STILL NO EVIDENCE FOR TEMPORALLY EXTENDED SHOCK‐FREQUENCY REDUCTION AS A REINFORCER

Abstract

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.