The reinforcing value of several types of aggressive behavior: A review

Potegal, Michael

doi:10.1002/1098-2337(1979)5:4<353::aid-ab2480050404>3.0.co;2-7

Cited by 60 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 109 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…LORENZ 1966, p. 154) convey a common acceptance of the 24 1 need for self-arousal prior to a physical attack. Familiar examples include the "warm-up" activities performed by athletes or warriors before a contest, in which they engage in aggressive displays, vocalize, and build their hostility in the absence of opponents, so as to be fully prepared when the moment of combat arrives (POTEGAL 1979).…”

Section: The Argument For Behavioral Efferencesupporting

confidence: 88%

“…Some relevant information can, however, be obtained from operant conditioning studies in which the opportunity to perform species-typical aggressive displays has served as the reinforcer. In a number of different species, this design has produced significant conditioning of an otherwise neutral operant (HOGAN & ROPER 1978;POTEGAL 1979;HUNTINGFORD & TURNER 1987). Some of the best work has been performed with Siamese fighting fish, Betta splendens, in which the opportunity to engage in aggressive displays is sufficiently rewarding that it can readily be transferred to secondary reinforcers, such as a light that had previously been paired with the presentation of an opponent (THOMPSON 1969;HOGAN & ROPER 1978).…”

Section: Operant Conditioning Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Toward a Resolution of the Paradox of Aggressive Displays: II. Behavioral Efference and the Communication of Intentions

Bond

1989

Ethology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An inference from game-theory models of animal conflict is that adversaries should not inform one another about their level of aggressive motivation. This poses a paradox for the traditional ethological account of graded aggressive displays because it is usually assumed that the adaptive significance of these behavior patterns lies in their making such information available. To resolve the paradox, I propose that communication is only an incidental effect of displays, and that their primary adaptive function is regulation of the intensity of aggressive encounters through positive feedback on aggressive motivation, a process termed "behavioral efference." Evidence in support of this hypothesis is drawn from studies of human facial expression, aggressive catharsis, and operant conditioning of aggressive behavior. Implications of the hypothesis and suggestions for further work are discussed.

show abstract

Section: The Argument For Behavioral Efferencesupporting

confidence: 88%

Section: Operant Conditioning Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Toward a Resolution of the Paradox of Aggressive Displays: II. Behavioral Efference and the Communication of Intentions

Bond

1989

Ethology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A particularly potent aversive trigger for intense aggressive behavior may occur in individuals when a scheduled reward is omitted -the frustration-aggression link (Dollard et al 1939). By contrast, when aggressive acts occur in the absence of any identifiable external antecedent or consequent variable, they are considered to be self-reinforcing and derived from the pleasure of fighting (Potegal 1979). Whether or not "aggressive pleasure" is a useful construct in understanding such diverse behaviors as "bullying" and killing remains to be rigorously examined (Ingle 2002).…”

Section: Definitionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Social and neural determinants of aggressive behavior: pharmacotherapeutic targets at serotonin, dopamine and ?-aminobutyric acid systems

et al. 2002

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

(1) The preclinical focus on the behavioral characteristics and determinants of intense aggression promises to be most relevant to the clinical distinction between the proposed impulsive-reactive-hostile-affective subtypes of human aggression and the controlled-proactive-instrumental-predatory subtypes of aggression. The neural circuits for many types of human and animal aggression critically involve serotonin, dopamine and gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) and specific receptor subtypes. (2) The dynamic changes in frontal cortical serotonin that are triggered by engaging in aggressive behavior imply that serotonergic drug effects are largely determined by the functional state of the receptors at the time of drug treatment. Of the numerous 5-HT receptors currently identified, the 5-HT(1B) receptors offer a promising target for reducing impulsive aggressive behavior, particularly if the action can be limited to sites in the central nervous system. (3) Aggressive confrontations are salient stressors, both for the aggressor as well as the victim of aggression, that are accompanied by activation of the mesocorticolimbic but not the striatal dopamine system. Dopaminergic manipulations, particularly targeting the D(2) receptor family, can influence aggressive behavior in animals and human patients, suggesting that mesocorticolimbic dopamine may have important enabling or permissive functions. (4) GABA is critical in the neurochemical control of aggressive behavior as evidenced by studies that directly modify GABAergic neurotransmission and neurochemical studies that correlate GABA measurements with aggressive behavioral responses in several animal species. The GABA(A) receptor complex is a mechanism through which certain benzodiazepines and alcohol enhance and inhibit aggressive behaviors. Social and pharmacological experiences decisively determine the effects of GABAergic positive modulators on aggression.

show abstract

“…Since aggression is known to be increased by home cage cleaning (20,64) one possibility is that, through normal husbandry practices, clean sawdust had earlier become associated with an increased severity or frequency of aggressive interactions. By definition, these encounters particularly impact on subordinate mice which suffer defeat by dominants (5,43,44,54,56).…”

Section: Defecation On Novel Versus Familiar Beddingmentioning

confidence: 99%

There's no place like home: Cage odours and place preference in subordinate CD-1 male mice

Fitchett

Barnard

Cassaday

2006

Physiology & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Prior studies using mice have shown that scent marks are an important source of information and can cause behavioural changes in other individuals. Studies have also shown that scent marks in the environment can affect the outcome of social interactions between mice. We used conditioned place preference tests to investigate whether CD-1 male mice (Mus musculus) are reinforced by olfactory cues from the home cage. Soiled bedding from the home cage was presented in the initially less preferred chamber of the apparatus to determine whether this association would reduce the unconditioned preference for one chamber over the other. We tested the effects of social rank and housing condition by comparing the performance of dyads that were polarised into dominant and subordinate relationships, both when paired and when separated, with mice that were isolated throughout. The development of conditioned place preference (CPP) supported by home cage odours was influenced by social rank but not by housing condition. Only subordinate mice showed CPP to home cage odours, and this effect was seen irrespective of whether they were housed with a dominant cage mate or alone. Neither dominant (paired or separated) nor isolated mice showed any change in their preference for the chamber associated with home cage odours. This suggests that the smell of home is a more powerful reinforcer for subordinate mice in that it can produce contextual conditioning to the environment in which it is experienced. Physiology & Behavior, 87,[955][956][957][958][959][960][961][962] Laboratory rodents spend a large amount of time in their home cage environment.How do they like it? It is known that the home cage can act as an effective reinforcer for mice tested in a radial maze procedure (45). However, very few studies have investigated how mice rate the home cage environment relative to alternatives, but see (59,60).An important aspect of the home environment is whether the animal is housed singly or in a group. In their natural state, house mice (Mus domesticus) typically live in social groups (24,25,26,38,48). As would be expected, what evidence there is suggests that group housing promotes welfare in laboratories (20,61,64,65).

show abstract

The reinforcing value of several types of aggressive behavior: A review

Cited by 60 publications

References 109 publications

Toward a Resolution of the Paradox of Aggressive Displays: II. Behavioral Efference and the Communication of Intentions

Toward a Resolution of the Paradox of Aggressive Displays: II. Behavioral Efference and the Communication of Intentions

Social and neural determinants of aggressive behavior: pharmacotherapeutic targets at serotonin, dopamine and ?-aminobutyric acid systems

There's no place like home: Cage odours and place preference in subordinate CD-1 male mice

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About