Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
This paper reviews progress since the author's previous writings in three areas. In escape training, the preparatory-response explanation of bar holding still appears to be valid. In avoidance, the newer safety-signal version of two-factor theory has much to recommend it and readily incorporates Anger's conditioned aversive temporal stimuli formulation. Shock-density reduction is rejected as a substitute for two-factor theory. Finally, criticisms of the avoidance interpretation of punishment are answered and recent empirical data are cited in its support.
James A. Dinsmoor (Fri,) studied this question.