Neuroethology of Defense

  • Holger Ursin
Part of the NATO Advanced Science Institutes Series book series (NSSA, volume 56)

Abstract

The term defense is sometimes used to cover all types of threat-induced behavior, regardless of whether the behavior has an offensive or a defensive character, or whether it represents fear. The term is also used for reflexes connected with the orienting response to particularly strong stimuli, and for pain reflexes, as well as for cognitive and perceptual strategies used by humans against threatening stimuli and ideas. In the present paper the term will be used in a rather strict etholocial sense, it then refers to the particular behavior shown by intruders when faced with the territory owner (Adams, 1979; Ursin, 1981). This behavior may also be elicited in pain or shock induced fighting situations in rats (Blanchard et al., 1978). The behavior is clearly aggressive and threatening to the opponent, and has been referred to as “deimatic” (I threaten) (Edmunds, 1974). The particular pattern selected will increase in probability if it has the desired instrumental effect, that is, if it has the reducing effect on the threat. If it has, we will also expect it to have a reducing effect on the activation response, and, therefore, on the somatic state of the organism. This particular effect of instrumental behavior has been referred to as coping (Levine et al., 1978). It has been shown that rats that are given the opportunity to fight as a response to shock will show a reduction in their corticosterone response as compared with rats that receive the same amount of shocks, but without this “coping” possibility (Conner et al., 1971). In social structures, there are numerous examples of a lower activation level (higher coping level) in the dominating subjects as compared with the submissive ones. However, the establishment of the social structure seems to represent a coping response for the whole group (Myhre et al., 1981).

Keywords

Emotional Behavior Defense Behavior Threatening Stimulus Instrumental Effect Magnocellular Basal Nucleus 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Adams, D.B., 1979, Brain mechanisms for offense, defense, and submission. Behav. Brain Sci., 2:201–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Blanchard, R.J., Blanchard, D.C., and Takahashi, L.K., 1978, Pain and aggression in the rat. Behav. Biol., 23:291–305.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Busch, D.E., and Barfield, R.J., 1974, A failure of amygdaloid lesions to alter agonistic behavior in the laboratory rat. Physiol. Behav., 12:887–892.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Conner, R.L., Vernikos-Danellis, J., and Levine, S., 1971, Stress, fighting and neuroendocrine function. Nature, 234:564–566.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Edmunds, M., 1974, “Defense in Animals: A Survey of Antipredator Defenses”, Longman, New York.Google Scholar
  6. Eichelman, B.S. Jr., 1971, Effect of subcortical lesions on shock-induced aggression in the rat. J. Comp. Physiol. Psychol., 74:331–339.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fernandez de Molina, A., and Hunsperger, R.W., 1962, Organization of the subcortical system governing defense and flight reactions in the cat. J. Physiol., 160:200–213.Google Scholar
  8. Girgis, M., 1972, The distribution of acetylcholinesterase enzyme in the amygdala and its role in aggressive behavior, in “The Neurobiology of the Amygdala”, B.E. Eleftheriou, ed., Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar
  9. Levine, S., Weinberg, J., and Ursin, H., 1978, Definition of the coping process and statement of the problem in “Psychobiology of Stress. A Study of Coping Men”, H. Ursin, E. Baade and S. Levine, eds., Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  10. Miczek, K.A., Brykczynski, T., and Grossman, S.P., 1974, Differential effects of lesions in the amygdala, periamygdaloid cortex, and stria terminal is on aggressive behaviors in rats. J. Comp. Physiol. Psychol. 87:760–771.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Myhre, G., Ursin, H., and Hanssen, I., 1981, Corticosterone and body temperature during acquisition of social hierarchy in the captive willow ptarmigan (Lagopus 1. lagopus). Z. Tierpsychol., 57:123.Google Scholar
  12. Roldan, E., Alvarez-Pelaez, R., and Fernandez de Molina, A., 1974, Electrographic study of the amygdaloid defense response, Physiol. Behav., 13:779:787.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Rosvold, H.E., Mirsky, A.F., and Pribram, K.H., 1954, Influence of amygdalectomy on social behavior in monkeys. J. Comp. Physiol. Psychol., 47:173.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ursin, H., 1972, Limbic control of emotional behavior, in “Psychosurgery”, E. Hitchcock, L. Laitinen, eds., C. Thomas, Illinois.Google Scholar
  15. Ursin, H., 1981, Neuroanatomical basis of aggression, in “A Multidisciplinary Approach to Aggression Research”, P.F. Brain, and D. Benton, eds., Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar
  16. Ursin, H., and Kaada, B.R., 1960, Functional localization within the amygdaloid complex in the cat. Electroenceph. Clin. Neurophysiol., 12:1–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Zbrozyna, A.W., 1963, The anatomical basis of the patterns of autonomic and behavioral response effected via the amygdala, in “Progress in Brain Research”, W. Bargman, and I.P. Shade, eds., Vol.3, Elsevier, Amsterdam.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1983

Authors and Affiliations

  • Holger Ursin
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Physiological PsychologyUniversity of BergenBergenNorway

Personalised recommendations