Some Effects of Noncontingent Aversive Stimulation

Myer, James S.

doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-137950-6.50013-4

Cited by 106 publications

(41 citation statements)

References 141 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This finding stands in marked contrast to the results of Experiment 2 and the other studies of the counterconditioning of suppressive properties of shock. As there is some evidence that primary aversive stimuli, such as shock, can, under certain circumstances, facilitate consummatory responding (see Myer, 1971), Hartlep and Bertsch's failure to countercondition the suppressive properties of shock might lie with their use of an instrumental response that is similar in form to a consummatory behavior. Alternatively, the failure of the counterconditioning might simply be due to the fact that their procedure did not successfully establish the shock as an appetitive CS.…”

Section: Subjects and Apparatusmentioning

confidence: 99%

Counterconditioning of shock by a water reinforcer in rabbits

Dearing

Dickinson

1979

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Three experiments studied the counterconditioning of certain properties of eyeshock in rabbits by establishing the shock as an appetitive CS for a jaw-movement response reinforced by intraoral water injections in a Pavlovian conditioning procedure. Although Experiment 1 demonstrated that such appetitive conditioning did not attenuate the unconditioned eyeblink elicited by the shock, it reduced the capacity of the shock to suppress leverpress responses reinforced by direct water injections in a signaled punishment procedure in Experiment 2. By contrast, when instrumentally reinforced licking was punished by eyeshock in Experiment 3, no such reduction in the suppressive capacities of the shock was found. The results were considered in terms of whether counterconditioning alters the response-eliciting or motivational and reinforcing properties of the shock.Erofeeva (1916, 1921), working in Pavlov's laboratory, reported that the defensive reactions to a primary aversive stimulus, shock, could be completely abolished in dogs by establishing it as a conditioned stimulus (CS) for an appetitive reinforcer, food. In other words, unconditioned defensive responses appeared to be susceptible to counterconditioning. The decline in defensive behavior was accompanied by the development of an alimentary conditioned response, salivation, to the shock, suggesting that appetitive conditioning may be an important causal factor underlying the successful counterconditioning of aversive stimuli. Subsequently, outside the Russian literature (e.g., Marukhanyan, 1954), little attention has been paid to the counterconditioning of the responses elicited by unconditioned aversive stimuli despite the theoretical importance of the phenomenon for understanding appetitive-aversive interac-By contrast, the counterconditioning of conditioned, as opposed to unconditioned, defensive responses has been somewhat more intensively studied (see Dickinson & Pearce, 1977;Wilson & Davison, 1971, for recent reviews). For example, Scavio (1974) initially conditioned a defensive nictitating membrane response to an auditory CS with a paraorbital These experiments are based on a Masters thesis submitted by M. F. Dearing to the University of Sussex. M. F. Dearing was supported by a U.K. Medical Research Council studentship, and the work was also supported by the U.K. Science Research Council. Requests for reprints should be sent to Anthony Dickinson, The Psychological Laboratory, University of Cambridge, Downing Street, Cambridge CB2 3EB, England.shock reinforcer in rabbits. The shock was then omitted in a second, appetitive, conditioning stage, and the CS was paired with a water reinforcer for the experimental group. As the conditioned appetitive jaw-movement response was established, the defensive response declined. The fact that this decline tended to be greater for the experimental animals than for controls receiving either the CS and water unpaired or the CS alone suggests that conditioned defensive responses can be counterconditioned with an appetitive rei...

show abstract

Section: Subjects and Apparatusmentioning

confidence: 99%

Counterconditioning of shock by a water reinforcer in rabbits

Dearing

Dickinson

1979

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A number of more recent studies (see Myer, 1971, for review) have clearly shown that a variety 'This research was supported by National Science Foundation Grants GB-28013 and GB-31939. Reprints may be obtained from the author, Department of Psychology, Kent State University, Kent, Ohio 44240.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

EFFECTS OF PUNISHING ELEMENTS OF A SIMPLE INSTRUMENTAL‐CONSUMMATORY RESPONSE CHAIN¹

Myer

1973

J Exper Analysis Behavior

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rats were trained to press a lever, with every response reinforced with water. After responding was established, nine rats were administered a brief shock after each lever press, and nine others were shocked after drinking. The two procedures resulted in similar suppression of responding, and examination of the latency data when responding was partially suppressed indicated that under both conditions response suppression was due primarily to an increase in the latency of the instrumental response, rather than to pausing between the instrumental and consummatory responses. Thus, punishlient following either the instrumental or consumnmatory component of the simple response sequence reduced the number of sequences initiated, rather than selectively suppressing the punished behavior.Changes in rate of responding for food or water in a simple, continuous reinforcement, free-operant situation may be due to variation in either the latency or the duration of either the instrumental response or the consummatory response. Thus, suppression of responding by punishment may be due to increases in the amount of time spent performing the instrumental response, between the instrumental response and the consummatory response, performing the consummatory response, or between the consummatory response and the instrumental response. Punishment could be made contingent upon any components of the behavior sequence, although in laboratory experiments it is almost always contingent upon performance of the instrumental response. It is possible that punishment of different components of the response sequence might have different overall suppressive effects in terms of the total number of response sequences completed, and also might differentially affect the durations of various components of the sequence.Solomon (1964) (1972), employing rats in a free-operant situation with a water reinforcer, found punishment of the first lick after a reinforced lever press produced more suppression of both pressing and licking than punishment of lever pressing. Church (1969), trained rats to press a lever in a chamber in which the food reinforcer was delivered to a cup mounted on the wall opposite the bar. After responding was established, some of the rats received a mild shock after each lever press, and others were shocked as they seized the food pellet. Both punishment conditions reduced response rates, and punishment of the instrumental response produced considerably more suppression of responding than punishment at the beginning of the consummatory response. DeCosta and Ayres (1971), employing a conditioned suppression paradigm, also found greater suppression of lever pressing than of the consummatory response, licking at a dipper. Feirstein and Miller (1963), reported that rats previously trained to run an alley for food, and then presented an intense shock at the middle of the alley on each trial, displayed more suppression than rats that were shocked after they reached the food. Two other groups 251 1973, 19,[251][252][253][254][255][256][257...

show abstract

“…The crucial determinants of attack would seem to be the distance between the animal and the threatening item. In practice this shows up in the fact that animals attack more frequently in small enclosures and when confronted with threatening items which move, thereby making it difficult to maintain some critical safe distance (see Myer (1971) for a review of some of these studies).…”

Section: Aversively Motivated Behaviour 295mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The immediate (unconditioned) reaction includes a rapid flinching response (the flexion reflex), followed by somato-motor responses varying in nature and extent with the intensity of the stimulus (cf. Myer 1971). At low intensities shock elicits primarily flinching behaviour (Muenzinger and Mize 1933), as intensity increases jumping becomes prevalent (Kimble 1955, Trabasso andThompson 1962), while at even higher intensities (beyond 1.0 mA) locomotor activity, particularly running, becomes probable Teghtsoonian 1958, Goodman et al 1966).…”

Section: Immediate Reactions To Pain and Threatmentioning

confidence: 99%