Time-allocation matching between punishing situations.

Deluty et al. (1978) put rats in a chamber with two levers. Each lever delivered food on its own schedule, but pressing could also trigger brief electric shocks. The team varied which lever gave more shocks and whether both schedules ran at once or took turns. They tracked where the rats spent their time minute by minute.

The goal was to see if the matching law — the rule that time follows reinforcement rates — also works when the ‘rate’ is shocks instead of food.

When only one shock schedule was active, rats matched their time to the relative shock rate. They stayed longer on the side that gave fewer shocks. This mirrors what pigeons do with food.

When both schedules delivered shocks continuously, the rats no longer matched. They simply spent as little time as possible on the higher-shock side. Minimizing pain overrode the usual matching pattern.

Rilling et al. (1969) first showed pigeons matching time to grain payoff. Z’s team extends the same equation to punishment, proving the rule is wider than just goodies.

Dugan et al. (1995) later found hens still match even when the responses look different (key peck vs door push). Together these studies say, ‘Time follows rate’ no matter if the consequence is food, shock, or a new response form.

Kazdin (1977) tested rats choosing between wheel running and sugar water. Both papers use concurrent schedules and time allocation, but E used only reinforcers. The side-by-side view shows matching holds for both rewards and penalties, yet pain adds a ceiling: once shocks are unavoidable, animals switch to pure escape.

If you run concurrent teaching sessions and one setting produces more aversives (e.g., louder corrections, harder tasks), learners may drift to the safer option. Check your ‘shock rate’ — even subtle reprimands can shift time allocation. When both settings are tough, minimize total aversives instead of hoping kids will ‘distribute’ evenly.