Abstract
Four groups of rats (n = 16) received 65 two-way avoidance learning trials. The groups differed with respect to the amount of exposure (0 or 4 h) to the situational cues of the apparatus prior to avoidance learning and the intensity of shock (.3 or 1.6 mA) during learning. Superior avoidance performance with weak as compared to strong shock was obtained in the nonpreexposed groups. This inverse relationship between avoidance performance and shock intensity, typical of two-way avoidance learning, was eliminated in the preexposed groups. Presumably, a latent inhibition effect occurred in the strong-shock group, which resulted in a retardation of the conditioning of fear to the situational cues and a consequent improvement in performance. The results are consistent with the effective reinforcement theory, which emphasizes in aversive learning the detrimental effect of large amounts of fear remaining following a response.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Campbell, B. A., &Kraeling, D. Response strength as a function of drive level and amount of drive reduction.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1953,45, 97–101.
Grant, M. J., &Grant, R. M. The effects of scopolamine on preexposure to a learning apparatus.Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 1973,1, 238–240.
Grant, M., &Young, D. The effects of preexposure to a learning apparatus.Behavior Research Methods & Instrumentation, 1971,3, 251–252.
Kruger, B. M., Galvani, P. F., &Brown, J. S. A comparison of simulated one-way and shuttle avoidance in an automated apparatus.Behavior Research Methods & Instrumentation, 1969,1, 143–147.
Lubow, R. E., &Moore, A. U. Latent inhibition: The effect of nonreinforced pre-exposure to the conditional stimulus.Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 1959,52, 415–419.
McAllister, D. E., McAllister, W. R., &Dieter, S. E. Reward magnitude and shock variables (continuity and intensity) in shuttlebox-avoidance learning.Animal Learning & Behavior, 1976,4, 204–209.
McAllister, W. R., McAllister, D. E., &Douglass, W. K. The inverse relationship between shock intensity and shuttle-box avoidance learning in rats: A reinforcement explanation.Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 1971,74, 426–433.
Modaresi, H. A. One-way characteristic performance of rats under two-way signaled avoidance conditions.Learning and Motivation, 1975,6, 484–497.
Mowrer, O. H. On the dual nature of learning—a re-interpretation of “conditioning” and “problem-solving.”The Harvard Educational Review, 1947,17, 102–148.
Mover, K. E., &Korn, J. H. Effect of UCS intensity on the acquisition and extinction of an avoidance response.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1964,67, 352–359.
Rescorla, R. A. Summation and retardation tests of latent inhibition.Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 1971,75, 77–81.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Dieter, S.E. Preexposure to situational cues and shock intensity in two-way avoidance learning. Animal Learning & Behavior 5, 403–406 (1977). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03209587
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03209587