Novel versus familiar ethanol: A comparison of aversive and rewarding properties

Davies, Becky T.; Parker, Linda A.

doi:10.1016/0741-8329(90)90043-c

Cited by 20 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…† Conflicting reports. 1993), LSD (Parker, 1996), methamphetamine (Cunningham & Noble, 1992;Parker, 1993), methylphenidate (Martin-Iverson, Ortmann, & Fibiger, 1985;Parker, 1991), morphine (Beach, 1957;Mucha et al, 1982;Parker, 1991), and alcohol to which the rats had been familiarized (Davies & Parker, 1990;Reid, Hunter, Beaman, & Hubbel, 1985). With each of these drugs, at doses that produce taste avoidance equivalent to that produced by lithium, none has been shown to produce rejection reactions in the TR test.…”

Section: Taste Avoidance Is Not Always Motivated By Taste Aversion Inmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…With each of these drugs, at doses that produce taste avoidance equivalent to that produced by lithium, none has been shown to produce rejection reactions in the TR test. On the other hand, as is depicted in the upper right-hand quadrant of Table 1, across a wide range of doses, a number of drugs that produced place and taste avoidance also produced rejection reactions, including novel alcohol (Cunningham, 1979;B. T. Davies & Parker, 1990), chlordiazepoxide (Parker, Limebeer, & Simpson, 1998), cyclophosphamide (Parker, 1998), fenfluramine (A. M. Davies & Parker, 1993;Parker, 1988), lithium chloride (Berridge et al, 1981;Grill & Norgren, 1978;Mucha et al, 1982;Parker, 1982Parker, , 1992Pelchat et al, 1983), and naloxone-precipitated morphine withdrawal (Mc-Donald et al, 1997;Parker & Joshi, 1998).…”

Section: Taste Avoidance Is Not Always Motivated By Taste Aversion Inmentioning

confidence: 98%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Taste avoidance and taste aversion: Evidence for two different processes

Parker

2003

Learning & Behavior

Self Cite

212

211

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The terms conditioned taste avoidance and conditioned taste aversion are often used interchangeably in the literature; however, considerable evidence indicates that they may represent different processes. Conditioned taste avoidance is measured by the amount that a rat consumes in a consumption test that includes both appetitive phases and consummatory phases of responding. However, conditioned taste aversion is more directly assessed with the taste reactivity test, which includes only the consummatory phase of responding. Rats display a conditioned taste aversion as conditioned rejection reactions (gapes, chin rubs, and paw treads) during an intraoral infusion of a nausea-paired flavored solution. Treatments that produce nausea are not necessary for the establishment of taste avoidance, but they are necessary for the establishment of taste aversion. Furthermore, treatments that alleviate nausea modulate neither the establishment nor the expression of taste avoidance, but they interfere with both the establishment and the expression of taste aversion. Considerable evidence exists indicating that these two measures are independent of one another. Taste avoidance may be motivated by conditioned fear rather than conditioned nausea, but taste aversion (as reflected by rejection reactions) may be motivated by conditioned nausea.

show abstract

Section: Taste Avoidance Is Not Always Motivated By Taste Aversion Inmentioning

confidence: 94%

Section: Taste Avoidance Is Not Always Motivated By Taste Aversion Inmentioning

confidence: 98%

Taste avoidance and taste aversion: Evidence for two different processes

Parker

2003

Learning & Behavior

Self Cite

212

211

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Hunt and Amit 1987). Second, drug novelty may play a much bigger role in determining whether flavor-drug pairings produce conditioned aversive (i.e., "rejection") responses in the case of ethanol than for other self-administered drugs (Parker 1988;Davies and Parker 1990). Third, unlike opiate and stimulant drugs, ethanol is rich in calories, raising the possibility that ingestion of ethanol-associated flavors is affected by ethanol's food value in addition to or instead of its supposed rewarding or aversive CNS effects (Mehiel and Bolles 1984).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Flavor preference conditioning by oral self-administration of ethanol

Cunningham

Niehus

1997

Psychopharmacology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Oral self-administration and operant tasks have been used successfully to confirm ethanol's positive reinforcing effects in rats. However, in flavor conditioning tasks, ethanol is typically found to have aversive effects. The present studies explored this apparent paradox by examining the change in value of a flavor paired with orally self-administered ethanol in two different limited-access procedures. Rats were food-deprived and trained to drink (experiment 1) or to barpress for (experiment 2) 10% (v/v) ethanol during daily 30-min sessions using prandial initiation techniques. All rats were then exposed to a differential flavor conditioning procedure in which banana or almond extract was added to the drinking solution. One flavor (counterbalanced) was always mixed with ethanol (CS+), whereas the other flavor was mixed with water (CS-). By the end of conditioning, rats in both experiments drank more flavored ethanol than flavored water, confirming ethanol's efficacy as a reinforcer. Moreover, barpress rates for CS+ exceeded those for CS- in the operant task. Ethanol doses self-administered in final sessions averaged about 1 g/kg. The effect of the flavor-ethanol contingency was assessed in preference tests that offered a choice between the two flavor solutions without ethanol. In both experiments, subjects developed a preference for the flavor that had been paired with ethanol. Thus, the outcome of flavor conditioning was consistent with that of the oral self-administration tasks in providing evidence of ethanol's rewarding effects. These experiments confirm and extend previous studies showing that flavor aversion is not the inevitable result of flavor-ethanol association in rats. It seems likely that ethanol's nutrient and pharmacological effects both contributed to the development of conditioned flavor preference.

show abstract

“…Cunningham 1979), and indeed ethanol-induced conditioned place aversion has been the most frequently reported outcome in this species (Tzschentke 1998). Further, ethanol produces aversive-type responses in the taste reactivity paradigm (Parker 1988;Davies and Parker 1990). In DBA/2J mice, ethanol produces either conditioned place preference or conditioned place aversion depending on the temporal relationship between place cues and ethanol exposure Cunningham and Henderson 2000).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%