The Effects of Ethanol Initiation Procedures on Ethanol Reinforced Behavior in the Alcohol‐Preferring Rat

Schwarz-Stevens, Karen S.; Samson, Herman H.; Tolliver, Gerald A.; Lumeng, Lawrence; Li, T.-K.

doi:10.1111/j.1530-0277.1991.tb01869.x

Cited by 46 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…When the competing reinforcer was water, the rats preferred alcohol (e.g., Samson et al 1982). However, when the competing reinforcer was sucrose, responding reinforced by alcohol (e.g., 10% concentration) markedly decreased, even when the sucrose concentration was as low as 1% (e.g., Schwarz-Stevens et al 1991). Moreover, these relations were equally strong for specially bred, alcoholpreferring, P rats (Schwarz-Stevens et al 1991).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 88%

“…However, when the competing reinforcer was sucrose, responding reinforced by alcohol (e.g., 10% concentration) markedly decreased, even when the sucrose concentration was as low as 1% (e.g., Schwarz-Stevens et al 1991). Moreover, these relations were equally strong for specially bred, alcoholpreferring, P rats (Schwarz-Stevens et al 1991). In an effort to develop a procedure in which alcoholic drinks remained potent reinforcers relative to sucrose and other caloric sources, experiments with sweetened alcohol were initiated (e.g., Heyman and Oldfather 1992;Heyman 1993;Petry and Heyman 1995).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Preference for saccharin-sweetened alcohol relative to isocaloric sucrose

Heyman

1997

Psychopharmacology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This experiment tested the reinforcing efficacy of a saccharin-sweetened alcohol solution relative to an isocaloric sucrose drink in rats. One dipper served 10% alcohol plus 0.25% saccharin, and a second, concurrently available, dipper served 14.2% sucrose. During the course of the experiment, access to the two drinks was challenged by increasing the schedule requirement (variable-interval) that determined when a lever press would operate the dipper. There were two main findings. First, the rats continued to consume significant amounts of alcohol despite access to the isocaloric sucrose solution. Second, schedule-requirement increases that decreased sucrose-reinforced responding failed to decrease saccharin-sweetened alcohol reinforced responding. These results extend and replicate earlier findings from studies in which alcohol was mixed with sucrose, and the alcohol mixtures held a caloric advantage over the competing sucrose solutions. The experiment also included controls for differences in baseline response rates and for the influence of saccharin on preference. In the baseline response-rate control conditions, the two reinforcers were 10% sucrose and a mixture of 10% sucrose-plus-quinine. The results showed that the persistence of sweetened-alcohol reinforced responding could not be explained by differences in baseline response rates or the reinforcing properties of saccharin. Rather, the findings were consistent with the idea that the rats were defending baseline levels of alcohol-plus-saccharin consumption.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 88%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Preference for saccharin-sweetened alcohol relative to isocaloric sucrose

Heyman

1997

Psychopharmacology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Numerous reviews of the literature (e.g., Cicero, 1979;Dole, 1986;Lester & Freed, 1973) and a multitude of experiments (e.g., Meisch & Thompson, 1973;Samson, 1986;Samson, Pfeffer, & Tolliver, 1988;Schwarz-Stevens, Samson, Tolliver, Lumeng, & Li, 1991) have demonstrated the difficulty in establishing oral self-administration of ethanol in rats. Most studies that have been able to induce substantial amounts of ethanol consumption have found that intake is related to caloric properties and rapidly dissipates with the introduction of an alternative food source (e.g., Meisch & Thompson, 1973;Schwarz-Stevens et al, 1991). In one experiment, however, Roehrs and Samson (1981) found demand for ethanol to be inelastic when it was concurrently available with water.…”

Section: Experiments 5: Simultaneous Increases In Vr Requirements For mentioning

confidence: 99%

Behavioral Economics of Concurrent Ethanol‐sucrose and Sucrose Reinforcement in the Rat: Effects of Altering Variable‐ratio Requirements

Petry

Heyman

1995

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

These experiments examined the own-price and cross-price elasticities of a drug (ethanol mixed with 10% sucrose) and a nondrug (10% sucrose) reinforcer. Rats were presented with ethanol-sucrose and sucrose, both available on concurrent independent variable-ratio (VR) 8 schedules of reinforcement. In Experiment 1, the variable ratio for the ethanol mix was systematically raised to 10, 12, 14, 16, 20, and 30, while the variable ratio for sucrose remained at 8. Five of the 6 rats increased ethanol-reinforced responding at some of the increments and defended baseline levels of ethanol intake. However, the rats eventually ceased ethanol-reinforced responding at the highest variable ratios. Sucrose-reinforced responding was not systematically affected by the changes in variable ratio for ethanol mix. In Experiment 2, the variable ratio for sucrose was systematically increased while the ethanol-sucrose response requirement remained constant. The rats decreased sucrose-reinforced responding and increased ethanol-sucrose-reinforced responding, resulting in a two- to 10-fold increase in ethanol intake. Experiment 3 examined the substitutability of qualitatively identical reinforcers: 10% sucrose versus 10% sucrose. Increases in variable-ratio requirements at the preferred lever resulted in a switch in lever preference. Experiment 4 examined whether 10% ethanol mix substituted for 5% ethanol mix, with increasing variable-ratio requirements of the 5% ethanol. All rats eventually responded predominantly for the 10% ethanol mix, but total amount of ethanol consumed per session did not systematically change. In Experiment 5, the variable-ratio requirements for both ethanol and sucrose were simultaneously raised to VR 120; 7 of 8 rats increased ethanol-reinforced responding while decreasing sucrose-reinforced responding. These data suggest that, within this ethanol-induction procedure and within certain parameters, demand for ethanol-sucrose was relatively inelastic, and sucrose consumption was independent of ethanol-sucrose consumption. Demand for sucrose, on the other hand, was relatively elastic, and ethanol-sucrose readily substituted for it. The results are discussed in terms of applying a behavioral economic approach to relationships between drug and nondrug reinforcers.

show abstract

“…Specifically, Indiana alcohol-preferring (P) (e.g., Files et al, 1992Files et al, , 1993Murphy et al, 1989;Penn et al, 1978;Ritz et al, 1994a,b;Samson et al, 1998;Schwarz-Stevens et al, 1991), ALKO alcohol-accepting (AA) (Files et al, 1997;Sinclair, 1989, 1990;Ritz et al, 1986Ritz et al, , 1989a, and Indiana high-alcohol-drinking (HAD) (Ritz et al, 1994a,b;Samson et al, 1998) rats have been described to press a lever to obtain pharmacologically relevant amounts of ethanol, in most cases comparable with those consumed under the home cage, two-bottle regimen. In contrast, selectively bred ethanol-nonpreferring Indiana alcoholnonpreferring (NP), ALKO alcohol nonaccepting (ANA), and Indiana low-alcohol-drinking (LAD) rats have been reported to display minimal degrees of lever pressing for ethanol, consistent with their avoidance of the ethanol solutions under the two-bottle paradigm.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%