Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Preference for Signaled Shock in Rats? Instrumentation and Methodological Errors in the Archival Literature

  • Published:
The Psychological Record Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The “archival” (refereed journal or invited review) literature almost uniformly indicates that, consistent with most currently popular theories of behavior, rats prefer signaled shocks even when those shocks are un-modifiable. However, the experiments reported in this literature are here examined on the basis of technical-apparatus (instrumentation) and experimental-design (methodological) soundness. With regard to the assessment of instrumentation problems, it was found that a type of modified Skinner box used in preparations reporting strong preference for signaled shock was subject to significant unauthorized modification of shock intensity, attributable in part to the geometry of the shock grid with respect to nonconducting surfaces. Methodological analysis of the structure of the experimental design, associated with evidence in the modified Skinner box, showed that this design is invalid logically as a preference index, because of asymmetrical factors in the behaviors associated with preference and in the consequences arising from these behaviors.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • ARABIAN, D. M., & DESIDERATO, O. 1975. Preference for signaled shock: a test of two hypotheses. Animal Learning and Behavior, 3, 191–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • AVERILL, J. R., & ROSENN, M. 1972. Vigilant and nonvigilant coping strategies and psychophysiological stress reactions during the anticipation of electric shock. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 23, 128–141.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • AZRIN, N. H. 1959. A technique for delivering shock to pigeons. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 2, 161–163.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • BADIA, P., COKER, C. C., & HARSH, J. 1973. Choice of higher density signaled shock over lower density unsignaled shock. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 20, 47–55.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • BADIA, P., & CULBERTSON, S. 1972. The relative aversiveness of signaled vs. unsignaled escapable and inescapable shock. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 17, 463–471.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • BADIA, P., CULBERTSON, S., & HARSH, J. 1973. Choice of longer or stronger signaled shock over shorter or weaker unsignaled shock. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 19, 25–32.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • BERLYNE, D. E. 1960. Conflict, arousal, and curiosity. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • BIEDERMAN, G. B., & FUREDY, J. J. 1970. The preference-for-signaled-shock phenomenon: signaling shock is reinforcing only if shock is modifiable. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 22, 681–685.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • BIEDERMAN, G. B., & FUREDY, J. J. 1973. Preference-for-signaled-shock phenomenon: effects of shock modifiability and light reinforcement. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 100, 380–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • BIEDERMAN, G. B., & FUREDY, J. J. 1976. Operational duplication without behavioral replication of changeover for signaled inescapable shock. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 7, 421–424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • D’AMATO, M. R. 1974. Derived motives. Annual Review of Psychology, 25, 83–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • FUREDY, J. J. 1975. An integrative progress report on informational control in humans: Some laboratory findings and methodological claims. Australian Journal of Psychology, 27, 61–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • FUREDY, J. J., & BIEDERMAN, G. B. 1976. Preference-for-signaled-shock phenomenon; Direct and indirect evidence for modifiability factors in the shuttle-box. Animal Learning and Behavior, 4, 1–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • FUREDY, J. J., & DOOB, A. N. 1971. Autonomic responses and verbal reports in further tests of the preparatory-adaptive-response interpretation of reinforcement. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 89, 258–264.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • FUREDY, J. J., & DOOB, A. N. 1972. Signaling unmodifiable shocks: limits on human informational cognitive control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 21, 111–115.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • IRWIN, F. W. 1958. An analysis of the concepts of discrimination and preference. American Journal of Psychology, 71, 152–163.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • LOCKARD, J. S. 1963. Choice of a warning signal or no warning signal in an unavoidable shock situation. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 3, 526–530.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • LOCKARD, J. S. 1965. Choice of a warning signal or none in several unavoidable-shock situations. Psychonomic Science, 3, 5–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • LOHR, T. F. 1959. The effect of shock on the rat’s choice of a path to food. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58, 312–318.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • MILLER, R. R., DANIEL, D., & BERK, A. M. 1974. Successive reversals of a discriminated preference for signaled tailshock. Animal Learning and Behavior, 2, 271–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MUENZINGER, K. F., BROWN, W. O., CROW, W. J., & POWLOSKI, R. F. 1952. Motivation in learning: XI. An analysis of electric shock for correct responses into avoidance and accelerating components. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 43, 115–119.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • MUENZINGER, K. F., & POWLOSKI, R. F. 1951. Motivation in learning: X. Comparison of electric shock for correct turns in a corrective and non-corrective situation. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 42, 118–124.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • PERKINS, C. C., Jr. 1968. An analysis of the concept of reinforcement. Psychological Review, 75, 155–172.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • PERKINS, C. C., Jr., LEVIS, D. J., & SEYMANN, R. G. 1963. Preference for signal-shock vs. shock-signal. Psychological Reports, 13, 735–738.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • PERKINS, C. C. Jr., SEYMANN, R. G., LEVIS, D. J., & SPENCER, H. R., Jr. 1966. Factors affecting preference for signal-shock over shock-signal. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 72, 190–196.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • SANDLER, J., & DAVIDSON, R. S. 1967. Punished behavior in the presence of a non-punished alternative. Psychonomic Science, 8, 297–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • SELIGMAN, M. E. P. 1975. Helplessness. San Francisco: Freeman.

    Google Scholar 

  • STRETCH, R., ORLOFF, G. R., & DALRYMPLE, S. D. 1968. Maintenance of responding by fixed-interval schedule of electric shock presentation in squirrel monkeys. Science, 162, 583–586.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Scarborough College, University of Toronto, West Hill, Ontario, M1C 1A4, Canada

    Gerald B. Biederman & John J. Furedy

Authors
  1. Gerald B. Biederman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. John J. Furedy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

This research was supported by grants from the National Research Council of Canada and University of Toronto Health Science Committee. We are grateful to G. A. Heighington for expert technical assistance.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Biederman, G.B., Furedy, J.J. Preference for Signaled Shock in Rats? Instrumentation and Methodological Errors in the Archival Literature. Psychol Rec 26, 501–514 (1976). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03394416

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03394416

Search

Navigation