Shock-Enhanced Immobility Reactions in Chickens: Support for the Fear Hypothesis

Gallup, Gordon G.; Creekmore, Harry S.; Hill, William E.

doi:10.1007/bf03393937

Cited by 47 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There is, for example, considerable precedent in psychology for using electric shock to experimentally induce fear. In support of the fear hypothesis brief shock administered immediately prior to manual restraint greatly increased immobility duration in chickens (Gallup, Creekmore, & Hill, 1970), lizards (Edson & Gallup, 1972), and guinea pigs 6 . Also, as might be expected, the more intense the shock the more prolonged the reaction (Gallup, 1973b;Gallup, Nash, Potter, & Donegan, 1970).…”

Section: Primary Aversive Eventsmentioning

confidence: 86%

Animal hypnosis: Factual status of a fictional concept.

Gallup¹

1974

Psychological Bulletin

Self Cite

325

117

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Animal hypnosis, or tonic immobility, is an easily induced and readily quantifiable phenomenon found in many different species. Recent findings on the behavioral, ecological, chemical, neurological, genetic, and ontogentic aspects of animal hypnosis are reviewed in light of current and historical interpretations. The response seems to be quite sensitive to manipulations designed to affect fear. In terms of adaptive significance, the reaction can be modified through selective breeding, and both naturalistic as well as laboratory investigations bolster the thesis that tonic immobility may participate in the ecology of predator-prey relationships.

show abstract

Section: Primary Aversive Eventsmentioning

confidence: 86%

Animal hypnosis: Factual status of a fictional concept.

Gallup¹

1974

Psychological Bulletin

Self Cite

325

117

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Pretest shock, which can be thought of as analogous to having been bitten, not only increases tonic immobility duration in many species (Edson & Gallup, 1972;Gallup, Creekmore, & Hill, 1970;Gallup, Nash, Potter, & Donegan, 1970), but also profoundly suppresses movement in both rodents and avians and vocalization in birds (Anderson, Crowell, Koehn, & Lupo, 1976; Baron, 1964;Blanchard & Blanchard, 1969;Gallup & Suarez, 1980; Levine, Madden, Conner, Moskal, & Anderson, 1973;Montevecchi et al, 1973;Pinel, Corcoran, & Malsbury, 1971). Similarly, a cue previously paired with shock, or which, by analogy, signals an impending predatory encounter, both prolongs tonic immobility (Gallup, Rosen, & Brown, 1972) and inhibits activity and vocalization in an open field (Bindra & Palfai, 1967;Gallup & Suarez, 1980;Mikulka, Kendall, Constantine, & Porterfield, 1972;Murai, 1968).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Predatory overtones of open-field testing in chickens

Suarez

Gallup

1981

Animal Learning & Behavior

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Based on a modelwhich holds that open-field behavior is due in large part to an interaction between social separation and the threat of predation, seven experiments were conducted to examine the relationship between tonic immobility and open-field activity in chickens. The results showed that placement in an open field prior to testing for tonic immobility reliably enhanced the duration of immobility. Similarly, procedures that have been shown to modify the length of the immobility episode had a comparable effect on the timing of activity onset in an open field. Since tonic immobility has been independently implicated as a putative predator defense, the correspondence between open-field behavior and tonic immobility was taken as indirect support for the hypothesis that open-field testing contains overtones of predation.153

show abstract

“…The use of a habituation criterion also reduces the problem of a potential ceiling effect which might otherwise mask the influence of procedures designed to enhance immobility (Gallup, Creekmore, & Hill, 1970). The habituation procedure involves repeatedly restraining a bird over days until some low level of responsiveness is achieved.…”

Section: Pretest Conditionsmentioning

confidence: 99%