Preference for Warned Shock: Information and/or Preparation

Abstract

Human Ss preferred warned shock to unwarned shock when the warning signal concained 2 b~ts of information (25% shock) but not when i t was redundant, i.e., 0 bits (100% shock). Rated strength of preference was also related to the information conra~ned in the warning.The research reported here deals with the important role of environmental stimuli or warning signals which make experimental events more predictable.A simple but central question guided our research: Do individuals or organisms prefer to "know" when an aversive event is going to occur? Stated differently: Do organisms prefer information about an aversive event that is uncertain, "inescapable," and unavoidable?Theoretical guidelines for chis investigation were provided by Perkins (1955) and Berlyne (1960). Both theorists depart from traditional reinforcement theory by emphasizing that information relative to either attractive or unattractive outcomes is reinforcing and that scimuli providing this information will be sought out. For example, Perkins staces chat warning signals (conditioned stimuli) make the environment more predictable and allow the organism to make responses which prepare it to deal more effectively with the environment, i.e., to maximize the attractiveness of stimulus situations or to minimize their aversiveness. Berlyne, on the other hand, emphasizes uncertainty reduction. For Berlyne, uncertainty or unpredictability of an event is aversive and any event which reduces it is considered reinforcing. Therefore, information provided by conditioned stimuli or warning signals would be preferred since it enhances the predictability of experimental events and outcomes.While infra-human studies have provided support for che information-preparation interprecacion (Lockard, 1963; Perkins, Levis, & Seyman, 1963), relatively little research has been reported with humans. The present research provides data at the human level and also actempts to tesc a differential prediction between the theoretical fornulacions of Perkins and Berlyne. By using measures of uncertainty derived from formal information theory it is possible to structure an experimental situation such that uncertainty of an event can be quantified and varied without altering the condicions leading to preparation For instance, the following research design used a two-choice unavoidable shock situation where variably delayed shock followed either response (mean shock delay = 30 sec.). However, for one of the choices a warning signal provided information (preceded shock by 4 sec.) relative to shock onset. Two groups were run under che above condicions. Group I received shock on every trial for either

THE RELATIVE AVERSIVENESS OF SIGNALLED VERSUS UNSIGNALLED SHOCK‐PUNISHMENT1

“…While several studies have investigated the question of the relative aversiveness of sig-37 1973, 20, 37-46 NUMBER I (JULY) nalled vs unsignalled punishment, procedural limitations in two of the studies (Knapp, Kause, and Perkins, 1959, Experiment II;Badia, Suter, and Lewis, 1967) and a source of confounding in the remaining study (Church, 1969, pp. 138-140) prevent an unambiguous interpretation of the findings.…”

“…138-140) prevent an unambiguous interpretation of the findings. Thus, Knapp et al (1959, Experiment II) and Badia et al (1967) showed that rats and humans, respectively, would choose signalled over unsignalled shock-punishment; however, in both cases the shock was long delayed following the response and the signal was relatively brief, thus minimizing the role of the signal in bridging the temporal gap between the response and the delayed punisher. It is not clear whether these same effects would have been obtained if the signal of punishment had followed the response immediately and remained on until the shock-punisher occurred; this would have provided a greater degree of association between the response and punishment.…”

Dissociation and Interaction between Prediction Levels and Stimulus Properties in Conditioned Fear

“…对负性刺激， 在不同预测水平上对 CS 所诱发的平均波幅进行预测水平 × 电极点重复测量方差分析。 在 120~180 ms 时间窗口内，电极点的主效应不显著(F(2, 41)= 6.76, p > 0.05, η 2 = 0.05)，不同预测水平之 间的差异从 PZ 至 FZ 点，差异逐渐增加大，且差异显著(F(1, 13) = 5.21, p < 0.05, η 2 = 0.24)。电极点与刺 激性质的交互作用不显著(F(2, 41) = 7.56, p > 0.05, η 2 = 0.14)。在 350~450 ms 时间窗，电极点的主效应显 著(F(2, 41) = 1.46, p < 0.05, η 2 = 0.13)，预测水平主效应显著(F(1, 13) = 6.48, p < 0.05, η 2 = 0.24)。电极点与 刺激性质的交互作用显著(F(2, 41) = 4.98, p < 0.05, η 2 = 0. (Moberg & Curtin, 2009;Sun et al, 2011;Jin et al, 2013 (Badia, Suter & Lewis, 1967;Lockard, 1965;Pervin, 1963…”

Coping strategies employed by occupationa therapy students anticipating fieldwork placement

“…Other researchers have acknowledged the anxiety of occupational therapy students in relation to their fieldwork placements, but rather than researching the construct of anxiety they have focused on strategies employed by students to enable them to cope with such anxiety (Madill, Hagler & Mitchell, 1990;, 1993. Previous research has indicated that a new experience is often associated with high state anxiety (Badia, Suter & Lewis, 1967;Collard, 1967;Freud, 1926;Greenstein, 1983;Spielberger, 1972;Tooth, Tonge & McManus, 1989). On the basis of this research it can be assumed that all students who are anticipating fieldwork placement may experience high levels of state anxiety.…”