1977
DOI: 10.3758/bf03337041
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Schedule-induced water and saccharin polydipsia under haloperidol

Abstract: Two white rats exhibited water and .4% saccharin polydipsia under a fixed-time 1-min feeding schedule. Oral administration of haloperidol in doses of .25, .50, and. 75 mg reduced consumption of both fluids in direct proportion to dose, but saccharin intakes always exceeded those of water. Thus, the suppression of water polydipsia by haloperidol (Keehn, Coulson, & Klieb, 1976) is not merely the result of sedation. We argue that polydipsia occurs because food plus fluid is a greater reinforcer than food alone a… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2

Citation Types

1
2
0

Year Published

1979
1979
1992
1992

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 10 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 7 publications
1
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This is maladaptive from the standpoint of fluid requirements but adaptive for underfed animals. Wehave argued (Keehn & Riusech, 1977) that food plus fluid is more reinforcing than dry food alone, an argument that is supported by the present finding that barpressing for food is maintained longer when drinking is possible than when it is not. It could be claimed that the data also support the postprandial hypothesis to account for schedule-induced drinking (Lotter, Woods, & Vaselli, 1973;Stein, 1964), but this hypothesis has been shown to be defective (Millenson, 1975;Staddon, 1977) and anyway does not explain why animals work harder for food when water is present than when it is not.…”
supporting
confidence: 73%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…This is maladaptive from the standpoint of fluid requirements but adaptive for underfed animals. Wehave argued (Keehn & Riusech, 1977) that food plus fluid is more reinforcing than dry food alone, an argument that is supported by the present finding that barpressing for food is maintained longer when drinking is possible than when it is not. It could be claimed that the data also support the postprandial hypothesis to account for schedule-induced drinking (Lotter, Woods, & Vaselli, 1973;Stein, 1964), but this hypothesis has been shown to be defective (Millenson, 1975;Staddon, 1977) and anyway does not explain why animals work harder for food when water is present than when it is not.…”
supporting
confidence: 73%
“…Cohen (1975) has suggested that this is because eating increases the reinforcement value of drinking water. In contrast, Keehn and Riusech (1977) have proposed that water enhances the reinforcement value of food pellets (just as sweeteners make some foods and beverages more reinforcing) and that animals driven by deprivation to eat will overdrink in satisfying their need for food. The present results bear on these proposals.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This group consumed over five times more water (mean intake = of DA blockers on schedule-induced drinking and have reported a suppression in drinking behavior. However, the specificity of these results for schedule-induced drinking is questionable, since two of these studies also reported a decrease in operant responding (Canon & Lippa, 1977;Keehn, Coulson, & Klieb, 1976) and another study (Keehn & Riusech, 1977) used a response-independent fixed-time food schedule. In the present experiments, we report that the DA blockers pimozide and spiperone (Joyce, 1983;Seeman, 1981) differentially affect schedule-induced and deprivation-induced drinking.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%