SOME SEQUENTIAL ASPECTS OF IRTS EMITTED DURING SIDMAN-AVOIDANCE BEHAVIOR IN THE WHITE RAT.

The team watched white rats work under a Sidman avoidance schedule.

Every lever press delayed the next shock.

They logged each inter-response time (IRT) and asked: what makes the next press more or less likely?

They tracked three things: how long the rat had been in the session, how much time passed since the last shock, and how long the prior pause was.

Response probability changed moment to moment.

Early in the session, rats pressed more often.

The longer it had been since the last shock, the lower the chance of a press.

A short pause before the last press raised the odds of another quick press.

A long pause lowered those odds.

Thomas (1968) extends this work. After the shocks stop, avoidance collapses in under four hours. The 1965 data show why: once shocks are gone, the time-since-last-shock cue no longer drives pressing, so extinction is fast.

Mosk et al. (1984) seems to clash at first. They found that stronger shocks do not always mean more avoidance. The 1965 study never changed shock strength; it only watched timing.},{

When you run avoidance or escape programs, watch the local moment, not just the daily total. If a client has not emitted the target response for a while, the next prompt may land at a low-probability moment. Use short, well-timed prompts early in the session and right after the last aversive event to raise the chance of success.