Effects of preshock on subsequent avoidance conditioning.

L, De Toledo; Ah, Black

doi:10.1037/h0024628

Cited by 51 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Beatty (1979), in two experiments, found no evidence for a helplessness effect. Several other investigators (Brookshire, Littleman, & Stewart, 1961, Experiment 1;deToledo & Black, 1967) have, as did we in several instances, found unavoidable shock to facilitate later avoidance learning. Seligman and Beagley (1975) have implied that these contradictory findings may be attributed to small procedural differences from experiment to experiment.…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 81%

Learned helplessness: Now you see it, now you don’t

Cogan

Frye

1981

Bull. Psychon. Soc.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 81%

Learned helplessness: Now you see it, now you don’t

Cogan

Frye

1981

Bull. Psychon. Soc.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The present findings seem best in accord with a view known as competing-response theory. Various versions of this hypothesis have been advanced by Brookshire, Littman, andStewart (1961), de Toledo andBlack (1967), Anderson, Cole, and McVaugh (1968), Weiss, Krieckhaus, and Conte (1968), Bracewell and Black (1974), Glazer and Weiss (1976b), Levis (1976), Anisman et al (1978), andCrowell et al (1978). Common to all these views is the notion that proactive shuttle impairment effects are mediated by some response tendency, conditioned during prior shock, that generalizes to test situations in which it is incompatible with the behaviors required therein.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Behavior during shock exposure as a determinant of subsequent interference with shuttle box escape–avoidance learning in the rat.

Anderson¹,

Crowell²,

Cunningham³

et al. 1979

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two experiments were designed to determine the influence of behavior during shock on subsequent impairment of conventional shuttle escape-avoidance learning in the rat. Amount of activity during shock was manipulated by an explicit negative reinforcement procedure for nonmovement during an otherwise movement-producing shock. Only head and shoulder inactivity (measured by means of head panels) was required to escape shock in Experiment 1, whereas whole-body immobility (transduced with an ultrasonic motion detector) was required in Experiment 2. Yoked groups received physically identical but inescapable shock treatments; unrestrained and restrained groups were not shock treated in either study. The results of both experiments indicated that of the two shock treatments, the escapable shock condition resulted in lower overall terminal movement levels during treatment shock as well as in greater subsequent impairment of shuttle box escape-avoidance performance. Also it was observed that maximum levels of interference were sustained for a longer period during testing following the escapable shock procedure ,in Experiment 2 that involved whole-body inactivity. These results suggest that behavior during shock rather than shock uncontrollability may be the critical determinant of subsequent shuttle interference in the rat. These findings are viewed as support for a general competing-response conception of shuttle interference effects.Impairment of conventional, two-way, led to the now well-known view that unconescape-avoidance learning has been shown in trollability, that is, inescapability, of shock is dogs after exposure to a treatment involving the sole determinant of this so-called shuttle a series of inescapable shocks (

show abstract

“…Since response suppression is readily conditioned to stimuli associated with shock, and if the assumption is valid that central activities constitute the organization of both HR and behavioral activities, then those circumstances that strengthen the crouching or freezing tendency in the presence of a fear-eliciting stimulus should also facilitate concomitant HR decelerations. For instance, increasing the shock intensity in a Pavlovian fear conditioning situation tends to simultaneously enhance stimulus control over both conditioned HR responses [ 15] and the crouching tendency, as inferred from the animal's ability to suppress the immobility response [6,7,11,12]. Mounting evidence indicates that the immobility reaction can be strengthened during associations developed relatively independently of those formed during the Pavlovian CS-US pairings.…”

Section: Pavlovian Conditioningmentioning

confidence: 99%

Facilitation of Pavlovian conditioned cardiodecelerations following preshock in immobilized rats☆

Wilson

DiCara

1975

Physiology & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Facilitation of Pavlovian conditioned cardiodecelerations following preshock in immobilized rats. PHYSIOL. BEHAV. 15(6) 653-658, 1975. -Two experiments are reported that examine the effects of unsignalled, inescapable prior shock exposure (PSE) on shock-motivated Pavlovian conditioned heart rate (HR) decelerations in rats. Both studies involved 2 CS-US contingencies (paired and unpaired) and 2 preshock treatments (preshock and no preshock). The 2 designs differed in the type of immobilization procedures to which the rats were submitted and the number of conditioning sessions. In Experiment 1 rats were conditioned for 2 consecutive 35 trial sessions while physically restrained, whereas only one conditioning session was used in Experiment 2 on animals that were paralyzed with d-tubocurarine chloride (dTC). The results demonstrated that PSE augmented the magnitude of the HR conditioned response (CR) in both the physically restrained and paralyzed preparations. In addition, PSE improved the rate of acquisition of the conditioned cardiodeceleration in physically restrained rats and tended to facilitate reinstatement of the HR CR during the second conditioning session. These data support the notion that certain nonspecific stress processes that are relatively independent of the CS-US contingency but related to the occurrence of response suppression are intimately involved in Pavlovian HR conditioning.

show abstract

Effects of preshock on subsequent avoidance conditioning.

Cited by 51 publications

References 11 publications

Learned helplessness: Now you see it, now you don’t

Learned helplessness: Now you see it, now you don’t

Behavior during shock exposure as a determinant of subsequent interference with shuttle box escape–avoidance learning in the rat.

Facilitation of Pavlovian conditioned cardiodecelerations following preshock in immobilized rats☆

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About