Failure to Find Postshock Increases in Ethanol Preference

Abstract

Volpicelli at al. (Alcohol Clin Exp Res 14:913-916, 1990) found that rats given a choice between drinking 5% ethanol and water showed enhanced ethanol preference after daily sessions of shock, relative to No-Treatment controls. In our first experiment, rats were given a choice between 5% ethanol and isocaloric sucrose after daily sessions of shock. On shock days, rats received either 2 or 60 shocks over 1 hr. The 60-Shock group increased its ethanol preference from the baseline phase to the postshock phase, whereas the 2-Shock group decreased its ethanol preference from the baseline phase to the shock phase. However, the ethanol preferences of the two groups were not significantly different from each other during any phase. In four subsequent experiments, Shock, No-Shock, and No-Treatment groups were given a choice between 5% ethanol and water. The experiments varied on: whether the treatments and measurements of consumption occurred in the light versus dark phase of the cycle, and whether there was one measurement per day or four. Baseline ethanol preference varied widely between experiments. In none of the experiments did shock differentially enhance ethanol preference. The findings of Volpiceli et al. were not replicated.

The role of setting in the oral self-administration of alcohol in the rat

“…It could be argued that by being transferred to a test cage different from the home environment Non-Resident rats underwent a stressful experience. Exposure (sometimes repeated exposure) to a variety of physical and social stressors (including electrical foot shock, tail pinch, immobilization, and aggression) has been reported to facilitate the SA of cocaine, morphine, amphetamine, and alcohol (e.g., Anisman and Waller 1974;Ng Cheong Ton et al 1983;Volpicelli and Ulm 1990;Piazza et al 1990;Shaham 1993;Goeders and Guerin 1994;Shaham and Stewart 1994;Miczek and Mutschler 1996;Goeders 2002;Croft et al 2005); although the literature on this issue is not entirely consistent, especially with regard to alcohol (e.g., Myers and Holman 1967;Fidler and LoLordo 1996;van Erp and Miczek 2001;Funk et al 2005). Thus, on the basis of earlier evidence, it may have been predicted that alcohol SA should have been facilitated in our Non-Resident rats, relative to Resident, which is the opposite of what we found.…”

Alcohol abuse in individuals exposed to trauma: A critical review.

“…This stands in marked contrast to predictions emerging from Volpicelli's (1987) endorphin-compensation theory, which implies that drinking should follow exposure to the traumatic event or reminders of the event (see also Fidler & LoLordo, 1996). More evidence on the time course of drinking in patients with PTSD is needed to further evaluate the usefulness of each of these theories in explaining alcohol abuse in patients with PTSD.…”

The role of corticotrophin-releasing factor in stress-induced relapse to alcohol-seeking behavior in rats

“…However, the degree to which stress affects alcohol intake remains to be determined. Different stressors were found to increase (Anisman and Waller 1974;Volpicelli and Ulm 1990;Lynch et al 1999), decrease (Van Erp et al 1994) or not to change (Myers and Holman 1967;Fidler and Lolordo 1996) the consumption of alcohol during these phases. Furthermore, despite the prominent role of stress in relapse to alcohol in humans, until recently this issue was not studied in animal models.…”