CHARACTERISTICS OF AVERSIVE THRESHOLDS MEASURED BY A TITRATION SCHEDULE.

Scientists ran a titration schedule with monkeys and humans. Shock went up a little after each safe period. Shock dropped a little after each response.

They changed two things: how big each shock jump was and how soon the next jump could happen. They wanted to see when the person or monkey finally quit.

Smaller shock steps and shorter wait times raised the pain level animals would take. In plain words, tiny bumps that come fast feel less scary than big jumps that come slow.

Both monkeys and humans followed the same rule. The schedule itself, not the species, set the threshold.

SIDMAN (1962) built an early lever-press shock schedule. WALLETHOMAS et al. (1963) turned that idea into clear steps you can count.

Mosk et al. (1984) later showed that once shock is strong enough, more juice does not help. The 1963 paper shows the flip side: how you raise the juice matters as much as the final level.

Waite et al. (1972) found that even food schedules can bite. Together these papers say any schedule can turn aversive; the trick is knowing when and why.

When you shape tolerance—whether to noise, demands, or mild correction—keep steps small and deliver them quickly. Big, slow jumps create escape; tiny, fast bumps build staying power. Try cutting your demand increase in half and your wait time too. Watch the client stay longer before protest.