The relatedness of behavior elicited by reward reduction (successive negative contrast procedure) and behaviors produced by three animal models of anxiety (open-field emergence, elevated plus-maze, and context-shock fear conditioning) was examined by correlational and factor analytic procedures, Factor analysis (oblique rotation) indicated substantial independence among the tests: Trials 1 and 2 of the plus-maze loaded on two different factors unaccompanied by any other test; open-field emergence and context-shock fear loaded on the same factor; and negative contrast loaded on a fourth factor. However, negative contrast proved to be a dynamic process, with factor loadings changing across a 4-day postshift period-moving from an independent loading on the 1st postshift day to being clustered with context-shock fear and open-field emergence on the 2nd and 3rd postshift days to being clustered with just context-shock fear on the last postshift day. These latter data support a multistage theory of successive negative contrast.Rats shifted from a preferred reward to a less preferred reward show an abrupt decrement in goal-directed behavior and an increase in exploratory behavior (e.g., Crespi, 1942Crespi, , 1944Elliott, 1928;Flaherty, 1996). The goaldirected performance of the shifted rats decreases to a level below that of unshifted control animals given the same level of reward-an outcome termed a successive negative contrast (SNC) effect.One enduring interpretation of successive negative contrast is that it is caused by an emotional reaction to the reward reduction. Terms such as anger, depression, disappointment, andfrustration have often been used in referring to a rat's or a monkey's reaction to reduced reward ie.g., Amsel, 1992;Crespi, 1942Crespi, , 1944Flaherty, Krauss, Rowan, & Grigson, 1994;Gray, 1982Gray, , 1987Spence, 1956), Evidence supporting the involvement of some form ofstress in negative contrast includes the success of antianxiety agents (e.g., benzodiazepines, ethanol, barbiturates, and morphine) in alleviating aspects of contrast (Becker & Flaherty, 1982; Flaherty, 1991bFlaherty, , 1996, the elevation of corticosteroids as a consequence of reward reduction (Flaherty, Becker, & Pohorecky, 1985;Goldman, Coover, & Levine, 1973;Mitchell & Flaherty, 1998), covariation of contrast and other forms of emotional reactivity in rats selectively bred for performance in avoidance learning (Flaherty & Rowan, 1989), and the role of amygdala lesions in reducing contrast (Becker, Jarvis, Wagner, & Flaherty, 1984).This research was funded by NIH Grant MH48835 and by funds from the Dean of Arts and SCIencesat Rutgers to the first author, The assistance of Cynthia Coppotelli and Matthew Kelsey is greatly appreciated, Correspondence should be addressed to C. F. Flaherty, Psychology Department, New Brunswick campus, Rutgers University. 152 Frelinghuysen Rd., Piscataway, NJ 08854-8020 (e-mail: tlaherty@psycho-b. rutgers.edu).We have recently proposed a multistage theory of SNC that suggests that perceptual and cognitive...

Although the use of History has become increasingly discussed and more widely applied within Organization Studies (OS), its relevance for OS still remains far from centrally accepted. This article historicizes the relationship between Sociology and History as a means of better understanding the tensions, perceived and real, that exist between History and Organization Studies. In particular we analyse three differences of epistemological standpoint (method, objectivity and usefulness) that are commonly seen as the foundation stones to incompatibility. Perhaps surprisingly for an analysis of apparent disciplinary differences, we find that these distinctions in terms of approach, once closely examined, are rarely clear-cut and historians and OS scholars are frequently closer in intention and method than they are distant. However, despite their large intersection of interests, we argue that important distinctions between the two fields should be acknowledged. Our contribution to the debates over the need for more historical approaches within OS therefore centrally rests on abandoning aspirations for fully integrative models of working together, in favour of cooperative modes that concede the fields’ differences. This subtle shift of emphasis will, we believe, greatly benefit OS scholars who hope to include historical perspectives in their work.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract