Effects of drugs on approach-avoidance conflict tested repeatedly by means of a "telescope alley."

Barry, Herbert; Ne, Miller

doi:10.1037/h0045772

Cited by 59 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…According to Miller, the drug reduced the generalization gradient for avoidance (motivated by fear) to a greater extent than the generalization gradient for approach (motivated by food); a finding that Miller (1964) suggested was a "striking effect consonant with clinical observations on people." Other investigators using variations on these procedures reported similar results with a variety of drugs considered to reduce fear (Masserman and Yum 1946;Conger 1951;Geller and Seifter 1960;Barry and Miller 1962;Ray 1964). According to the drive reductionist, some drugs resolve the conflict between drives because these drugs have a selective effect on fear-motivated behavior.…”

Section: Historical Aspectssupporting

confidence: 55%

“…In applying these procedures to study the effects of drugs, Miller and colleagues (Barry and Miller 1962;Barry et al 1963) showed that rats given amobarbital more closely approached the goal box than under control conditions. According to Miller, the drug reduced the generalization gradient for avoidance (motivated by fear) to a greater extent than the generalization gradient for approach (motivated by food); a finding that Miller (1964) suggested was a "striking effect consonant with clinical observations on people."…”

Section: Historical Aspectsmentioning

confidence: 98%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Continuing implications of the early evidence against the drive-reduction hypothesis of the behavioral effects of drugs

McMillan

Katz

2002

Psychopharmacology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rationale: Early psychopharmacologists often explained the behavioral effects of drugs as due to changes in the hypothetical construct of motivation, implying that drug effects would depend on the inherent properties of the reinforcer that maintains responding. The work of Dews, Morse, and Kelleher offered an alternative explanation that the scheduling of reinforcers, and the patterns and rates of responding maintained, were more important determinants of drug effects. Objective: The present paper reviews the literature on the influence on drug effects of the type of reinforcer that maintains responding. Methods: Studies that examined the effects of drugs on behaviors maintained by different reinforcers were compared with studies that examined behaviors maintained by the same reinforcer under various conditions. Results: Over a wide range of conditions, the effects of drugs depend more on the schedule-controlled patterns and rates of responding than on the particular reinforcer. However, there are some conditions under which the reinforcer that maintains behavior can also determine drug effects. The broad implications of these findings in selected areas of psychopharmacology are discussed. Conclusions: Under some conditions drug effects are ostensibly consistent with explanations in terms of traditional hypothetical constructs, though under a wide range of other conditions they are not. A more general understanding of the behavioral effects of drugs comes from directing the emphasis of research away from hypothetical constructs and towards the empirically defined determinants of the behavioral effects of drugs.

show abstract

Section: Historical Aspectssupporting

confidence: 55%

Section: Historical Aspectsmentioning

confidence: 98%

Continuing implications of the early evidence against the drive-reduction hypothesis of the behavioral effects of drugs

McMillan

Katz

2002

Psychopharmacology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The effects of shock intensity and deprivation on conflict in the straight runway are very similar to the effects of these variables in the selective punishment procedure reported here. Investigations of drug effects on conflict using variants of the straight runway procedure ("telescope alley", 'automated conflict test") by Miller (1961), Barry and Miller (1962), and Barry, Wagner, and Miller (1963) showed that animals performing under amobarbital consistently took higher shock intensities than under saline control conditions. The latter two studies also examined the action of methamphetamine, but no clear effects of this drug were found.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A CHOICE TECHNIQUE TO ASSESS THE EFFECTS OF SELECTIVE PUNISHMENT ON FIXED‐RATIO PERFORMANCE¹

Davison

1970

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The emission of a fixed number of responses by rats was followed by food reinforcement. This fixed number could be accumulated in any way from two continuously available but mutually incompatible response classes, bar pressing, and not bar pressing for a fixed time period. A preference for one response class was arranged by specifying different maximum reinforcement rates for the two classes. Under selective punishment conditions, the preferred response occasionally led to both food and electric shock, while the non-preferred response led only to food. Selective punishment effects were measured through changes in the preference to the two responses in the sequence. The actions of shock intensity, deprivation, the specification of the non-preferred response, and three drugs were investigated. The results were broadly similar to the work reported by Dardano and Sauerbrunn (1964), who found localized increases in interresponse times before punished responses in fixed-ratio schedules. Performance under this procedure was found to be stable and sensitive to each of the experimental variables examined.In a fixed-ratio (FR) schedule, the emission of a fixed number of responses is followed by reinforcement. A number of experiments have investigated the effect of punishing one ordinal response in the FR sequence (Dardano and Sauerbrunn, 1964;DeArmond-Edwards, 1966;Donahoe and Schulte, 1967;Richardson and Donahoe, 1967;Davison, 1968). These workers reported that when punishment (electric shock) was contingent upon the terminal response of the ratio (the reinforced response), increases in interresponse times occurred just before the punished response.Selective punishment techniques are not generally satisfactory for parametric investigations of the variables controlling punishment effects. If animals are trained at a number of shock intensities and deprivation levels (without causing responding to cease), difficulties occur in replicating quantitative measures of responding within each animal (Davison, 1968). If the shock intensity is raised so that responding ceases, food reinforcement is no longer obtained and the effects of punishment must be measured in extinction. Many problems arise in analyzing data from such rapidly changing behavioral baselines (Sidman, 1960).

show abstract

“…For example, both the hesitation of the animals in front of the goal box and the longer running-times of the post-trial amphetamine-treated animals suggest this; Barry & Miller (1962) measured the conditioned fear caused by a conflict between approaching food and avoiding aversive shocks by the increase in running times of rats in a telescope-alley. Finally, the mitigation of the adverse effects by amylobarbitone, which is afble to reduce conditioned fear (Miller, 1964) also suggests that post-trial amphetamine may have acted as an aversive stimulus.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of chronic administration of (+)‐amphetamine on maze performance of the rat

Breda¹,

Carlini²,

Sader³

1969

British J Pharmacology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

1. The influence of (+ )-amphetamine, given 1 min after each training session, on the performance of 124 rats in a Lashley III maze was measured every 48 hr. 2. The first three injections of the drug significantly improved the learning ability of naive rats. 3. With prolonged treatment, (+)-amphetamine strongly impaired the maze performance of these rats. 4. The chronic administration of (+)-amphetamine to previously trained rats produced the same adverse effect. 5. Amylobarbitone sodium given to previously trained rats 30 min before the training sessions completely blocked the adverse effect of (+)-amphetamine. 6. (+ )-Amphetamine did not produce impairment of performance when given chronically 30 min before training sessions, to previously trained rats.

show abstract

Effects of drugs on approach-avoidance conflict tested repeatedly by means of a "telescope alley."

Cited by 59 publications

References 13 publications

Continuing implications of the early evidence against the drive-reduction hypothesis of the behavioral effects of drugs

Continuing implications of the early evidence against the drive-reduction hypothesis of the behavioral effects of drugs

A CHOICE TECHNIQUE TO ASSESS THE EFFECTS OF SELECTIVE PUNISHMENT ON FIXED‐RATIO PERFORMANCE¹

Effects of chronic administration of (+)‐amphetamine on maze performance of the rat

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Effects of drugs on approach-avoidance conflict tested repeatedly by means of a "telescope alley."

Cited by 59 publications

References 13 publications

Continuing implications of the early evidence against the drive-reduction hypothesis of the behavioral effects of drugs

Continuing implications of the early evidence against the drive-reduction hypothesis of the behavioral effects of drugs

A CHOICE TECHNIQUE TO ASSESS THE EFFECTS OF SELECTIVE PUNISHMENT ON FIXED‐RATIO PERFORMANCE1

Effects of chronic administration of (+)‐amphetamine on maze performance of the rat

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

A CHOICE TECHNIQUE TO ASSESS THE EFFECTS OF SELECTIVE PUNISHMENT ON FIXED‐RATIO PERFORMANCE¹