Abstract
In a two-way avoidance learning task, responses sometimes occur during the CS-UCS interval prior to the initial receipt of shock. The number of such pseudoavoidance (PA) responses was found to be related positively to the number of avoidance responses made after the receipt of shock, implying that some of these avoidance responses were artifactual. The use of procedures that would decrease the occurrence of PA responses would also minimize this possible contamination of the avoidance data. Evidence was presented indicating that the frequency of PA responses was decreased when some amount of exploration of the apparatus, rather than none, was given prior to avoidance training, the shuttle compartments were separated by a small rather than a large guillotine door, a neutral rather than an intense auditory CS was used, and the CS-UCS interval was short (5 sec) rather than long (10 sec).
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bauer, R. H. The effects of CS and US intensity on shuttlebox avoidance. Psychonomic Science, 1972, 27, 266–268.
Campbell, B. A., & Bloom, J. M. Relative aversiveness of noise and shock. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 1965, 60, 440–442.
Cicala, G. A., & Ulm, R. R. The effects of prefear conditioning shock intensity on initial shuttle response rate. Psychonomic Science, 1971, 23, 67–68.
Dieter, S. E. Preexposure to situational cues and shock intensity in two-way avoidance learning. Animal Learning & Behavior, 1977, 5, 403–406.
Hughes, R. A., & Brett, C. W. Shuttlebox avoidance to intense white noise: Acquisition and the Kamin effect in rats. Animal Learning & Behavior, 1976, 4, 33–36.
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., Dieter, S. E., & James, J. H. Preexposure to situational cues produces a direct relationship between two-way avoidance learning and shock intensity. Animal Learning & Behavior, in press.
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. Facilitating effects of a safe platform on two-way avoidance learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 1978, 4, 83–94.
Moltmann, M. L. Independent measurement of fear at different stages of two-way avoidance learning. Unpublished master 2019;s thesis, Northern Illinois University, 1979.
Seligman, M. E. P., & Johnston, J. C. A cognitive theory of avoidance learning. In F. J. McGuigan & D. B. Lumsden (Eds.), Contemporary approaches to conditioning and learning. Washington, D.C: Winston, 1973.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
This research was supported in part by Grant BMS71-00845 from the National Science Foundation and Grant MH-29232 from the National Institute of Mental Health. The authors thank Michael T. Scoles for several constructive suggestions regarding the manuscript.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
McAllister, D.E., McAllister, W.R. Pseudoavoidance responses in two-way avoidance learning. Bull. Psychon. Soc. 13, 317–319 (1979). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03336882
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03336882