Not everyone would agree with Paul's distinction. Some would say that "avoidance" is actually escape, but escape from an unpleasant motivational state acquired through experience with an aversive stimulus. This gets around the messy situation of having the *absence* of a *future* event controlling current behavior.
This is an old controversy.
The idea that avoidance is really escape from a conditioned aversive stimulus works well for signalled (discriminated) avoidance, but less well for unsignalled (free operant) avoidance.
Further refinements of experimental procedure in which responding reduces the likelihood of the occurrence of the aversive stimulus are even less compatible with an escape explanation.
On the operational level, of course, the distinction is clear:
either a specified aversive condition is present until a given behavior is emitted, or it isn't.
The occurrence of hypothetical internal events is less clear, so the controversy is more about the hypothesized underlying mechanisms than the behavior process itself.
--
* PAUL K. BRANDON [EMAIL PROTECTED] *
* Psychology Dept Minnesota State University *
* 23 Armstrong Hall, Mankato, MN 56001 ph 507-389-6217 *
* http://www.mankato.msus.edu/dept/psych/welcome.html *
--- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
