Avoidance, induction, and the illusion of reinforcement
Avoidance may be triggered, not reinforced, by the very aversives it fails to stop.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Baum (2020) wrote a theory paper. He asked: what if avoidance is not reinforced?
He looked at classic shock-avoidance data. He said the shocks themselves may induce the very bar-press that fails to stop them.
What they found
The paper claims the rat does not press to cut shocks. The shocks trigger the press.
In short, aversive events induce behavior. They do not reinforce it.
How this fits with other research
SIDMAN (1962) said rats press because it lowers total shocks. Baum (2020) says that story is wrong; induction explains the same data.
Gardner et al. (1976) and Lewis et al. (1976) showed rats press even when shocks stay the same or rise. Baum uses these facts to back his induction claim.
Gde Jonge et al. (2025) take Baum’s idea further. They model how reinforcement and induction push and pull every second of behavior.
Why it matters
If aversive events induce behavior, your first move is to block or remove the trigger, not to hunt for a hidden reinforcer. Check whether the client’s problem behavior spikes right after a loud noise, a demand, or a peer scream. If it does, treat the noise or demand as an inducer and cut it first. Then teach an escape response that really ends the inducer, instead of one that merely postpones it.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Track if the problem behavior happens right after aversive events; if so, remove or soften the event first.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Environmental events that impact reproductive success may be called phylogenetically important events (PIEs). Some promote reproductive success, like mates and food; others threaten reproductive success, like predators and injury. Beneficial PIEs induce activities that enhance them, and detrimental PIEs induce activities that mitigate or avoid them. Free‐operant avoidance relies on electric shock as a proxy for injury, a PIE. One theory takes avoidance behavior to be reinforced by its reducing shock rate. A more complete explanation is that avoidance both reduces shock rate and is induced by the PIEs it usually prevents. Shocks received act in concert with shock‐rate reduction, in a feedback system. Four parametric data sets were analyzed to show that avoidance is induced by received shock rate according to power functions. Avoidance is not reinforced at all; avoidance is induced by its failures. Induction explains not only avoidance itself, but also phenomena unique to avoidance, like warmup and effects of unavoidable shock. Induction explains behavior more generally than reinforcement, because induction explains not only food‐maintained operant and nonoperant behavior, but also shock‐maintained behavior, including avoidance. Reinforcement fails to explain behavior when reinforcement is defined as strengthening by consequences. Induction erases the distinction between consequences and antecedents.
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 2020 · doi:10.1002/jeab.615