Acquisition and maintenance of postshock response pattern in nondiscriminated avoidance with rats.
A short delay to the next aversive event can turn post-shock behavior into a stable, operant pattern.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Berler et al. (1982) worked with five rats in a small lab chamber. Each rat could press a lever. If the rat pressed, it got a short break before the next shock. If it did nothing, shock came faster. The team watched to see if the rats learned a steady pattern of pressing right after each shock.
The setup is called nondiscriminated avoidance. No lights or tones told the rats when to respond. Only the shock timing changed based on what they did.
What they found
Four of the five rats quickly showed a clear post-shock pattern. They pressed the lever soon after each shock and kept the pattern going for the whole session. The fifth rat never settled into a rhythm.
The steady pattern shows the lever pressing was operant, not just a reflex kick after shock.
How this fits with other research
HERRNSTEISLOANE (1964) once saw the opposite: shock punishment made rats press more, not less. The two results look like a clash, but the schedules differ. In 1964 every press produced immediate shock — a punishment contingency. In 1982 pressing delayed the next shock — an avoidance contingency. Same shock, different rule, different outcome.
Bernal et al. (1980) showed that monkeys with a long avoidance history would even press when shock was delivered on a fixed timer. Their study came first and helped prove that shock history, not just the current rule, shapes later behavior.
Gardner et al. (1977) pigeons kept pecking even when the experimenters tightened the screws — shorter delays, more shocks. Together these papers say: once avoidance starts, it is hard to stop, no matter the species or response form.
Why it matters
For BCBAs the lesson is timing. A consequence that looks harsh can strengthen behavior if it buys the client even a brief break from something worse. When you design escape or avoidance programs, check the seconds between response and aversive event. A tiny delay can lock in the response, just like the rat’s post-shock lever press. Use that power carefully and measure whether the new pattern truly helps the client day-to-day.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Graph the seconds between your client’s escape response and the next demand or aversive event; aim for a consistent brief delay to maintain the escape response if that is your clinical goal.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Five experimentally naive albino rats were placed under a nondiscriminated lever-press avoidance schedule in which the delay to the next shock for responses after a shock was longer than the delay for responses after a response. Four rats acquired the postshock response pattern and maintained it for a prolonged period. The results revealed that postshock responding was under operant control and was not purely shock-elicited. It was suggested that the two kinds of response-shock interval, i.e. the shock-response-shock interval and the response-response-shock interval, could and should be independently controlled in nondiscriminated avoidance schedules.
Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 1982 · doi:10.1901/jeab.1982.37-455