ARE RESPONSES IN AVOIDANCE PROCEDURES "SAFETY" SIGNALS?

Dinsmoor's (2001) position has the advantage of parsimony in that it relies on well‐established principles rather than a separate process—shock‐frequency reduction—to account for avoidance. Other advantages are that it blends well with what is known about the effectiveness of momentary contigui...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inJournal of the experimental analysis of behavior Vol. 75; no. 3; pp. 351 - 354
Main Author Branch, Marc N.
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Oxford, UK Blackwell Publishing Ltd 01.05.2001
Subjects
Animals
Appetitive Behavior
avoidance
Avoidance Learning
Behavior
Conditioning, Operant
Electricity
Electroshock
Feedback
Humans
Motivation
Proprioception
proprioceptive stimuli
Psychological Theory
safety signals
shock-frequency reduction
Theory
two-factor theory
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

More Information
Summary:Dinsmoor's (2001) position has the advantage of parsimony in that it relies on well‐established principles rather than a separate process—shock‐frequency reduction—to account for avoidance. Other advantages are that it blends well with what is known about the effectiveness of momentary contiguities in the study of positive reinforcement and that it might provide an account of why different response forms seem to condition at different rates. Despite these advantages, the view needs elaboration about the temporal characteristics of response‐associated stimuli, the functions that “warning” stimuli may have, and especially about how “safety” is established.
Bibliography:ArticleID:JEAB3274
ark:/67375/WNG-VXX22QKL-Z
istex:66ABA82F4BEDD367F6C536AA1DC222F72EB7A7F7
ObjectType-Article-2
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-1
content type line 23
ObjectType-Feature-3
ObjectType-Commentary-1
ISSN:0022-5002
1938-3711
DOI:10.1901/jeab.2001.75-351