Free‐operant Avoidance Conditioning in Individual and Paired Human Subjects

Ader, Robert; Tatum, Ronald

doi:10.1901/jeab.1963.6-357

Cited by 46 publications

(41 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…the presence of a second 5 in the training situation severely disrupted both shock-elicited and shock-postponement responding. With respect to acquisition, these results are similar to the results reported by Ader and Tatum (1963). With respect to performance of the response, these results are opposite to those of Ader and Tatum (1963) but confirm the findings of Davis (1969).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 85%

“…With respect to acquisition, these results are similar to the results reported by Ader and Tatum (1963). With respect to performance of the response, these results are opposite to those of Ader and Tatum (1963) but confirm the findings of Davis (1969). In addition, the present authors agree with the Davis interpretation that the disruption resulted from the frequent instances of social behaviors which competed (i.e., interfered) with leverpressing.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 85%

“…But following acquisition, the yoked pairs showed greater responding than the singly trained Ss. The Ader and Tatum (1963) result conflicts with the results of Davis (1969), who used rat Ss, Davis (1969) reported impairment of Sidman avoidance performance both when two trained Ss were paired and when a trained S and a naive S were paired. A cursory review of the literature indicated that the acquisition of Sidman avoidance with paired animal Ss has not yet been examined.…”

mentioning

confidence: 65%

“…But following acquisition, the yoked pairs showed greater responding than the singly trained Ss. The Ader and Tatum (1963) and a naive S were paired. A cursory review of the literature indicated that the acquisition of Sidman avoidance with paired animal Ss has not yet been examined.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Ader and Tatum (1963) reported that singly trained Ss acquired the avoidance response in less time than yoked pairs, which were in visual contact with each other. But following acquisition, the yoked pairs showed greater responding than the singly trained Ss.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Acquisition and maintenance of Sidman avoidance with paired rat subjects

Cunningham

Roberts

1973

Animal Learning and Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rat Ss were used to study the acquisition and maintenance of Sidman avoidance as a function of either single or paired training. Ss receiving paired training failed to acquire the leverpress response even after a block of individual training sessions. Within the paired training condition, Ss that were housed separately evidenced better acquisition than Ss housed as pairs. When Ss that were efficiently avoiding under individual training conditions were paired, avoidance was severely disrupted.It is well documented that the behavior of an S can be substantially altered if a second S is introduced into the training situation. For example, increases in performance (social facilitation) have been reported for consummatory responses (Smith & Ross, 1952), locomotor behaviors (Simmel, 1962;Hughes, 1969), and conditioned suppression responding (Hake & Laws, 1967).On the other hand, decreases in performance (social inhibition) have also been observed, especially when electric shock is used as the reinforcer (but see Zajonc, 1966, for nonshock events). Social inhibition has been reported for responding under escape (Ulrich, 1967), discriminated avoidance (Logan & Boice, 1968), and Sidman avoidance (Davis, 1969) schedules.Some theorists (cf. Zajonc, 1965) have suggested that the effects of pairing Ss in the training situation will be different depending on whether the acquisition, or the pe rformance, of a response is being examined. Specifically, during acquisition, when the response to be learned is not dominant, the presence of a second S will inhibit acquisition; after the response has been acquired, and thus is dominant, the second S will facilitate the performance (see Weiss & Miller, 1971, for an extension of this position).Such an analysis has received support with human Ss trained under Sidman avoidance schedules. Ader and Tatum (1963) reported that singly trained Ss acquired the avoidance response in less time than yoked pairs, which were in visual contact with each other. But following acquisition, the yoked pairs showed greater responding than the singly trained Ss. The Ader and Tatum (1963) and a naive S were paired. A cursory review of the literature indicated that the acquisition of Sidman avoidance with paired animal Ss has not yet been examined. It was decided to study the acquisition of Sidman avoidance using the procedures employed by Davis (1969). The first purpose of this experiment was to study Sidman avoidance acquisition as a function of training, paired vs single. Within this condition, acquisition was also examined as a function of S's housing assignment, paired vs individual. The second purpose was to examine changes in avoidance performance as a function of training, paired vs single. METHOD Subjects and ApparatusTwelve female hooded rats, purchased from Blue Spruce Farms, New York, served as Ss. Ss were experimentally naive, had a mean weight of 128 g, and were about 6 weeks old at the beginning of experimentation.A standard single-lever Lafayette operant chamber (Model 84031) was modified by ...

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 85%

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 85%

mentioning

confidence: 65%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Acquisition and maintenance of Sidman avoidance with paired rat subjects

Cunningham

Roberts

1973

Animal Learning and Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Human social defeat and approach–avoidance: Escalating social‐evaluative threat and threat of aggression increases social avoidance

Schlund

Carter

Cudd

et al. 2020

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Basic research on avoidance by Murray Sidman laid the foundation for advances in the classification, conceptualization and treatment of avoidance in psychological disorders. Contemporary avoidance research is explicitly translational and increasingly focused on how competing appetitive and aversive contingencies influence avoidance. In this laboratory investigation, we examined the effects of escalating social‐evaluative threat and threat of social aggression on avoidance of social interactions. During social‐defeat learning, 38 adults learned to associate 9 virtual peers with an increasing probability of receiving negative evaluations. Additionally, 1 virtual peer was associated with positive evaluations. Next, in an approach–avoidance task with social‐evaluative threat, 1 peer associated with negative evaluations was presented alongside the peer associated with positive evaluations. Approaching peers produced a positive or a probabilistic negative evaluation, while avoiding peers prevented a negative evaluation (and forfeited a positive evaluation). In an approach–avoidance task with social aggression, virtual peers gave and took money away from participants. Escalating social‐evaluative threat and aggression increased avoidance, ratings of feeling threatened and threat expectancy and decreased ratings of peer favorableness. These findings underscore the potential of coupling social defeat and approach–avoidance paradigms for translational research on the neurobehavioral mechanisms of social approach–avoidance decision‐making and anxiety.

show abstract

The effects of warned loss magnitude and timeout duration on human avoidance behavior

Ono

Koshitsuka

Kubo

2020

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study experimentally investigated the determinants of avoidance behavior when participants are forewarned of aversive outcomes. The effects of 3 variables on avoidance behavior were examined: point‐loss amount (5 levels, from 20 to 100 points), duration of timeout from positive reinforcement (5 levels, 20 to 100 s), and 3 predictive accuracy levels (100%, 50%, and 0%) of warning stimuli. Twelve participants completed 3 sessions, each comprising 25 discrete trials, that differed in predictive accuracy level. Throughout a session, a participant engaged in button press responses that were reinforced by points under a conjunctive fixed‐ratio fixed‐interval schedule. During each trial, a warning stimulus that indicated a loss amount and a timeout duration was presented. If the participant pressed the avoidance button, then the timeout started, otherwise the loss occurred. The trial ended with termination of timeout or an occurrence of the loss. Results showed that avoidance responses increased when the loss amount increased and decreased when the timeout duration increased. The frequency of avoidance responses was lowest when the predictive accuracy of warning stimuli was 0%. These findings demonstrated that this experimental procedure could be useful for investigating human avoidance behavior outside the laboratory.

show abstract

Free‐operant Avoidance Conditioning in Individual and Paired Human Subjects

Cited by 46 publications

References 2 publications

Acquisition and maintenance of Sidman avoidance with paired rat subjects

Acquisition and maintenance of Sidman avoidance with paired rat subjects

Human social defeat and approach–avoidance: Escalating social‐evaluative threat and threat of aggression increases social avoidance

The effects of warned loss magnitude and timeout duration on human avoidance behavior

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About