Response-shock delay as a reinforcer in avoidance behavior.
Delaying an aversive event can itself reinforce the response that produces the delay.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Horton (1975) worked with six rats in a small box. A retractable lever popped out every 25 seconds.
If the rat pressed within 5 seconds, the next shock was delayed 20 seconds. No other reward was given.
The team tracked how often and how fast the rats pressed across many sessions.
What they found
All rats quickly pressed the lever on almost every trial. Avoidance stayed near a large share.
Rats waited until the last safe second to press. This gave them the longest possible shock-free time.
The delay itself, not escape from pain, kept the behavior alive.
How this fits with other research
Eisenmajer et al. (1998) saw 3-second delays wreck pigeons’ food-reinforced key pecks. Horton (1975) shows the same 3-second span can strengthen rat lever presses when it delays shock. Same delay, different direction: punishment versus reinforcement.
Koegel et al. (1992) found 3-second delayed praise still raised baby babbles. Together these papers stretch across species and procedures, showing delayed consequences can work if the client values what the delay gives.
Fay (1970) used goldfish in a similar shock schedule but never tested whether delay alone could drive responding. Horton (1975) fills that gap and upgrades the model from fish to rat, proving delay is the reinforcer.
Why it matters
If you run avoidance programs for escape-maintained behavior, remember the power may sit in the delay, not the removal. Build interventions that let the learner earn longer safe periods with one quick response. Even a few seconds of postponed aversive events can keep coping skills strong.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Program a brief pause before the next demand after the learner uses a break request; track if request rate rises.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
After rats received preliminary training to avoid shock on a discrete-trial retractable-bar avoidance procedure, the procedure was changed such that responses retracted the lever but did not affect the rate of shock. Responses only delayed the onset of shock. About half of the animals under these procedures responded consistently on almost 100% of the discrete-trial cycles over days. When short latencies maximized the response-shock delay, animals tended to make short-latency responses. When long latencies maximized the response-shock delay, animals tended to make long-latency responses. When all response latencies produced the same response-shock delay, animals made differing average-latency responses. And, when responses did not delay shock, most of the animals primarily engaged in shock-elicited responding while the other animals engaged in preshock responding.
Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 1975 · doi:10.1901/jeab.1975.24-323