Explaining avoidance: two factors are still better than one.

Cullinan et al. (2001) wrote a position paper. They defended two-factor theory of avoidance. The paper argued that two processes, not one, explain why avoidance sticks.

The authors said we need both respondent fear reduction and operant escape. They claimed older single-process accounts fall short.

The paper did not collect new data. It stated that two-factor theory still gives the clearest story. Fear gets conditioned, then escape is reinforced.

They urged the field to keep the two parts together. One part handles the emotion, the other handles the behavior.

Catania (1972) ran rats in a free-operant avoidance setup. A blinking light plus shock stopped the rats' lever pressing. That lab result fits the two-factor view the 2001 paper defends.

Abbott (2013) also wrote theory, but about words, not avoidance. Both papers stand up for Skinner-style thinking. They show the same guard-the-foundation move in different topics.

Cameron et al. (1996) looked at behavioral momentum, another old operant idea. Like the 2001 paper, they revisited a 1950s concept and asked how it still helps us today.

When a child dodges tooth-brushing, think twice. A single-process story might say 'escape is reinforced.' The two-factor view adds 'the brush also drops conditioned fear.' You can then tackle both the fear (graduated exposure) and the escape (extinction plus reinforcement). Keeping both parts in mind sharpens your assessment and gives you two places to intervene.