Relationship of the upright agonistic posture in the foot shock situation to dominance-submission in male C57BL/6 mice

Abstract

The agonistic behavior ofmale C57BL/6 mice was observed in shock and nonshock round-robins. It was [ound that there was a positive relationship between dominance rank of the participants and frequency of upright reactions in the [oot-shock situation. These results suggested that the upright reaction observed in the foot-shock situation be identified not as an attack behavior as is typically done, but rather as an ambivalent, threat, or defense behavior. The purpose of this study was to determine the relationship between dominance-submission and the frequency of the upright agonistic posture produced in a foot-shock situation similar to that employed by Ulrich & Azrin (1962). This study was part of an extensive series of experiments on the usefulness of the foot-shock technique for the study of agonistic behavior in various strains of mice. Among numerous agonistic behavior patterns, the upright posture is of particular interest not only because of its ease of induction in a foot-shock situation, reHability of measurement, and known relationship to various parameters such as shock intensity, rate, floor area, etc. in rats (Ulrich, 1966), but also because ofsome amount of controversy over its classification (King, 1966; Scott, 1966). As further evidence, if not of controversy, at least oflack of clarity or precision as to its proper classification, the upright posture in mice has been defined as an index of submission or submissiveness

Sexual variables and shock-elicited aggression.

“…Fighting elicited by shock would appear to be a defense-related behavior, both logically and experimentally (Kimbrell, 1969;Ulrich & Symannek, 1969), As an example of a type of defensive fighting shock-1 Requests for reprints should be sent to W. L. Milligan, Veterans Administration Hospital, Columbia, South Carolina 29201. elicited aggression (SEA) provides a particularly good laboratory model for studying the extent to which defensive and other kinds of attack are mediated by the same or different neurophysiological systems. Moreover, the results of several recent studies suggested that sex did not affect fighting elicited by shock (Powell et al, 1971;Powell, Silverman, Francis, & Schneiderman, 1970;Ulrich & Azrin, 1962).…”

Agressão E Análise Do Comportamento: A História Do Modelo De “Pain-Aggression”

“…Kimbrell (1969), com camundongos, verificou uma correlação positiva entre a ocorrência de postura corporal verticalizada em resposta ao choque (um dos comportamentos envolvidos na luta induzida por estimulação aversiva) e o grau de dominância (definido pelo autor como o grau de controle exercido por um roedor em relação a outro, quando pareados em situação anterior de não-choque). Estes resultados foram replicados com maior rigor metodológico em estudo posterior (Kimbrell & Chesler, 1971).…”

“…Além de demonstrar a influência das relações de dominância e submissão sobre a frequência de respostas de luta, os estudos de Kimbrell (1969), Kimbrell e Chesler (1971) e Reynierse (1971) ressaltaram que o detalhamento da topografia das respostas agressivas de luta geradas pelo choque elétrico era compatível com descrições etológicas de episódios de luta entre roedores (e.g., Grant & Mackintosh, 1963), que atribuíam função de "defesa e ameaça" às respostas de luta envolvendo a postura verticalizada. É importante frisar que, no contexto da pesquisa etológica do comportamento agressivo, pelo menos sete tipos de agressão eram identificados (Moyer, 1968) e agrupados em diferentes, mas eventualmente sobrepostos, sistemas biológicos ofensivos e defensivos.…”

Functional differences between two shock-induced aggressive behaviors of mice

“…While there has been some research on the shock-induced aggressive interactions of mice (e.g., Tedeschi, Tedeschi, Mucha, Cook, Mattis, & Fellows, 1959;Kimbrell, 1969), there has been far more exploration of the parameters of the experimental situation for rats. Manipulation of situational variables in the rat experiments, such as the floor area of the shock chamber and the intensity, duration, and frequency of shocks (e.g., Azrin, Ulrich, Hutchinson, & Norman, 1964;Ulrich & Azrin, 1962), has led to the development of a paradigm for rats in which the upright posture can be elicited on a large proportion of shock trials.…”