Traumatic avoidance learning: the outcomes of several extinction procedures with dogs.

Solomon, Richard L.; Kamin, Leon J.; Wynne, Lyman C.

doi:10.1037/h0058943

Cited by 441 publications

(217 citation statements)

References 11 publications

(14 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

192

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This insight is not only theoretically relevant but also has practical implications. Most importantly, attempts to change avoidance behavior that has the function of an occasion setter should focus not on the direct relation between the avoidance behavior and the US (i.e., punishment or counterconditioning of the avoidance behavior; see Gwinn, 1949, andSolomon, Kamin, &Wynne, 1953). Instead, interventions should focus on assumptions about whether the avoidance behavior can modulate particular warning signal-US relations.…”

Section: Author Notementioning

confidence: 99%

Evidence for the interchangeability of an avoidance behavior and a negative occasion setter

Declercq

Houwer

2008

Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

290Avoidance behavior is an instrumental response that prevents the occurrence of an aversive event. It is a common phenomenon in life, since a great deal of our activity is performed to avoid the occurrence of negative or aversive stimuli. In a typical study of avoidance learning, a warning signal (A) is presented and followed by an aversive unconditioned stimulus (US), unless the participant performs a designated response (R). For example, a tone (A) is presented and is followed by an electric shock (US), unless the participant presses a certain key (R). Recently, a new theoretical approach was proposed by De Houwer, Crombez, and Baeyens (2005; see Gray, 1987;Lovibond, 2006;Mowrer, 1947;and Seligman & Johnston, 1973, for other accounts of avoidance learning). Their cognitive theory was based on the observation that avoidance behavior and negative occasion setting are quite similar at the structural level (for a review on the literature of occasion setting, see Holland, 1992, or Schmajuk & Holland, 1998. In negative occasion setting, the occasion setter signals whether a certain stimulus (also called the target) will be followed by the US. If the occasion setter is presented together with the target, the US will not follow, but it will if the occasion setter is not presented. Avoidance behavior, in its turn, also involves a feature negative discrimination: If the avoidance response is performed, the warning signal will not be followed by the US, but it will be if the avoidance response is not performed. From this structural perspective, avoidance learning and negative occasion setting are similar. The only difference is that in the former the occasion setter is a behavior, whereas in the latter the occasion setter is a stimulus (e.g., a tone).De Houwer et al. (2005) investigated whether avoidance behavior is similar to negative occasion setting at a functional level as well. According to Holland (1992), an occasion setter possesses three properties. First of all, it modulates responding to the target. In the case of negative occasion setting, the participants learn that the presence of the US after the presentation of the target is less probable when the occasion setter is presented, whereas the absence of the occasion setter indicates that the US will be presented after the target. This implies that conditioned responding to the target will be stronger when the occasion setter is absent than when it is present. Whereas the property of modulation is not unique to occasion setters (e.g., even presenting a novel stimulus together with a target can modulate responding to the target), the other two properties are. The first of these unique properties is that a negative occasion setter modulates responding to the target independent of its own relation with the US. This means that even when there is a positive contingency between the negative occasion setter and the US, this contingency has no effect on the modulation of the negative occasion setter. In the literature, this property is called resistance against coun...

show abstract

Section: Author Notementioning

confidence: 99%

Evidence for the interchangeability of an avoidance behavior and a negative occasion setter

Declercq

Houwer

2008

Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Simulation 2 consisted of 15 acquisition trials followed by 510 extinction trials. In one of the early experiments on avoidance, Solomon, Kamin, and Wynne (1953) ran one of their dogs for 490 extinction trials and found no signs of extinction. The use of a very large number of extinction trials in Simulation 2 is intended to show that the model also does not exhibit any signs of extinction, even with more than 490 extinction trials.…”

Section: Simulations Using the Actor-critic Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Two-factor theory, the actor--critic model, and conditioned avoidance

Maia

2010

Learning & Behavior

118

116

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…a punishment-extinction procedure has been employed in conjunction with a two-way locomotor response in at least two previous studies, the acquisition regimen in these experiments consisted of avoidance training. Unfortunately, the fmdingsof these investigations are not definitive since shock enhanced resistance to extinction in one case (Solomon, Kamin, & Wynne, 1953) but not in the other (Smith, Misanin, & Campbell, 1966). Factors possibly relevant to this discrepancy have been discussed at length by Brown (1969).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Two-way self-punitive locomotor behavior

Eaton

Crowell

1977

Bull. Psychon. Soc.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The effect of an explicit buzzer CS upon seH-punitive locomotor behavior was investigated in an experiment utilizing a fully automated two-way locomotor device. Two groups of rats received shock-escape training and extinction, with or without the CS. During extinction, haH of the animals in each group were shocked in the middle segment of the alley while the other haH were given no-shock regular extinction trials. Rats trained and extinguished with the CS completed more extinction trials than those trained and extinguished without a CS, while rats punished during extinction completed more trials than rats given regular extinction trials. In addition, the punishment-produced facilitation of extinction performance was greater for rats trained and extinguished with the CS than for those without the CS.Although the phenomenon of self-punitive or "vicious-circle" behavior has been well documented (Brown, 1969;Melvin, 1971), an inspection of this literature indicates that, with few exceptions, investigations in this area have been limited to situations involving one-way locomotor responses. This is not too surprising, however, in view of the prevalent theoretical account of self-punitive behavior initially suggested by Mowrer (1947), and expanded by Brown (1969). The Mowrer-Brown theory clearly implies that conditions leading to the maximization of conditioned fear in the starting area of an alleyway and the minimization of fear in the goal area would be most effective in the development and maintenance of self-punitive running (cf. Brown, 1969, p. 511). This suggestion is based upon the suppositions that fear serves to energize existing locomotor tendencies in the starting area, and that fear reduction in the goal area provides an important source of reinforcement for the preceding response sequence. Although these ideal conditions are usually approximated reasonably well in the typical one-way locomotor apparatus, they do not normally occur in standard twoway devices. In a two-way shuttlebox, for instance, the cues of each side of the apparatus are ambiguous since both sides serve as start and as goal areas on alternate trials. Since competing approach and avoidance responses, as well as fear, may become conditioned to both sets of cues, circumstances are not optimal for the production of vicious-circle behavior. In addition, intertrial confmement of the subject to the start-goal

show abstract

Traumatic avoidance learning: the outcomes of several extinction procedures with dogs.

Cited by 441 publications

References 11 publications

Evidence for the interchangeability of an avoidance behavior and a negative occasion setter

Evidence for the interchangeability of an avoidance behavior and a negative occasion setter

Two-factor theory, the actor--critic model, and conditioned avoidance

Two-way self-punitive locomotor behavior

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About