Fear-increasing effects of experience with shock

Cappelli, Howard; Rodin, Judith

doi:10.3758/bf03336521

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 5 publications

(13 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…While a number of reports suggest stress antecedent to, or concurrent with, open field testing is behaviorally inhibitory, this is far from universally true. Examples of behaviorally inhibitory antecedent manipulations include primarily shock [5,39], fear conditioning [5,8,9,16,30,41,44,45] and isolation [2,25,27,56]. Concomitant stress related manipulations which decrease activity include the above conditions and also the presence of predators [53], excess noise [14,18,22,60], intense illumination [20,22], or a Pavlovian CS ÷ (conditioned stimulus) for shock [44].…”

Section: Activitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Stress, behavioral arousal, and open field activity—A reexamination of emotionality in the rat

Roth

Katz

1979

Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews

173

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The effects of stress upon emotionality, and of emotionality upon the open field activity of rats have now been studied for over four decades. Controversy remains however regarding the degree to which stress alters behavior, and the direction of that change. One reason for this is the absence of an adequate behavioral definition of stress. The present series of experiments demonstrates a standard relatively nontraumatic stress induction procedure which may be used in conjunction with open field testing. Pre-exposure to moderately intense light and white noise facilitated open field activity as measured by initial activity, lowered defecation scores, and supplementary measures (rearing, grooming, center field penetration). Further parametric, psychoendocrine, and pharmacological studies characterized the nature of the facilitation, its time course, and its modification by other manipulations. Our results suggest the initial behavioral response to stress in an open field is activation. Previous studies may have differed in their results relating stress and behavior because of subtle procedural distinctions, some of which may be identified using the present technique.

show abstract

Section: Activitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Stress, behavioral arousal, and open field activity—A reexamination of emotionality in the rat

Roth

Katz

1979

Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews

173

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Cappell and Rodin [18], who in a similar procedure also applied 80 shocks of 2 s and 1 mA each, also found reduced locomotor activity in an open field and no differences in defecation. Yet, the reduced locomotor activity as measured by a 'freezing' index is assumed to be indicative of heightened fear in the shocked animals by these authors.…”

Section: Nonshocked Animalsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Relationships of Plasma Catecholamines to Open-Field Behavior after Inescapable Shock

1989

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Male rats with indwelling jugular catheters were exposed to inescapable shock or no shock, and ambulation and defecation were measured 24 h later in an open field. Plasma catecholamine levels were determined from blood samples taken before and during pretreatment as well as before and after testing for aftereffects on open-field behavior. Shocked animals showed higher plasma catecholamine levels during the shock session and lower locomotor activity in the open field. Open-field activity was negatively correlated in shocked animals with both plasma catecholamines before and during shock and also with plasma epinephrine before open-field testing. Defecation was only positively correlated with plasma norepinephrine before open-field testing. Thus, the reduced open-field activity after inescapable shock may indicate heightened fear or anxiety which may also be present when shocked animals are tested for their performance in more complex tasks.

show abstract

A Review of Theory and Research on Miller's Response Competition (Conflict) Models

Heilizer

1977

The Journal of General Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This is a review of published theory and research on Miller's conflict models. The research is largely supporting of the many deductions that are generated from the postulate system, with especially extensive research on approach-withdrawal response competition (AW-RC). There is also impressive agreement in demonstrating an ordered arrangement of difficulty among the RC models [approach-approach response competition (AA-RC) to approach-withdrawal response competition (AW-RC) to withdrawal-withdrawal response competition (WW-RC) and double approach-withdrawal response competition (DAW-RC)]. The most apparent weakness is the divergence between the conceptual importance of oscillation behavior and its limited direct use in research. A number of heuristic thrusts into new methods and contents are noted: namely, varied punishment effects, mastery of fear, risk taking, psychopathology and personality testing, alcohol and drug addiction, attitude formation and change, unpracticed time-course effects, and development of another RC model [withdrawal-approach response competition (WA-RC)]. Potential relevance to the various RC models is noted of a theory of active CNS reward and passive CNS punishment centers.

show abstract

Fear-increasing effects of experience with shock

Cited by 3 publications

References 5 publications

Stress, behavioral arousal, and open field activity—A reexamination of emotionality in the rat

Stress, behavioral arousal, and open field activity—A reexamination of emotionality in the rat

Relationships of Plasma Catecholamines to Open-Field Behavior after Inescapable Shock

A Review of Theory and Research on Miller's Response Competition (Conflict) Models

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About