Superstitious Responding as an Artifact in Investigations of Shock Elicited Aggression

Crosby, Ray M.; Cahoon, D. D.

doi:10.1007/bf03394154

Cited by 4 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In other words, the rats were being reinforced for attacking by the offset of shock. Crosby and Cahoon (1973) themselves found that attack by rats that were given sessions of shock presentations of a constant duration increased over sessions, whereas attack by rats that were given shocks of variable duration declined over sessions. These results therefore support Crosby and Cahoon's suggestion; and they further suggest that when the subject is unable to predict the timing of shock-offset, shock-elicited attack does show the decline over test sessions characteristic of habituation in other forms of aggression.…”

Section: Common Properties Of Situations Evoking Attack and Fear mentioning

confidence: 92%

“…Such an increase contrasts with the typical habituation of aggressive responses found for territorial fighting (e.g., Peeke et al, 1969) and would seem to suggest, at first sight, that a more specific mechanism, and not a general discrepancy between observed and expected stimulation, has to be postulated to explain this type of attack. However, Crosby and Cahoon (1973) pointed out that most previous studies have employed shock-intervals of constant length, and they argued that superstitious learning, related to the consistency of shock-offset, might account for the continuation and persistence of the so-called "reflexive fighting." In other words, the rats were being reinforced for attacking by the offset of shock.…”

Section: Common Properties Of Situations Evoking Attack and Fear mentioning

confidence: 96%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Organization of Aggression and Fear In Vertebrates

Archer

1976

Perspectives in Ethology

107

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

I. ABSTRACTThis chapter considers what factors influence the occurrence of attack and fear behavior (e.g., immobility, flight, distress signals). It is argued that, with the exception of conditioned attack and fear behavior, the same types of basic situations are capable of evoking either type of response.These situations are as follows: (l) Pain. (2) A moving object coming too close to an animal (individual distance intrusion). (3) A novel object or animal entering another's familiar area: this includes not only the typical territorial situation, but also a wide range of other situations. (4) Entrance into an unfamiliar area: most commonly, fear behavior occurs, but attack can occur if there is a suitable target. (5) A familiar object in an unfamiliar place. (6) Frustrative nonreward. (7) Thwarting (a physical object preventing completion of a learned response). (8) Low reinforcement schedules, which involve delayed reward. (9) Morphine withdrawal, which is similar to frustrative nonreward.It is suggested that all these situations can summate with one another, up to a certain limit, to increase the likelihood and intensity of attack, but that above this limit fear behavior occurs.It is then suggested that all the situations involve the common property of a discrepancy between observed and expected stimulation. Different types of "neuronal models" may represent the different types of expect a-

show abstract

Section: Common Properties Of Situations Evoking Attack and Fear mentioning

confidence: 92%

Section: Common Properties Of Situations Evoking Attack and Fear mentioning

confidence: 96%