In two experiments, we examined whether or not a loss of control over food availability would interfere with subsequent two-way shuttle-escape learning. Rats that had experienced loss of control over food delivery were impaired in their acquisition of a shuttle-escape response, relative to the response-contingent and the continuous-reinforcement control rats (in Experiments 1 and 2) and to the lack-of-control and home cage control rats (in Experiment 2). Rats that had received noncontingent food delivery without a prior history of control over food exhibited poorer performance than did the home cage control rats. Moreover, loss of control resulted in a larger interference effect than did lack of control, supporting the view that the learning of response-outcome noncontingency is the main determinant of the interference effect.

No abstract

The effects of the coping response on gastrointestinal lesions by changing the values of fixed-ratio (FR) schedule for the coping response task in freeoperant avoidance situation over 24 hrs were studied. In FR 1 or FR 2, experimental animals which could control electric shock to avoid or escape by pushing a flapper only once or twice developed less severe gastrointestinal lesions and body weight loss than yoked animals which received the same amount of shocks but could not perform any coping responses. In FR 5 or FR 8, however, the experimental Ss developed more severe stress pathology than the yoked or control Ss. These reversal effect show that the interaction between controllability of experimental environment and the amount of required coping response task plays an important role, which seems to support Weiss's ulcerprediction model.It is well known that" psychosomatic" diseases, such as gastric ulcers, essential hypertension and coronary heart disease are related to emotional stress (anxiety, fear or conflict). Many studies have been conducted to clarify the relationships between psychological stress and gastrointestinal ulcers in animals.Brady (1958) and Porter, Brady, Conrad, Mason, Galambos, and Rioch (1958) previously reported that the experimental animal, or the "executive " monkey, who could avoid an electric shock by pressing a lever under Sidman avoidance schedule, developed duodenal ulceration, and that the control animal which received identical shock experiences developed no ulceration. Brady and his coworkers concluded that responsibility for the fulfillment of the lever-pressing shock termination produces gastroduodenal ulcers while shock alone does not.However, the validity of Brady's experiment could he questioned. First, the monkeys were not randomly assigned to experimental and yoked control groups. In each pair, the subject which acquired the avoidance response first was chosen as the executive. Such a method of selection was not proper according to Sines, Cleeland and Adkins (1963) who found that rats which were susceptible to ulcers learned an avoidance response faster than normal controls. Second, in Brady's experiment the ulcer was produced only under the condition in which the monkeys worked on a cycle of an alternating sixhour avoidance and six-hour rest schedule. Animals exposed to either a 1 hr or 3 hr work-rest schedule did not develop ulcers. Third, some investigators who had attempted to replicate Brady's results have

feedback of spontaneous Electro dermal fluctuation in human subjects increased their in frequency of occurrence relative to a non‐contingent feedback control group. The effect was facilitated for subject having high imagery und/or high internal perception as measured by the Suphian Scale of Imagery (SSI) and Sophian Scale of Internal Perception (SSP) respectively. These data suggest the existence of individual differences in self‐control of autonomic responses.

No abstract