The elimination of interfering response patterns in lever-press avoidance situations.
A quick lever lock right after shock wipes out competing presses and speeds avoidance learning.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Weisman (1970) worked with rats in a lever-press avoidance box. Every press postponed shock, but some rats held the lever too long or pressed again right after shock.
The team added a short timer. After each shock, the lever went dead for a few seconds. Rats could not press during that window.
What they found
Shock-onset lever disable quickly stopped the extra presses. Rats let go faster and learned to press early to avoid shock.
The timer beat other setups, like disabling the lever after the rat let go.
How this fits with other research
Azrin et al. (1967) saw rats attack after shock and slow learning. Weisman (1970) fixed a different post-shock problem—lever holding—by blocking the response itself.
Zeiler (1968) taught rats to hold then release the bar on purpose. Weisman (1970) shows the same gear can also stop unwanted holding.
Keller (1966) found that even tiny delays create superstitious bar presses. Weisman (1970) proves a brief lever blackout prevents those extra presses from starting.
Why it matters
If a client jams the switch, bites the device, or repeats the response after error, add a short response lockout tied to the aversive event. The break gives the learner time to reset and lets you shape cleaner, earlier avoidance. Try a 2-3 s disable next session and watch the extra responses drop.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Program a 2-3 s device lock after each error or shock and count if the extra responses stop.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Lever holding into shock and short-latency responses to shock onset are two response patterns that interfere with avoidance acquisition in free-operant and discriminated avoidance situations. In an attempt to eliminate these patterns, an additional timer disabled the lever for a period slightly longer than shock duration. A free-operant avoidance schedule with a warning stimulus, but without the additional timer, constituted the control condition. The lever-disabling timer was turned on by different events in two experimental conditions: (a) release of the lever at the onset of shock, (b) shock onset. Interfering responses diminished most rapidly, and efficient avoidance behavior appeared earliest, when the lever-disabling timer was turned on by shock onset.
Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 1970 · doi:10.1901/jeab.1970.13-51