Stimulus and response contigencies in extinction of avoidance by rats.

Reynierse, James H.; Rizley, Ross C.

doi:10.1037/h0030025

Cited by 11 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Bixenstine and Barker (1964) extended Kamin et al (1959) by requiring that rats perform an avoidance (shuttle) response different from the escape (bar-press) response. In marked contrast to the usual finding that immediate US termination produced more avoidances when the escape and avoidance responses were identical (Kamin et al, 1959;Reynierse & Rizley, 1970), Bixenstine and Barker (1964) found that immediate US termination resulted in fewer avoidances than postponed US termination when the escape and avoidance responses differed. Unfortunately, Bixenstine and Barker (1964) only examined avoidance performance when different avoidance (shuttle) and escape (bar-press) responses were used.…”

contrasting

confidence: 78%

Differentiation of escape and avoidance responding in rats.

Reynierse

1972

Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Escape and avoidance performance was examined in rats by factorially arranging immediate or postponed CS and US termination with shuttle or bar-press escape and avoidance responses. High levels of avoidance responding occurred only when the shuttle response (running) was both the escape and avoidance response, perhaps reflecting that rats are prepared to run but contraprepared to bar press when threatened by aversive stimulation. In addition, postponed US termination reduced avoidance performance drastically while CS termination conditions were without effect. Measures of US duration and US clock terminations also indicated that immediate US termination was superior to postponed US termination but additionally showed that this was so because postponed US termination seriously impaired escape behavior. The results have particular relevance for how escape responses become anticipatory.

show abstract

contrasting

confidence: 78%

Differentiation of escape and avoidance responding in rats.

Reynierse

1972

Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Davenport and Olson (1968) reported rapid extinction of a discriminative bar-press avoidance response when both these sources of reinforcement were removed. Reynierse and Rizley (1970) subsequently confirmed these results with a shuttlebox avoidance response; removing the CS termination contingency or presenting CSs and USs randomly were both more effective procedures for eliminating avoidance than was the conventional procedure. Bolles, Moot, and Grossen (1971) further parceled out the relative contributions of CS termination versus shock avoidance to the extinction of avoidance and concluded that the shock avoidance contingency was crucial in creating an avoidance response that is highly resistant to extinction.…”

Section: The Role Of Fear In Alternative Extinctionmentioning

confidence: 59%

The role of fear in theories of avoidance learning, flooding, and extinction.

Mineka¹

1979

Psychological Bulletin

202

103

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The course of fear conditioning and extinction in the avoidance-learning context is complex. This article summarizes the major lines of evidence that demonstrate a dissociation or desynchrony between measures of fear and avoidance responding. The evidence bearing on the role of fear in theories of avoidance learning and extinction is reviewed and critically evaluated. In addition, research is discussed regarding the determinants of fear over the course of avoidance acquisition, flooding, and extinction. Particular emphasis is placed on discussing the extent to which fear extinction is necessary and/or sufficient for avoidance response extinction both with conventional extinction procedures and with response prevention techniques.

show abstract

“…2 A total of 100 shocks and 100 CS presentations constituted the course of extinction in this un-2 This procedure is to be distinguished from a truly random shock procedure in which the CS is occasionally paired with the US. In fact, Reynierse and Rizley (1970) report that in their random shock extinction procedure such pairings were actually quite high, ranging from about 20% to 30% of all trials. Because the effects of such pairings are unknown, the explicitly unpaired-shock procedure was used in this experiment.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…In Experiment 2 they were compared under conditions in which shock was presented independently of behavior. Further, in order to investigate the recently reported (Hartley, 1968;Reynierse & Rizley, 1970) interaction between the CS termination contingency and the presence or absence of shock during extinction, 2 conditions of CS termination-prompt and delayed-were factorially manipulated in each such study.…”

Section: Differences In Strains Of Rats During Extinction Of Shuttle ...mentioning

confidence: 99%