Motivational systems of agonistic behavior in muroid rodents: A comparative review and neural model

Abstract

The data on agonistic behavior of muroid rodents that have been obtained from field observations and laboratory experiments are reviewed and compared in terms of a hypothetical model of the neural organization of these behaviors. The neural model has been presented elsewhere and is used here only as a way to organize the data. The data are organized in terms of four hypothetical motivational systems: Offense, defense, submission, and patrol/marking. The various behaviors are considered as motor patterns and are compared and analyzed in terms of the proposed motivating, releasing, and directing stimuli of the motivational systems. Interactions and overlaps between the motivational systems are also considered. It is concluded that the organization of agonistic behavior may be similar across all species of muroid rodents. Generalizations are complicated by the profound effects of ontogenetic factors. Four categories of behaviors differ from species to species: Scent‐marking, submissive behaviors, threat behaviors, and alarm signals. The possible phylogenetic and ontogenetic factors in these differences are considered.

Effects of repeated defeat by a dominant conspecific on subsequent pain sensitivity, open-field activity, and escape learning

“…According to the senior author's SCFD theory, repeated exposures to any stressor, without the response feedback associated with the termination of such a stimulus, results in the classical conditioning of fear to such contextual or situational cues as conspecific stress or alpha odors (Willimas, 1987a(Willimas, , 1987bWilliams & Lierle, 1986). This contextual potentiation of fear is also assumed to activate a motivational system (Adams, 1980) that is responsible for the increase in defensive types of responses to the exclusion of other learned and unlearned behaviors.…”

“…Thesefindings clearlyindicate that uncontrollable stress experience, in combination withlater exposure to conspecific odors associated with the stress situation, produces freezing as the dominant form of defensivebehaviorwith a suppression of other responses that involve overt activity (e.g., flight) and/or interaction with the bedding material (e.g., prod burying, burrowing). On the basisof theseand other findings (e.g., Minor & Lolordo, 1984), we believe that the behavioral and physiological disruptions (learned-helplessness effects) result from the greater fear elicited by the inadvertent presence, in the test situation, of stress odors that activatedefense and submission systems (e.g., Adams, 1980).…”

Effects of stress controllability, immunization, and therapy on the subsequent defeat of colony intruders

“…These findings clearly suggest that one of the primary effects of inescapable shock is to alter an animal's species-typical behavior such that its dominant mode of responding becomes defensive and all other response systems are suppressed. This conceptualization of competing modes of behavior, or motivational systems, has been suggested by a number of investigators (e.g., Adams, 1980; D. C. Blanchard & R. J. Blanchard, 1984a;Fanselow & Baackes, 1982).…”

“…The second important assumption of the SCFD theory is that high levels of fear activate defense and submission systems (Adams, 1980), which in turn result in the display of species-typical defensive behaviors. Rats react to innate danger stimuli such as cats, dorsal tactile stimulation, and odors of stressed conspecifics with a variety of defensive behaviors (Fanselow & Lester, 1986).…”

“…An important assumption pertaining to this type of ethological interpretation is that aversive stimulation is not linked directly to one specific response. Rather, fear activates a defense or submission system (Adams, 1980), which facilitates some defensive behaviors while suppressing others.…”