Preference for shock signals as a function of the temporal accuracy of the signals

Collier, Alexis C.

doi:10.1016/0023-9690(77)90002-9

Cited by 33 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A second possibility is that information about the time of shock delivery is itself reinforcing (cf. Collier, 1977), perhaps because it reduces uncertainty about when shock will occur (e.g., Hendry, 1969) or because it enables the animals to prepare more effectively for its delivery (e.g., Perkins, 1968). Whatever the explanation turns out to be, the results of Group B suggest that signals in a signaled-shock situation do more than simply divide the animal's time into safe (signal absent) and unsafe (signal present) periods, as has been suggested by some investigators (e.g., Badia, Culbertson, & Lewis, 1971;Seligman, Maier, & Solomon, 1971).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…(1976) manipulated the first source of information by varying the proportion of extra signals and found preference for the signaled over the unsignaled condition to be largely independent of this variable. Arabian and Desiderato (1975), on the other hand, manipulated the second source and found preference for a condition containing less, rather than more, accurate information about the time of shock delivery (but see Collier, 1977). The present research assessed the ability of the two sources of information described above to support preference behavior in a situation where the signal's absence always identified a period free from shock.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Preference and information about the time and the occurrence of shock delivery

Safarjan

D’Amato

1977

Bull. Psychon. Soc.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rats given the option to choose between a signaled-shock condition, in which all signals were followed by shock, and one in which extra signals occurred showed no preference for either condition. In contrast, when all signals were followed by shock, rats showed a strong preference for a condition in which shock followed the signal by a fixed, rather than a variable, time duration. The latter result indicates that some types of information about aversive events may be reinforcing.Recent evidence indicates that preference for signaled over unsignaled inescapable shock is importantly controlled, not by the signal that precedes shock, but by stimuli accompanying the signal's absence (discriminable shock-free time or "safe" periods). However , there are conflicting data regarding the role of the signal as a predictor of shock (Arabian & Desiderato, 1975 ; Badia, Harsh , Coker, & Abbott, 1976). Part of this discrepancy could stem from the fact that stimuli which reliably predict shock contain at least two different types of information. The presence of the signal indicates that shock will occur, while the usual fixed temporal relationship between onset of the signal and onset of shock indicates something about when shock will occur. Badia et a1. (1976) manipulated the first source of information by varying the proportion of extra signals and found preference for the signaled over the unsignaled condition to be largely independent of this variable. Arabian and Desiderato (1975), on the other hand, manipulated the second source and found preference for a condition containing less, rather than more, accurate information about the time of shock delivery (but see Collier, 1977). The present research assessed the ability of the two sources of information described above to support preference behavior in a situation where the signal's absence always identified a period free from shock. Thus, any differences in observed responding could be attributed to the reinforcing effects of the signal-shock relationship rather than to stimuli associated with the signal's absence.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Preference and information about the time and the occurrence of shock delivery

Safarjan

D’Amato

1977

Bull. Psychon. Soc.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Should naloxone attenuate rats' preference for signaled shock, it would suggest that endogenous analgesics do mediate this phenomenon. The following experiment used a preference-for-signaled-shock paradigm, similar to that of Collier (1977), to test this hypothesis.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Naloxone attenuates rat’s preference for signaled shock

Fanselow

1979

Psychobiology

154

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rats were confined and given signaled shock on one side of a shuttlebox and unsignaled shock on the other side. Preference tests revealed that rats injected with the opiate antagonist naloxone during training showed no subsequent side preference, whereas saline control rats preferred the signaled side. The second and third experiments showed that this naloxone effect could not be due to state-dependent learning (generalization decrement), interference with exploratory activity, or the drug making the signal aversive. The results suggest that release of endogenous analgesic substances may constitute a central nervous system preparatory response which mediates a preference for signaled shock. Given a choice between two situations, one in which aversive electric shock is reliably preceded by a stimulus and one in which identical aversive events are not signaled, rats typically choose the signaled shock situation (Lockard, 1963). If rats are given controlled exposure to both conditions (signaled and unsignaled shock), and therefore receive an equivalent number, duration and intensity of shock, they spend most of their time in the place where accurate temporal information is given about shock, even if tests are made in the absence of shock and signals (Collier, 1977). The rat behaves as if the signaled shock was less aversive than the unsignaled shock. It has been suggested that the signal allows the animal to make a preparatory response which modifies the aversiveness of the shock (Biederman &

show abstract

“…Freezing has been characterized as respondent behavior (Bolles & Riley, 1973) under the control of discrete stimuli (Bindra & Palfai, 1967;Bouton & Bolles, 1979;Collier, 1977 ;Davitz, Mason, Mowrer, & Viek, 1957 ;Fanselow, 1980 ;Fanselow & Bolles, 1979b) and static , apparatus cues (Blanchard & Blanchard, 1969 ;Bolles & Collier, 1976) that predict shock. It is one component of a system of defense reactions used by the rat in dangerous situations (Bolles, 1975(Bolles, , 1978Bolles & Fanselow, in press).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%