Abstract
Three rats received unmodifiable tailshock at random intervals in a shuttlebox. In a continuous-choice situation, Ss could choose between an auditory signal immediately preceding or immediately following the tailshock. Over repeated daily 3-h sessions, each S acquired a spatial discrimination indicating a strong preference for the signal preceding tailshock. This preference continued undiminished through two successive reversals of the position associated with signaled shock. This demonstration precludes explanations of the preference-for-signaled-shock phenomenon based upon primary reinforcement value or acquired value of the signal, position preferences, and overt modification of the aversiveness of the reinforcer through such means as postural adjustments. An explanation of recent failures to obtain the preference-for-signaled-shock effect is offered.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Badia, P., & Culbertson, S. The relative aversiveness of signalled vs unsignalled escapable and inescapable shock. Journal of Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1972, 17, 463–471.
Berlyne, D. E.Conflict, arousal, and curiosity. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1960.
Biederman, G. B., & Furedy, J. J. Preference-for-signalled-shock phenomenon: Effects of shock modifiability and light reinforcement. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1973, 100, 380–386.
Bolles, R. C. Species-specific defense reactions and avoidance learning. Psychological Review, 1970, 77, 32–48.
Furedy, J. J., & Doob, A. N. Signaling unmodifiable shocks: Limits on human informational cognitive control. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 1972, 21, 111–115.
Harsh, J., & Badia, P. A concurrent assessment of the positive and negative characteristics of a signalled shock schedule. Presented at Eastern Psychological Association meeting, Philadelphia, April 1974.
Hymowitz, N. Preference for signalled over unsignalled response-independent electric shock. Paper presented at the meeting of the Eastern Psychological Association, Washington, D.C., May 1973.
Knapp, R. K., Kause, R. H., & Perkins, C. C., Jr. Immediate vs delayed shock in T-maze performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1959, 58, 357–362.
Lanzetta, J. T., & Driscoll, J. M. Preference for information about an uncertain but unavoidable outcome. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 1966, 3, 96–102.
Perkins, C. C., Jr. The stimulus conditions which follow learned responses. Psychological Review, 1955, 62, 41–348.
Perkins, C. C., Jr. An analysis of the concept of reinforcement. Psychological Review, 1968, 75, 155–172.
Perkins, C. C., Jr., Seymann, R. G., Levis, D. J., & Spencer, H. R., Jr. Factors affecting preference for signal-shock over shock-signal. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1966, 72, 190–196.
Prokasy, W. F., Jr. The acquisition of observing responses in the absence of differential external reinforcement. Journal of Comparative & Physiological Psychology, 1956, 49, 131–134.
Seligman, M. E. P., Maier, S. F., & Solomon, R. L. Unpredictable and uncontrollable aversive events. In F. R. Brush (Ed.),Aversive conditioning and learning. New York: Academic Press, 1971.
Wyckoff, L. B. Toward a quantitative theory of secondary reinforcement. Psychological Review, 1959, 66, 68–77.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
This research was supported by NIMH Grant 19497 and a grant from the Research Foundation of the City University of New York.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Miller, R.R., Daniel, D. & Berk, A.M. Successive reversals of a discriminated preference for signaled tailshock. Animal Learning & Behavior 2, 271–274 (1974). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03199193
Received:
Revised:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03199193