A few minor suggestions.
We agree with almost all of the analysis in this excellent presentation of the molecular view of avoidance behavior. A few suggestions are made as follows: Referring to response-generated stimuli as ''readily observable" seems not quite right for the kinesthetic components of such stimuli, although their scientific legitimacy is not questioned. Interpreting response-generated stimuli as a form of positive reinforcement is contested, and an alternative interpretation is offered. A possibly simpler interpretation of the Sidman (1962) two-lever experiment is suggested. We question Dinsmoor's (2001) explanation for warning stimuli not being avoided, except for the reference to the weakness of third-order conditioning effects. A final question is raised regarding the nature of the variables that are responsible for the momentary evocation of the avoidance response.
Michael
J
J
Psychology Department, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo 49008, USA. jack.michael@wmich.edu
Clark
J W
JW
D000818:Animals; D001070:Appetitive Behavior; D001245:Association Learning; D001362:Avoidance Learning; D003216:Conditioning, Operant; D004597:Electroshock; D006801:Humans; D007699:Kinesthesis; D009042:Motivation; D011582:Psychological Theory