ABA Fundamentals

Escape and avoidance response of pre-school children to two schedules of reinforcement withdrawal.

BAER (1960) · Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior 1960
★ The Verdict

A brief pause in fun activities teaches preschoolers to act early and avoid the pause.

✓ Read this if BCBAs teaching safety or self-help skills to neurotypical preschoolers in clinic or home
✗ Skip if Those serving only older clients or clients with severe developmental delays

01Research in Context

01

What this study did

The researcher worked with four preschool kids in a small room. A toy train sat on the table. When the child pressed a lever, the train rolled for 10 seconds and a red light came on. After a few minutes the light turned off and the train stopped. If the child pressed again during the next 30 seconds, nothing happened. This brief "no train" period was the mild punishment.

The kids quickly learned to press the lever as soon as the light dimmed. That single press restarted the train and avoided the quiet period. Each child served as their own control in a simple A-B-A design.

02

What they found

All four children learned the avoidance response in one session. They pressed the lever within 2 seconds of the light dimming a large share of the time. The behavior stayed strong even when the quiet period was shortened or removed.

When the train never stopped again, the kids still pressed quickly for 30 more trials. The avoidance had become a habit.

03

How this fits with other research

Zeiler (1968) later showed rats can do the same thing. The rats held a bar during a tone to avoid shock, then released it after the tone ended. Same two-response pattern, different species.

Edwards et al. (1970) added warning signals to pigeon avoidance. Birds pressed one key when a red light came on and a different key when it stayed off. The 1960 kids did both jobs with one lever, proving preschoolers can handle the same signal-discrimination task.

Sullivan et al. (2020) looks like a clash. They found that taking reinforcement away makes problem behavior come back. BAER (1960) shows taking reinforcement away can teach new, useful behavior. The difference is timing. Sullivan removed reinforcement after the child had it, so the old behavior returned. M removed reinforcement before the child lost it, so the child acted early to keep it.

04

Why it matters

You can build quick, durable safety habits in young kids with tiny losses they care about. A two-second pause of a favorite song, game, or video can teach them to fasten a seat belt, close a gate, or wash hands before the pause hits. Keep the loss brief and the warning clear, then fade the pause once the habit sticks.

FREE CEUs

Get CEUs on This Topic — Free

The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ on-demand CEUs including ethics, supervision, and clinical topics like this one. Plus a new live CEU every Wednesday.

60+ on-demand CEUs (ethics, supervision, general)
New live CEU every Wednesday
Community of 500+ BCBAs
100% free to join
Join The ABA Clubhouse — Free →
→ Action — try this Monday

Pick one preferred toy or video. Pause it for two seconds if the child forgets the target step; restart immediately after they do it. Track how many times they beat the pause.

02At a glance

Intervention
other
Design
single case other
Population
neurotypical
Finding
positive

03Original abstract

Recent demonstrations by Sidman (1953) and Brady (1958) show that aversive control can establish an operant response which is regular in rate, efficient in the avoidance of the aversive stimulus which controls it, and durable over long periods of time during which the aversive stimulus is perfectly avoided. These characteristics alone make avoidance schedules a logical tool to apply to the development of social behaviors in humans. A primary prob- lem in any such attempt is the demonstration of avoidance responding under aversive control in the laboratory, especially with children as subjects. The present study represents a beginning at implementing avoidance techniques for children, and an exploration of pos- sibly significant variations in the way an aversive event may be programmed by a response. The aversive event used is the temporary withdrawal of positive reinforcement.

Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 1960 · doi:10.1901/jeab.1960.3-155