Interaction between reflexive fighting and cooperative escape.
Fighting can shut down a working escape response; blocking the sight of the other animal brings the escape back.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Ulrich (1967) put two animals in a shock-escape box. A clear wall could be added or removed.
First, each animal learned to press a bar to stop the shock. Then the wall came out so the animals could see each other.
The team watched what happened to the escape bar-press when fighting broke out.
What they found
When the wall left, the animals started to fight. Bar-pressing for escape dropped.
Putting the wall back stopped the fighting. Escape bar-pressing returned to strong levels.
Social fighting, not the shock itself, broke the escape habit.
How this fits with other research
MIGLELong (1963) showed that even painful punishment will not stop escape bar-pressing. Ulrich (1967) adds that social cues can stop it instead.
Thompson et al. (1971) found shock makes turtles bite. Ulrich (1967) shows shock plus a visible partner makes mammals fight. Same trigger, new response.
Virues‐Ortega et al. (2023) used gentle wrist buzzes to cut face-touching. Their idea — change the cue, change the escape — mirrors Ulrich (1967): change the social cue, change the escape.
Why it matters
If a client’s safety or escape plan stops working, look around for social sparks. A peer in view, teasing, or even eye contact can turn useful escape into problem behavior. Test a simple divider, seat move, or visual barrier. Bring back the old calm response without new punishment or rewards.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Place a desktop divider or turn the chair so the learner cannot see peers during escape tasks; note if the target response returns.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Subjects separated by a Plexiglas partition were trained to follow a cooperative escape procedure which produced behavior like the escape responding of individual subjects. Removal of the partition produced fighting and less efficient escape. Efficient escape behavior was restored and fighting disappeared when the partition was replaced. Neither increased space nor a moving toy affected escape behavior. The results indicate that switching animals from an isolated to a social situation produced a change in the effect of shock upon escape which was related to shock-induced fighting.
Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 1967 · doi:10.1901/jeab.1967.10-311