Activity during prior shock determines subsequent shock-elicited fighting in the rat

Abstract

Two experiments investigated the relationship between activity during shock and the magnitude of subsequent impairment of shock-elicited fighting in the rat. Different levels of intrashock activity were engendered in two ways. In Experiment I, differing temporal forms of inescapable shock were employed to produce markedly different levels of activity. In Experiment 2, a passive-escape procedure was used to explicitly reinforce nonmovement during shock relative to a yoked, inescapable shock control. Results indicated that relative to the performance of subjects not previously shocked, fighting impairment was produced only by those prior treatments that promoted reduced intrashock activity. Since one of the prior shock treatments involved inescapable shock but the other did not, these findings may be viewed as strong support for the notion that behavior during shock, rather than uncontrollability, is the critical determinant of the observed impairment effects. There was some suggestion in both studies that shock treatments that resulted in sustained or increased intrashock activity tended to produce augmentation of fighting. Both inhibitory and facilitative effects of prior shock exposure are discussed in terms of an interacting response theory of shock treatment effects.Recently, support has been provided for the view that levels of activity exhibited by rats during inescapable shock may be a determinant of the magnitude of subsequent impairment with escape-avoidance learning produced by such experience. Much of this evidence stems from experiments that attempted manipulations of activity levels during inescapable shock in an effort to establish the relationship between this factor and subsequent interference. One procedure involved variation in the temporal form of inescapable shock as a means of producing different levels of intrashock activity (Crowell, Lupo, Cunningham, & Anderson, 1978; Lawry, Lupo, Overmier, Kochevar, Hollis, & Anderson, 1978). A rapidly interrupted (i.e., pulsating) dc shock produced sustained levels of intrashock movement, whereas a noninterrupted (i.e., continuous) shock resulted in the development of relative immobility during shock. In another procedure (Anderson, Crowell, Cunningham, & Lupo, 1971), a passive-escape paradigm was employed for one group to reduce activity levels during pulsating shock below those exhibited by subjects in a yoked condition comparably exposed to inescapable shock. With both of these procedures, a negative relation was observed between movement during the initial shock treatment and magnitude of later interference with escape-avoidance learning. The results of these studies were interpreted by Anderson et al. (1979) as support for the view that, through learning or some related process, rats may develop immobility tendencies in the presence of shock stimuli during the initial treatment. Such reactions, if they recurred during test shock, would be expected to compete with the active responding required by the escape-avoidance task. EXPERIMENT 1One implicat...

Influence of shock controllability by dominant rats on subsequent attack and defensive behaviors toward colony intruders

“…Bracewell and Black (1974) and Weiss (1976a, 1976b) have argued that a motor response of remaining inactive is acquired during exposure to inescapable shock and that this reduced movement competes with the acquisition and performance of subsequent responses that are motivated by shock. More recently, Anderson, Crowell, Cunningham, and Lupo (1979) and Anderson et al (1980) have specifically manipulated the amount of activity during exposure to inescapable shock and have shown that inactivity during shock, rather than the uncontrollability of shock, may be the critical determinant that interferes with subsequent shuttlebox escape learning and shockelicited aggression, respectively. The proponents of all these competing-response views assume that the actual presence of shock in most helplessness studies mediates the transfer of inactivity from the inescapable shock to the testing situations.…”

“…Numerous studies have demonstrated that inescapable shock markedly suppresses subsequent shock-elicited aggression (e.g., Anderson, Crowell, Wikoff, & Lupo, 1980;Maier, Anderson, & Lieberman, 1972;Payne, Anderson, & Murcurio, 1970;Powell & Creer, 1969). However, the notion .…”

Influence of postpartum shock controllability on subsequent maternal behavior in rats

“…Experiencing inescapable shock has been shown to interfere with the subsequent learning of escape responses (e.g., Anisman, Suissa, & Sklar, 1980;Maier, Albin, & Testa, 1973;Overmier & Seligman, 1967) and appetitive operants (Rosellini, 1978;Rosellini, DeCola, & Shapiro, 1982). In addition, transsituational deficits produced by inescapable shock have been found in tests of nonassociative or unlearned responses, such as nonreinforced shuttlebox running (e.g., Maier, Coon, McDaniel, Jackson, & Grau, 1979), shockelicited fighting (e.g., Anderson, Crowell, Wikoff, & Lupo, 1980), general activity (Drugan & Maier, 1982), certain forms of exploratory behaviors (e.g., Bruto , and reactions to nociceptive stimuli (e.g., . These debilitations in behavior have been referred to as the learned helplessness effect, because they do not follow exposure to equivalent amounts of escapable shock and thus are a product of the uncontrollability of the shock as a stressor.…”

Effects of stress controllability, immunization, and therapy on the subsequent defeat of colony intruders

“…Several studies have demonstrated that inescapable shock decreases subsequent shock-elicited fighting between pairs of rats (e. g. , Anderson, Crowell, Wikoff, & Lupo, 1980;Maier, Anderson, & Lieberman, 1972). However, R. J. Blanchard and his colleagues have argued convincingly that shockelicited fighting represents a mixture of shock-elicited movement and defensive boxing (0.…”