Effects of shock schedules on the acquisition and extinction of escape behavior

Franchina, Joseph J.

doi:10.3758/bf03342294

Cited by 13 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The effects of shock percentage on acquisition and extinction performance in this study were consistent with the results of Franchina (1966). The present study failed to demonstrate a reliable effect of discrete CS presentations on escape-from-shock training.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 82%

“…The apparatus was that described by Franchina (1966). A white start box was separated from a black safe box by a guillotine door and a hurdle.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Relative extinction scores, called percent difference values (Franchina, 1966), were obtained for each S on each extinction trial blockby dividing mean performance on the last trial block of acquisition into the difference in mean performance between the last trial block of acquisition and each trial block of extinction. The percent difference data showed that resistance to extinction was inversely related to shock percentage and directly related to CS percentage.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Escape behavior as determined by schedules of shock and discrete CS presentations

Franchina

1966

Psychon Sci

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rats received escape training, with shock-presentation schedules of 50% or 100% and discrete CS-presentation schedules of 0%, 50% or 100%, followed by extinction with the discrete CS alone. Acquisition performance was directly related to shock percentage (p < .001). No reliable effect of CS was found. Resistance to extinction was inversely related to shock percentage (p < .05) and, during early extinction, was directly related to CS percentage (p < .02 on extinction Trial Block I).In the instrumental shock-escape situation, fear, classically conditioned to the stimuli present at shock application, is presumed to be a partial determinant of escape performance. McAllister & McAllister (1962) have reported that better classical fear conditioning resulted from pairing shock with the combined stimuli of a discrete CS (light) and static visual and tactile cues of the conditioning box, than from pairing shock with static box cues alone. Thus, if McAllister and McAllister's findings were generalizable to shockescape behavior, one would predict that, all things constant, escape training with the combined stimuli of a discrete CS and static apparatus cues would be superior to training with static cues alone. The first purpose of this experiment was to investigate this hypothesis.The second purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of intermittent shock schedules on escape behavior, using a different intermittent schedule and more distributed acquisition and extinction sessions than were reported previously (e.g. Franchina, 1966). MethodThe apparatus was that described by Franchina (1966). A white start box was separated from a black safe box by a guillotine door and a hurdle. The start box floor could be electrified with 50-volts shock; the only resistance in the shock circuit was S. The safe box floor could be depressed.On top of the start and the safe boxes were compartments which served as lids and contained sources of illumination for the lower boxes. The source for intertrial illumination, 7 ft-c, was a 7-1/2-wattlampon the left wall of each lid, 16 in. above the floors of the lower boxes. The source for the discrete CS, an increase in start box illumination from 7 to 110 ft-c, was a 40-watt lamp on the right wall of the start box lid, 14 in. above the start box floor. The illumination was reflected from its source by an aluminum foil lining inside each lid. Frosted Plexiglas, 3/16 in. thick, diffused the illumination into the lower boxes.Psychon. Sci., 1966, Vol. :; (1) JOSEPH J. FRANCHINA SOUTHERN METHODIST UNIVERSITYSs were 84 naive, female, Holtzrtlan albino rats,100-110 days old at the start of the experiment. Ss were randomly and evenly distributed into a 3 by 2 design for escape training with shock presentation on 50% or 100% of the trials and discrete CS (light) presentation on 0%, 50% or 100% schedules. Static apparatus cues were constantly present in each CS (light) condition.Each S received 4 min. of exploration in each side of the apparatus followed, on the next day, by the start of escape tra...

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 82%

“…The apparatus was that described by Franchina (1966). A white start box was separated from a black safe box by a guillotine door and a hurdle.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Escape behavior as determined by schedules of shock and discrete CS presentations

Franchina

1966

Psychon Sci

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Four different mixed sequences of intermittent nonconformity were used, fully counterbalanced for sex. Franchina, 1966Franchina, , 1969Franchina & Snyder, 1970). Intermittent ShOCK involves the presence of shock on some conditioning trials and the absence of shock on others.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The negative reinforcing functions of nonconformity

Seybert

Weiss

1974

Memory & Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Method Apparatus. The apparatus was that described by Franchina (1966). Briefly, a white start box was separated from a black safe box by a guillotine door and a hurdle.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Combined sources of motivation and escape responding

Franchina

1966

Psychon Sci

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Zero and 21% hr. (approximately) of food deprivation wereorthogonally combined with 40 and 70 v of shock during a single shock-escape trial. Escape performance was directly related to both level of deprivation and shock intensity.Drive theories of primary motivation (e.g., Spence, 1956) assume that, all things equal, the more numerous the primary sources of drive, the greater the motivation, and the more vigorous the response. Most studies of combined sources of primary motivation have investigated appetitional motive combinations (Le., food deprivation combined with water deprivation). Only Amsel (1950) has reported on the combining of aversive and appetitional motives. This investigator varied shock intensity (aversive motive) and food deprivation during escape training but found no reliable effects of combined motivation ..The present experiment reports on combining primary aversive and appetitional motives during a single shock-escape trial. A single trial technique was used as one way to avoid the confounding between motivational and reinforCing aspects of shock, which occurred in Amsel's study. Amsel trained Ss to escape from different shock intensities to no shock. Thus, Ss differed in level of shock-produced motivation and in level of reinforcement due to amount of shock offset. The present study assumed that escape performance on a single (and only) shock trial was independent of previous (non-existent) shock reinforcements and should reflect only motivational factors. Method Apparatus. The apparatus was that described by Franchina (1966). Briefly, a white start box was separated from a black safe box by a guillotine door and a hurdle. The start box floor could be electrified from a constant voltage source. The safe box floor was masonite and could be depressed. The lid of each box contained light sources which maintained constant levels of illumination in the start and safe boxes. The start box lid also contained a light source for discrete CS presentations in that box. Subjects, Design, and Procedures.Ss were 56 naive, male, Holtzman, albino rats. At 98-101 days old, Ss were weighed and started on a feeding schedule of 1-1/2 hr. access to food (ad lib) every 24 hr. Water was always available.After eight days on this maintenance schedule, each S received two successive days of exploration in the apparatus and, then, two successive days of one trial of hurdle-jumping per day. Ss were weighed on each hurdle-jumping day, 30 min. before their daily feeding.

show abstract

Effects of shock schedules on the acquisition and extinction of escape behavior

Cited by 13 publications

References 4 publications

Escape behavior as determined by schedules of shock and discrete CS presentations

Escape behavior as determined by schedules of shock and discrete CS presentations

The negative reinforcing functions of nonconformity

Combined sources of motivation and escape responding

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About