The behaviors of rats selectively bred for either good or poor shuttle box avoidance learning were studied. The results of Experiment 1 indicated that the phenotypic difference in avoidance learning is not associated with differences in speed of escape or avoidance responding. Differences between the lines in frequency of intertrial responses (ITRs), which appear during training but not during pretest, suggest that ITRs in animals of the low-avoidance (SLA) line are more suppressed by electric shock than in animals of the highavoidance (SHA) line. This result suggests that SLA animals may be more emotionally responsive than SHA animals. Experiment 2 demonstrated that the animals of the two lines do not differ in absolute sensitivity to electric shock, and Experiment 3 showed that the poor performance of the SLA line is not due to an inability to learn. Experiment 3 also provided evidence which suggests that the poor avoidance learning by SLA animals is due to their emotional reactivity. Observations of open-field behavior in Experiment 4 are consistent with this hypothesis. The major consistent correlate of the phenotypic difference in avoidance learning is greater emotionality or emotional reactivity in SLA than in SHA animals.Even under optimal training conditions, ance response. Although manipulation of some proportion of rats of most strains fail training procedures can improve performto learn a shuttle box or a lever-press avoid-ance (Berger & Brush, 1975), the problem persists for both forms of avoidance learn-The experiments reported here were conducted over in S to varying degrees, depending largely a period of several years while the first author was at
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.