Abstract
Goldfish were classically conditioned with tone as the CS, shock as the US, shock-induced cessation of breathing as the UCR, and a decrease in breathing as the CR. During the first phase of training half the classically conditioned fish experienced a high intensity US and half experienced a low intensity US. During the second phase of training half the fish with each shock intensity were shifted to the other shock intensity. Respiration was lower in response to the high as compared to the low intensity US during the first phase of training. Following a change in US magnitude, fish rapidly shifted their respiration level. A negative contrast effect was obtained for fish shifted to a lower level of shock.
Similar content being viewed by others
Reference
BITTERMAN, M. E. 1966. Animal learning. In J. B. Sidowski (Ed.), Experimental methods and instrumentation in psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill.
BREUNING, S. E., & WOLACH, A. H. 1977. Successive negative contrast effects with goldfis? (Carassius auratus). The Psychological Record, 27, 565–575.
BREUNING, S. E., & WOLACH, A. H. 1979. Successive negative contrast effects for activity-conditioned goldfish (Carassius auratus) as a function of housing conditions. The Psychological Record, 29, 245–254.
BURSTEIN, K. R. 1965. The influence of UCS upon the acquisition of the conditioned eyelid response. Psychonomic Science, 2, 203–204.
CAPALDI, E. J., & LYNCH, D. 1967. Repeated shifts in reward magnitude: Evidence in favor of an associational and absolute (noncontextual) interpretation. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 75, 226–235.
COCHRANE, T. L., SCOBIE, S. R., & FALLON, D. 1973. Negative contrast in goldfis (Carassius auratus). Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 1, 411–413.
FAY, R. R., & MACKINNON, J. R. 1969. A simplified technique for conditioning respiratory mouth movements in fish. Behavior Research Methods and Instrumentation, 1, 123–124.
GONZALEZ, R. C., POTTS, A., PITCOFF, K., & BITTERMAN, M. E. 1972. Runway performance of goldfish as a function of complete and incomplete reduction in amount of reward. Psychonomic Science, 27, 305–307.
GONZALEZ, R. C., & POWERS, A. S. 1973. Simultaneous contrast in goldfish. Animal Learning and Behavior, 1, 96–98.
LOWES, G., & BITTERMAN, M. E. 1967. Reward and learning in the goldfish. Science, 157, 456–457.
MACKINTOSH, N. J. 1971. Reward and aftereffects of reward in the learning of goldfish. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 76, 225–232.
MELLGREN, R. L. 1971. Positive contrast in the rat as a function of number of preshift trials in the runway. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 77, 329–336.
OST, J. W. P., & LAUER, D. W. 1965. Some investigations of classical salivary conditioning in the dog. In W. F. Prokasy (Ed.), Classical conditioning: A symposium. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
RAYMOND, B., ADERMAN, M., & WOLACH, A. H. 1972. Incentive shifts in the goldfish. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 78, 10–13.
RESCORLA, R. A. 1974. Effect of inflation of the unconditioned stimulus value following conditioning. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 86, 101–106.
SPENCE, K. W. 1953. Learning and performance in eyelid conditioning as a function of the intensity of the UCS. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 45, 57–63.
SPENCE, K. W. 1956. Behavior theory and conditioning. New Haven: Yale University Press.
SPENCE, K. W., HAGGARD, D. F., & ROSS, L. E. 1958. UCS intensity and the associative (habit) strength of the eyelid CR. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55, 404–411.
SPENCE, K. W., & PLATT, J. R. 1966. UCS intensity and performance in eyelid conditioning. Psychological Bulletin, 65, 1–10.
WOLACH, A. H., RAYMOND, B., & HURST, J. W. 1973. Reward magnitude shifts with goldfish. The Psychological Record 23, 371–376.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Breuning, S.E., Ferguson, D.G., McHale, M.A. et al. Shifts in Magnitude of a Shock Us for Goldfish (Carassius Auratus) in a Respiratory Conditioning Situation. Psychol Rec 30, 367–375 (1980). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03394686
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03394686