Abstract
Three experiments examined the relationship between shock magnitude and the rate of acquisition of a passive avoidance response. Experiment 1 indicated that the use of a relatively large magnitude of shock can disrupt learning to remain on a platform in the center of an open field to avoid shock. The inferior learning of the group trained with high shock was replicated in Experiment 2, which also demonstrated that avoidance learning can occur rapidly with this level of shock if the platform is located in the corner of the apparatus. To explain this, it was proposed that thigmotactic behavior is responsible for the disruption in avoidance behavior when training is conducted in the center with high-magnitude shock. Finally, Experiment 3, essentially a replication of Experiment 1 except that the platform was placed in the corner of the test compartment, demonstrated a direct relationship between shock magnitude and passive avoidance learning. The results are seen as being consistent with accounts which maintain that avoidance learning can be influenced by the occurrence of species-specific defense reactions.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Barcik, J. D. Step-down passive avoidance: CER or specific avoidance?Psychonomic Science, 1972,27, 27–28.
Bauer, R. H. The effects of CS and US intensity on shuttlebox avoidance.Psychonomic Science, 1972,27, 266–268.
Bolles, R. C. Species specific defense reactions. In F. R. Brush (Ed.).Aversive conditioning and learning. New York: Academic Press, 1971.
Bolles, R. C., &Collier, A. C. The effect of predictive cues on freezing in rats.Animal Learning & Behavior, 1976,4, 6–8.
Bolles, R. C., &Warren, J. A. The acquisition of bar press avoidance as a function of shock intensity.Psychonomic Science, 1965,3, 297–298.
Cicala, G. A., &Kremer, E. The effects of shock intensity and d-amphetamine on avoidance learning.Psychonomic Science, 1969,14, 41–42.
D’Amato, M. R., &Fazzaro, J. Discriminated lever-press avoidance learning as a function of type and intensity of shock.Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 1966,61, 313–315.
Dunn, O. J. Multiple comparisons using rank sums.Technometrics, 1964,6, 241–252.
Grossen, N. E., &Kelley, M. J. Species-specific behaviour in rats.Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 1972,81, 307–310.
Levine, S. UCS intensity and avoidance learning.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1966,71, 163–164.
McAllister, W. R., McAllister, D. E., &Douglass, W. K. The inverse relationship between shock intensity and shuttlebox avoidance learning in rats: A reinforcement explanation.Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 1971,74, 426–433.
Mowrer, O. H. Learning theory and behavior. New York: Wiley, 1960.
Mover, K. E., &Korn, J. H. The effect of UCS intensity on the acquisition and extinction of an avoidance response.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1964,67, 352–359.
Siegel, S. Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1956.
Theios, J., Lynch, A. P., &Lowe, W. F., Jr. Differential effects of shock intensity on one-way and shuttle avoidance conditioning.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1966,72, 294–299.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
This work was supported by grants from the U.K. Science Research Council.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Pearce, J.M. The relationship between shock magnitude and passive avoidance learning. Animal Learning & Behavior 6, 341–345 (1978). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03209624
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03209624