Abstract
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.
Full Text
The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (76.6 KB).