Psychology

This paper seeks to demonstrate the distinction that exists between two-factor theory of avoidance and one-factor theory of avoidance. In the former, the subject, say an animal converts the warning stimulus into the aversive situation. Or better still, the real cause of harm that the subject seeks to avoid or conquer is replaced by the reaction it triggers in the subject. The subject, therefore, regards the warning stimulus as the cause of harm instead of the aversive stimulus. In the latter case, the avoidance is negatively reinforced by the decrease in aversive stimulation.

Behavioral momentum is the consistency in behavior amidst changing environmental contingencies. Changeover of teachers impedes a stable time flow in classrooms and punishment can enhance and strengthen the behavioral momentum in students. In addition, capitalizing more on the students greatest potential and inclinations and less on the weakest inclinations play a significant role in enhancing the students behavioral momentum.

Introduction
In the general sense, avoidance of any kind involves restricting oneself from an object that is likely to cause harm or disgrace. Avoidance therefore becomes a kind of defense mechanism used by the subject towards the object perceived to be the cause of harm.  By and large, it involves use of excuses for not doing this or that.  For example, a case where a boy pretends to be very ill and fails to attend a talent show because he does not want to stand in front of his schoolmates and narrate a story. The boy, in this matter, blames his failure on his feigned illness. In this study an analysis of two-factor theory of avoidance and one-factor theory of avoidance will be elucidated. In this regard, similarities and differences on the two theories will also be considered. The study will also define the behavioral momentum situations that can catalyze behavioral momentum and the analysis of the situation when behavioral momentum is stronger.

Theories of Avoidance
Notably, the avoidance process becomes an orthopraxis reaction since it affects the subjects feelings and emotions leading to action. At first there is a warning to the subject whenever confronted by an unpleasant situation. Here, the subject turns the warning alarm taking place in itself to become the cause of the harmful situation. The avoidance response is geared towards the primary cause of danger or harm which is actually the aversive situation. In the long run, what the subject is really avoiding is not the real situation causing harm or risk but the stimulus associated with this aversive situation. The above assertion is the understanding of two-factor theory of avoidance.

Anxiety and fear are much involved in situations of avoidance responses or fear responses where these responses are not easily conquered. In a bid to shed more light on the reduced rate of extinction in avoidance responses, both one-factor theory of avoidance and two factor theory of avoidance have been used. Both theories base their explanations within the framework of psychological learning principles.

Two-factor theory of avoidance emphasizes on two factors which are classical conditioning and operant conditioning. This theory regard the two factors mentioned above as condition sine qua non for any avoidance responses to take place (Mowrer, 1947, cited in Mazur, 2006173)

As can be noted in two-factor theory, the object causing fear creates in the subject a conditioned response of fear which derives from the foreseen shock.  In turn, the conditioned response becomes the avoidance response. On the contrary, Mazur notes that one factor theory bases its explanation on the operant conditioning principles in its bid to elucidate on the slow extinction of avoidance (2006175). It holds that once the avoidance response is learned, there is failure to discriminate between trials where punishment takes place and those where punishment is given (Mazur, 2006176). In addition, in one-factor theory of avoidance, the avoidance is negatively reinforced by lessening the aversive situation.

Two-Factor Avoidance Theory has been used to elaborate more on avoidance behavior vis a vis One-Factor Theory of Avoidance.  Two-Factor Theory is still a feasible explanation for avoidance behavior over the years not excluding its defects (Mazur, 2006180). Whenever the subject is confronted by a situation that causes anxiety it will immediately react. This reaction aims at avoiding any possible harm or risk to the subject.

Behavioral Momentum
It is not easy to make students adhere to instructions or assignments given to them especially if they do not like it. In such instances, interventions to motivate them or lure them would be a choice for improving the students in their response. These interventions act as rewards that encourage the students to undertake their tasks or instructions enthusiastically. Behavioral momentum is an example of such intervention.

Behavioral momentum interventions enhance the students momentum in carrying out the task or instructions. Just like a cyclist cycling down a steep slope will gain momentum so do a behavior the more a person indulges in it. Plaud et al. (19981) define Behavioral momentum as the incessant state of behavior amidst changing environmental contingencies.

The behavioral momentum of intervention creates a stable state of compliance. In such a state and with such a momentum the student will persistently maintain a stable zeal and enthusiasm in responding to the tasks and instructions regardless whether they are difficult or unpleasant. As indicated above, the behavioral momentum accelerates the students rate of compliance. The procedure involves identifying at least a trio set of behavior in which the student is more likely to comply. Then, in every given situation that a student is least likely to comply three requests for high probability responses are put in place. The teachers play a significant role in the behavioral momentum of the students. Notably, the switching or changeover of teachers impedes a stable time flow in classrooms. Transitions disrupt time flow and that disruption in students behavior raise during the unstructured transitions.

Punishment is believed to be one of the best mechanisms in shaping behavior. It can take various forms, for example, corporal punishment, deterrence, and retribution just to mention a few. As illustrated in Mazur (2006184), punishment impact on behavior is opposed to positive reinforcement. Their effect on behavior is inversely proportion. Whereas reinforcement augments behavior punishment, on the contrary, weakens behavior (Mazur 2006184) an assertion was not acceptable to Skinner and Thorndike. Skinner, therefore, argues that the impact of punishment is merely of a transient nature.

In a bid to investigate the relationship between punishment and motivation to respond, Azrin et al. (1966, cited in Mazur, 2002187) assert that there exists an inverse relationship between punishment and the force of the subjects inclination or motivation to respond. In this sense it can be argued that the more a subject is punished the less it will respond and the less the punishment the more the motivation to responding. Therefore, by logical implication, a strong behavioral momentum derives from a decreased structure of punishment. Note that this conclusion derives from the hypothesis as per Azrin.

Behavior decelerators refer to all mechanisms that lessen or reduce illaudable behavior. In this case punishment and omission are largely, the avenues which undesired behavior is eliminated. It is important though to note that there are not the only mechanisms (Mazur, 2006190). Overcorrection response blocking time-out, reinforcement of an optional behavior stimulus satiation and extinction or close monitoring the agents are therefore, further aspects that can decelerate behavior (Mazur 2006195).

Conclusion
As we can see avoidance theories are subject to criticisms since none theory offers a comprehensive investigation to the concept of behavior and its characteristics. No doubt that harm avoidance is founded on certain faculties of an animal or to a large extent a human being. In my opinion, both theories have very convincing points in their quest to address the avoidance behavior and again due to reasons mentioned above, for instance the insufficiency in each theory, we cannot 100 regard any of them as absolute truth.

Majority of authorities allude to punishment as the better option in shaping behavior. It is important to note that, punishment takes different forms say, retribution, deterrence, corporal punishments and incapacitation just to mention a few of them. I strongly believe that punishment can alter the behavior of a subject both positively or negatively. In my opinion, it all depends with the subject being punished. This is because response to a certain behavior or avoidance in behavior is a rational process. The subject retains the discretion to behave in the manner it deems appropriate especially in the case of a human being who is endowed with a rational mind.

Punishment in itself cannot confer to the subject interest or submission in how it behaves to a given situation simply because it can resist punishment or take punishment but fail to respond in behavior. For example, in the case of time-out punishment where the mother orders the child to go to bed early for failure to do her homework on time the child can decide to take the punishment but still in the future days repeat the same mistake out of defiance.