Effects of Signal-Shock Contingency Probability on Gastric Lesions in Rats as a Function of Shock Region

Tsuda, Akira; Hirai, Hisashi

doi:10.4992/jjpsy.47.258

Cited by 5 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, in the groups given liquid diets, ulceration was more severe; it was greatest in subjects that received unpredictable shock. These results agree with those of Gliner (1972), who also used grid shock, and with the tail shock studies already reviewed, but they do not confirm Tsuda and Hirai's (1976) finding that subjects receiving grid shock ulcerate more under predictable styock than under unpredictable shock.…”

Section: Stomach Lesionssupporting

confidence: 48%

“…Of the 17 instances listed in which ulceration was assessed, 12 found the greatest degree of ulceration in unpredictable conditions. Of the 5 remaining studies, only the foot shock group of Tsuda and Hirai (1976) produced more ulceration under predictable shock; the others found no difference.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 88%

“…Although no differences in weight loss were found, subjects in the unpredictable group developed more ulcers than those in the predictable group. Tsuda and Hirai (1976) noted that grid shock was used in studies that showed predictable shock to be more stressful than unpredictable shock. They hypothesized that stress pathology might be functionally related to the region of shock application and tested this notion in a 2 X 3 factorial design.…”

Section: Stomach Lesionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Requests for reprints should be sent to Pietro Badia, Department of Psychology, Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, Ohio 43403. lower body temperatures (Weiss, 1970). Yet other studies show that exposure to predictable shock conditions causes greater ulcer development (Tsuda & Hirai, 1976), less weight gain, greater weight loss, increased adrenal weights, higher subject mortality rates (Brady, Thornton, & DeFisher, 1962;Pare, 1964Pare, , 1965, and increased susceptibility to disease (Friedman, Ader, & Glasgow, 1965). These latter physiological findings suggest that predictable shock conditions are more stressful than unpredictable conditions.…”

mentioning

confidence: 97%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Predictable and unpredictable shock: Behavioral measures of aversion and physiological measures of stress.

Abbott¹,

Schoen²,

Badia³

1984

Psychological Bulletin

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous articles have reviewed the behavioral literature and concluded that predictable shock conditions are less aversive than unpredictable shock conditions. This article reviews the literature on predictable and unpredictable shock conditions relative to physiological measures of stressfulness and considers the possible role of stress-induced analgesia in both the physiological and behavioral effects. It finds that unpredictable conditions are physiologically more stressful than predictable conditions when subjects are exposed to them for one or a few sessions and parameters of stress are relatively severe. However, predictable conditions may be more stressful than unpredictable conditions when sessions are long and extend over days and parameters of stress are less severe. The effect of extended stress appears to depend upon the physiological measure used. These findings are discussed in terms of the phasic versus chronic nature of predictable versus unpredictable stress and the organism's ability to adapt physiologically to these conditions. Finally, the data on stress-induced analgesia are reviewed. We conclude that stress-induced analgesia does not significantly contribute to either preference for predictable over unpredictable stress or their differential physiological effects.

show abstract

Section: Stomach Lesionssupporting

confidence: 48%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 88%

Section: Stomach Lesionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 97%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Predictable and unpredictable shock: Behavioral measures of aversion and physiological measures of stress.

Abbott¹,

Schoen²,

Badia³

1984

Psychological Bulletin

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Firstly, investigators were mainly concerned with animals' reactions in acute stress situations where a subject received strong aversive stimulus (stressor) frequently for comparatively short period of time (e.g., Tsuda & Hirai, 1976b;Weiss, 1970).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Strain differences of mice in response to the shock-situation

Omata

Tsuji

1983

Jpn. Psychol. Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two experiments wcrc conducted to investigate the long-term effects of stress upon responses in inbred mice, C57BLfGJ and CS. In Experiment I, the mice received intermittent electric shocks for five hours in a day for 15 days. Activity rhythms and the body weight were measured in the home cage, and locomotion and the body weight loss in the shock box. In the C57BL16J mice, the body weight decreased over days, while the body weight loss in the shock box decreased. Activity rhythms did not change remarkably. In the CS mice, the body weight remained constant, although the weight loss was larger in the stress situation and the drinking activity rhythm changed. Experiment II revealed that this change in drinking activity rhythm was due to the experimental manipulation other than E.S. The relationship between post-stress behaviors and the body weight change was discussed.

show abstract

Stress of predictable and unpredictable shock.

Arthur¹

1986

Psychological Bulletin

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article examines the claim that unpredictable shock is more stressful than predictable shock in short-term studies (Abbott, Schoen, & Badia, 1984). These authors' classification of studies as short or long term, their conceptualization of them as predictability studies, and their failure to note contrary evidence are discussed. The conclusion is that predictable shock (the presence of a warning signal before shock) makes the situation more stressful both in short-and long-term studies. Conflicting results are most likely due to the presence of additional and confounding variables in contrary studies.Stress has been one of the most prolific areas of research for many different sciences; Selye (1976) had counted over 110,000 studies on stress by 1976. One of the continuing questions in stress research in psychology is the effect of the presence of a warning signal (WS). Do organisms suffer more stress when inescapable unpleasant events are preceded by a WS, or do they suffer more stress when there is no WS? In short, is it better to know or not to know that something unavoidable is about to happen? This is an important question for psychology in general, and not just for animal research. The issue of whether the presence of a WS is more aversive and more stressful than its absence has been reviewed several times with reference to behavioral measures of aversiveness and stress (Averill, 1973;

show abstract

Effects of Signal-Shock Contingency Probability on Gastric Lesions in Rats as a Function of Shock Region

Cited by 5 publications

References 0 publications

Predictable and unpredictable shock: Behavioral measures of aversion and physiological measures of stress.

Predictable and unpredictable shock: Behavioral measures of aversion and physiological measures of stress.

Strain differences of mice in response to the shock-situation

Stress of predictable and unpredictable shock.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About