AN ADJUSTING AVOIDANCE PROCEDURE WITH MULTIPLE AUDITORY AND VISUAL WARNING STIMULI.
In avoidance procedures, sounds control behavior more effectively than lights, but removing all warnings works best.
01Research in Context
What this study did
FIELPREMACK et al. (1963) tested how different warning signals control avoidance behavior. They used a free-operant avoidance schedule where animals could press a lever to postpone shocks.
The researchers compared three warning types: sounds, lights, and both together. They also tested what happened when they removed all warning signals.
What they found
Sounds controlled avoidance behavior better than lights. When both sound and light signals were used together, the results fell between the sound-only and light-only conditions.
Surprisingly, animals avoided the most shocks when all warning signals were removed. This suggests warning signals can sometimes interfere with optimal avoidance timing.
How this fits with other research
Blough (1971) replicated the sound dominance finding eight years later. This follow-up study showed animals time their responses from the most reliable sound cue, explaining why sounds work better than lights.
Davis et al. (1972) extended this work by testing sound-plus-light combinations. They found combined signals can boost responding through summation, unlike the intermediate effects seen in the 1963 study.
Mosk et al. (1984) used the same signaled avoidance procedure but varied shock intensity instead of signal type. They found each animal needs a minimum shock level to maintain avoidance, but higher intensities don't improve performance.
Why it matters
When teaching safety skills or avoidance behaviors, prioritize auditory warnings over visual ones. Use consistent sound cues like buzzers or beeps rather than relying on colored lights or visual indicators. If you must use visual signals, pair them with sounds to strengthen control. Remember that removing all warnings might paradoxically improve performance in some cases, suggesting learners may respond better to natural consequences than artificial signals.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Replace visual warning cards with auditory beeps when teaching street-crossing or hot-stove avoidance
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Male albino rats were trained on an adjusting avoidance schedule in which each lever press accumulated a given amount of shock-free time. Multiple auditory and visual stimuli were programmed for each discrete temporal distance from the shock in an effort to place the avoidance behavior under the control of the shock proximity. The effects of the stimuli were further examined by presenting part of them and then by removing them altogether. With the combined auditory and visual stimuli, the rat spent most of the time relatively close to the shock and usually started to respond only when the shock was near. With the visual stimuli only, the rat kept the shock at intermediate temporal distances and responded more variably. The behavior with the auditory stimuli alone was quite similar to that produced by the combined stimuli, thus indicating that the auditory stimuli exercised the greater control. When all stimuli were removed, the animal usually kept the shock as far away as the procedure permitted. When only a single pre-shock stimulus was presented, the rat remained quite close to the shock and started to respond predominantly in the pre-shock step.
Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 1963 · doi:10.1901/jeab.1963.6-537