Reinforcement and response rate interaction in multiple random-interval avoidance schedules.

Rats pressed a lever to avoid mild shocks. The cage ran two random-interval avoidance schedules in a row. One schedule gave many chances to avoid. The other gave few.

The team counted how fast the rats pressed in each part. They asked: does Herrnstein’s matching rule still fit when the reinforcer is ‘less shock’ instead of ‘more food’?

Yes. Response rate rose and fell with the chance to cut shock frequency. The same curve that works for food pellets also worked for shock reduction.

In plain talk: the matching equation holds for avoidance. Animals allocate effort to whichever schedule gives the better payoff in safety.

Bowe et al. (1983) later tested fixed-ratio avoidance. They saw an upside-down U: very high ratios hurt response rate. Together the two papers show the matching rule works for interval schedules, but ratio strain can still brake responding.

Hammond (1980) warned that k in Herrnstein’s equation drifts when reward size changes. The 1972 data did not test that twist, so the warning still stands. Treat k as stable only within one shock intensity.

Mosk et al. (1984) found each rat needs a minimum shock level to keep avoiding. Above that point, more shock does not help. Their result sets a boundary: matching works only after the aversive level is high enough to maintain the behavior.

If you run multiple-schedule avoidance programs, you can now predict response split with the same math you use for praise or tokens. Check that shock intensity sits above the animal’s threshold first. Then watch response rate, not just avoidance percentage, to see if the schedule is truly balanced.