Effects of cycle length on performance on a temporally defined avoidance schedule.
Shorter safe periods in avoidance schedules keep response rates high and shocks low.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Garcia et al. (1971) tested how the length of the “safe” period changes avoidance behavior.
They used a lever-press task where shocks were scheduled unless the rat pressed during a warning tone.
The team varied the cycle length—the time between possible shocks—while keeping everything else the same.
What they found
Longer safe periods made rats press less and miss more shocks.
Even when colored lights signaled each phase, the animals still kept their old timing habits.
Shorter cycles kept response rates high and avoided most shocks.
How this fits with other research
Nevin (1969) saw the same drop in pressing when monkeys got longer safe periods, showing the pattern crosses species.
Davis et al. (1972) found longer delays to food also cut response rates, hinting that “wait time” itself weakens behavior no matter the reinforcer.
Greene et al. (1978) later showed that fixed-interval shock produces a pause-then-speed-up pattern; E et al.’s shorter cycles look like the fast half of that pattern, linking avoidance to basic interval timing.
Why it matters
If you run avoidance-based programs for safety or anxiety, keep the “safe” windows brief to maintain active coping.
Use short, predictable intervals and clear signals instead of long open-ended breaks.
This small timing tweak can keep clients engaged and reduce the very events you want them to avoid.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Cut any timeout or “safe” break longer than 30 s; replace with 10–15 s clear intervals plus a warning stimulus.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Three rats were trained on a temporally defined avoidance schedule logically similar to a fixed-interval, limited-hold positive reinforcement schedule. This avoidance schedule was composed of time periods during which responses had no scheduled consequences alternating with time periods during which a response precluded shock. As with fixed-interval length and response rate on positive reinforcement schedules, an inverse relationship was obtained between the length of the no-consequence interval and response rate during the no-consequence interval. An inverse relationship was also obtained between the length of the no-consequence interval and the per cent of shocks avoided. A rate increase within the no-consequence interval, similar to that typically produced by fixed-interval positive reinforcement procedures, was displayed by one of the rats where the no-consequence interval was at intermediate values and frequency of shock was relatively high. The introduction of a discriminative stimulus correlated with the avoidance interval produced typical discriminated avoidance behavior as well as alterations in temporal patterning of responses during the no-consequence interval in the two rats exposed to this procedure. These alterations in temporal patterning disappeared when the discriminative stimulus was removed. The results were consonant with those reported in the literature involving food reinforcement and fixed-interval, limited-hold schedules.
Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 1971 · doi:10.1901/jeab.1971.16-263