), Canine Behavior. Santa Barbara, CA: Veterinary Practice.

Solnick, J. V., Rincover, A., & Peterson, C. R. (1977). Some determinants of the reinforcing and punishing effects of time-out. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 10, 415–424.