Concurrent avoidance of shocks by pigeons pecking a key.

The team set up two keys for pigeons. Pecking on one key postponed shocks on a variable schedule. Pecking on the other key postponed shocks on a fixed schedule.

The birds could switch keys at any time. Researchers watched how often each key was pecked as the shock-delay rules changed.

When the variable key required longer waits to avoid shock, pigeons pecked it less. Their rate on the fixed key stayed steady.

The birds shifted effort toward the key that gave the safer, more predictable deal.

Catania et al. (1974) first showed that longer response-shock intervals slow single-key avoidance. Bacon-Prue et al. (1980) now prove the same rule holds when two avoidance keys run side-by-side.

Neuringer et al. (1968) and Blue et al. (1971) found matching in concurrent reinforcement: time allocation tracks reinforcer rate. The new study mirrors that pattern with shocks instead of food.

PLISKOFF (1963) gave us the matching law for rewards. A et al. extend it to avoidance, showing choice principles stay the same even when the payoff is escaping harm.

Your clients often face two ways to escape or avoid something they dislike. This paper reminds us that the option with the shorter, more reliable path to safety will win most responses. When you set up competing avoidance contingencies, tighten the delay on the response you want to see grow.