The molarity of molecular theory and the molecularity of molar theory.

Delprato (2001) wrote a theory paper. It challenges the old idea that avoidance is only reinforced by reducing shock rate.

The author says molar avoidance theory is wider than shock-frequency reduction alone.

The paper argues other factors can maintain avoidance. Shock-rate drop is just one of them.

It tells clinicians to stay open-minded when they see avoidance data.

Farmer et al. (1966) and Lambert et al. (1973) showed rats will press a lever if it cuts the number of shocks. Those studies made shock-frequency reduction the star explanation.

Delprato (2001) does not reject those data. It just says the old view is too narrow. The new paper widens the lens to include any long-term payoff, not only shock count.

Navarick et al. (1972) noticed shock can make rats bite the lever. That burst looks like avoidance, but it is really a reflex. Delprato (2001) gives us room to call such bursts respondent side effects rather than operant avoidance.

When you run avoidance or escape programs, look past simple rate counts. Ask what bigger payoff the client gets over time. Maybe it is fewer demands, more predictability, or social relief. Track those molar outcomes and you may see why the behavior sticks around.