The acquisition and extinction of locomotor responses of rats in a straight alley were examined for groups trained under escape, partial-avoidance, and avoidance procedures. During acquisition, one group (escape) received a O-see delay between being dropped into the alley and the onset of shock; two groups (partial avoidance) had 0.5-and J-sec delays; and two groups (avoidance) had delays of 2 and 4 sec. On the final day of acquisition, the partial-avoidance rats displayed higher running speeds than either the escape-or avoidance-trained animals. The 4-sec avoidance group was consistently slower than all other groups. Speeds for all groups decreased during extinction, with rate of decline showing some relation to terminal acquisition level. Relative group performance levels proved to be consistent with a simple arithmetic model based on the assumption that changes in running speeds affect the aversiveness of the situation by altering US duration, CS duration, and effective US length.Beecroft and Brown (1967) have reported an experiment in which the relative effectiveness of three different locomotor-training paradigms (escape, avoidance, and partial-avoidance) was evaluated with rats in a straight alley. The escape-trained animals were shocked throughout the runway, whereas avoidance-trained rats were allowed ample time (2 or 4 sec) to reach the goal prior to shock onset. The partial-avoidance procedure was one in which the interval between a rat's being dropped into the runway and the onset of shock was so short (1 sec) that it always encountered some shock near the goal but could avoid it in earlier alley sections. The 2-sec delay group ran faster than the 4-sec group, which is consistent with the finding that, with rats and goldfish in shuttle tasks, shorter response latencies tend to be associated with shorter avoidance intervals (Low & Low, 1962;Baum, Jaffe, & Leclerc, 1971;Bitterman, 1964Bitterman, , 1965. The escape group ran faster than the 4-sec group but slower than the 2-sec group in all segments. Contrary to expectations, however, the partial-avoidance animals ran faster than either the escape-or avoidance-trained Ss. Unfortunately, since their experiment was primarily concerned with the effect of their manipulations upon performance during punished extinction, a statistical analysis of this acquisition data was not provided.It is not entirely clear why both training procedures which allowed complete avoidance of shock and that which permitted only escape from full-alley shock should be less effective in producing high-speed running than procedures that permitted only partial avoidance. The fact that the partial-avoidance Ss were usually shocked in the last segment of the alley, and might thus be said to be "punished" for running toward the goal, increases the complexity of the problem. In addition, whereas the partial-avoidance animals might be said to have had the advantage of shock reduction and higher general drive level over Ss that avoided entirely, the escape Ss should have had a comparable ad...