Advertisement

Animal learning & behavior

, Volume 10, Issue 3, pp 401–406 | Cite as

The nature of the activity deficit produced by inescapable shock

  • Robert C. Drugan
  • Steven F. Maier
Article
  • 161 Downloads

Abstract

Two experiments investigated the nature and etiology of the reduced activity in the presence of shock produced by prior exposure to inescapable shock. Previous experiments have demonstrated this deficit in the presence of gridshock. However, gridshock hurts less if movement across the grids is reduced. It is thus unclear whether the inescapable-shock-produced deficit represents a facilitation of learning to reduce movement across the grids in order to alleviate pain or is an “unconditioned” reduction in movement in response to shock. The first experiment tested these possibilities by examining the effects of inescapable shock on subsequent movement during shock delivered via fixed tail electrodes to freely moving subjects. Inescapably shocked subjects still moved less in response to shock than did escapably shocked and restrained control subjects. Experiment 2 examined the possibility that this deficit occurs because unconditioned movement in response to shock during pretreatment diminishes after a few seconds, the reduction then being adventitiously reinforced by shortly ensuing shock termination. Activity during inescapable shock was closely monitored by ultrasonic motion detection. Although activity did decrease across trial blocks, the required within-trial patterns did not occur. Shock-elicited activity did not diminish after a few seconds of shock, but remained unchanged across the 5-sec shock presentations.

Reference Note

  1. 1.
    Drugan, R. C., Maier, S. F., & Misanin, J. R.The impact of inescapable shock on the sensitivity and reactivity to stress in the rat. Paper presented at the meeting of the Rocky Mountain Psychological Association, Denver, 1981.Google Scholar

References

  1. Anderson, D. C., Crowell, C. R., Cunningham, C. L., &Lupo, J. V. Behavior during shock exposure as a determinant of subsequent interference with shuttlebox escape-avoidance learning in the rat.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 1979,5, 243–257.Google Scholar
  2. Anisman, H., DeCatanzaro, D., &Remington, G. Escape performance following exposure to inescapable shock: Deficits in motor response maintenance.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 1978,4, 197–218.Google Scholar
  3. Berk, A. M., Marlin, N. A., &Miller, R. R. Communication: System for delivering tailshock to freely ambulatory rats.Physiology & Behavior, 1977,19, 815–818.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bracewell, R. J., &Black, A. H. The effects of restraint and noncontingent preshock on subsequent escape learning in the rat.Learning and Motivation, 1974,5, 53–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Campbell, B. A., &Teghtsoonian, R. Electrical and behavioral effects on different types of shock stimuli on the rat.Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 1958,51, 185–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fanselow, M. S. Naloxone attenuates rat’s preference for signaled shock.Physiological Psychology, 1979,7, 70–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Glazeb, H. I., &Weiss, J. M. Long-term and transitory interference effects.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 1976,2, 191–201. (a)Google Scholar
  8. Glazer, H. I., &Weiss, J. M. Long-term interference effect: An alternative to “learned helplessness.”Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 1976,2, 202–213.(b)Google Scholar
  9. Hollis, K. R., &Overmier, J. B. Effect of inescapable shock on the efficacy of punishment of appetitive instrumental responding by dogs.Psychological Reports, 1973,33, 903–906.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Imada, H., Yamazaki, A., &Morishita, M. The effects of signal intensity upon conditioned suppression: Effects upon responding during signals and intersignal intervals.Animal Learning & Behavior, 1981,9, 269–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Jackson, R. L., Maier, S. F., &Coon, D. J. Long-term analgesic effects of inescapable shock and learned helplessness.Science, 1979,206, 91–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Jackson, R. L., Maier, S. F., &Rapaport, P. M. Exposure to inescapable shock produces both activity and associative deficits in rats.Learning and Motivation, 1978,9, 69–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kurtz, K., &Walters, G. The effects of prior fear exposure on an approach-avoidance conflict.Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 1962,55, 1075–1078.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Levis, D. J. Learned helplessness: A reply and alternative S-R interpretation.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 1976,105, 47–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Maier, S. F., &Jackson, R. L. Learned helplessness: All of us were right (and wrong): Inescapable shock has multiple effects. In G. Bower (Ed.),The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 13). New York: Academic Press, 1979.Google Scholar
  16. Maier, S. F., &Seligman, M. E. P. Learned helplessness: Theory and evidence.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 1976,105, 3–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mowrer, O. H., &Miller, N. E. A multi-purpose learning demonstration apparatus.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1942,31, 163–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Muenzinger, K. F., &Walz, F. C. An analysis of the electrical stimulus producing a shock.Journal of Comparative Psychology, 1932,13, 157–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. O’Connell, B., Chiszar, D., &Smith, H. M. Effect of poststrike disturbance on strike-induced chemosensory searching in the prairie rattlesnake (Crotalus V. viridis).Behavioral and Neural Biology, 1981,32, 343–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Weiss, J. M., Glazer, H. I., &Pohorecky, L. A. Coping behavior and neurochemical changes: An alternative explanation for the original “learned helplessness” experiments. In G. Servan & A. Kling (Eds.),Animal models in human psychobiology. New York: Plenum Press, 1976.Google Scholar
  21. Weiss, J. M., Stone, E. A., &Harrell, N. Coping behavior and brain norepinephrine in rats.Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 1970,72, 153–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Wilson, W. J., &Butcher, L. L. A potential shock-reducing contingency in the backshock technique: Implications for learned helplessness.Animal Learning & Behavior, 1980,8, 435–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 1982

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert C. Drugan
    • 1
  • Steven F. Maier
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of ColoradoBoulder

Personalised recommendations