ABA Fundamentals

Two temporal parameters of free operant discriminated avoidance in the rhesus monkey.

Hyman (1969) · Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior 1969
★ The Verdict

Lengthening the safe gap in avoidance schedules quietly cuts response rate because most behavior bunches in the warning period.

✓ Read this if BCBAs who use avoidance or postponement procedures to reduce dangerous behavior.
✗ Skip if Clinicians who work only with reinforcement-based plans and never touch aversive contingencies.

01Research in Context

01

What this study did

The team worked with rhesus monkeys in a small lab cage. Each monkey could press a lever at any time.

A tone came on every so often. If the monkey pressed during the tone, the tone turned off and no shock happened. If it did not press, a brief shock arrived.

The researchers changed two things: how long the safe, quiet period lasted and how long the warning tone lasted. They watched how fast the monkeys pressed the lever.

02

What they found

When the safe period got longer, the monkeys slowed down. Most presses happened only when the tone was on.

Changing the tone length hardly mattered. Shock rate stayed the same no matter what.

In short, a longer break between chances made the monkeys wait instead of work.

03

How this fits with other research

Garcia et al. (1971) ran a near-copy of this setup and saw the same drop in pressing when the safe gap grew. The two monkey studies line up like bricks.

Dukhayyil et al. (1973) switched to pigeons pecking a key with no tone at all. Longer response-shock gaps still cut rate, showing the rule holds across birds and monkeys.

Kelly (1973) kept the lever-press task but swapped the knob from time to shock strength. Doubling either intensity or duration pushed rate up the same amount, proving the lever stays still unless the aversive stakes change.

04

Why it matters

If you run avoidance programs for severe problem behavior, keep the safe period short. A long "no-work" window will drop the client’s active coping responses. Try 5–10 s safe spans and watch response effort stay high.

Free CEUs

Want CEUs on This Topic?

The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.

Join Free →
→ Action — try this Monday

Shorten the safe interval in your avoidance program to 10 s or less and count if active responses rise.

02At a glance

Intervention
other
Design
single case other
Sample size
4
Population
other
Finding
not reported

03Original abstract

Four monkeys were exposed to free operant discriminated avoidance (discriminated Sidman avoidance) in a parametric study of safe stimulus and warning stimulus duration. The safe stimulus was assigned values of 2, 5, 10, 20, and 40 sec, the warning stimulus values of 2, 5, and 20 sec. Rate of responding was a decreasing negatively accelerated function of safe stimulus duration, with a small effect attributable to warning stimulus duration. Control of response rate by safe stimulus duration was due to the predominance of responding in the presence of the warning stimulus. Responding during the safe stimulus was independent of the temporal parameters except at schedules combining short safe and short warning stimulus durations. Latencies of responses in the warning stimulus were analyzed, and mean latency was found to be a direct function of warning stimulus duration, with only one exception, resulting from the order in which the warning stimulus values were presented. Shock rate was not systematically related to either of the manipulated parameters.

Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 1969 · doi:10.1901/jeab.1969.12-641