Dinsmoor, J. A. (2001).
Still no evidence for temporally extended shock-frequency reduction as a reinforcer.
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,
75, 367-378.
There is no consensus and very little overlap in the criticisms
of my target article. Because the primary consequences of
avoidance behavior are by definition alterations in the
distribution of shocks in time, any theory about the
reinforcement of such behavior necessarily must begin with that
dimension. However, the safety-signal version of two-process
theory calls on positively and negatively correlated stimuli,
including the responses themselves serving as stimuli, to
transmit the effects of those alterations to the relevant
behavior. Meanwhile, the Herrnstein–Hineline single-process
theory hypothesizes an additional source of reinforcement: a
direct effect of reduction in the density of shock over some
extended period of time. I can find no data that selectively
support that hypothesis.
Key words: safety signal, response as stimulus, two-process
theory, correlated stimuli, shock-density reduction,
single-process theory, avoidance, electric shock