UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Classical and avoidance conditioning of bar biting in rats in a pain-elicited aggression situation Mitchell, Sara S. 1970

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata


831-UBC_1970_A8 M58_2.pdf [ 1.67MB ]
JSON: 831-1.0104127.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0104127-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0104127-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0104127-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0104127-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0104127-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0104127-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

CLASSICAL IN  RATS  AND A V O I D A N C E IN  A  CONDITIONING  PAIN-ELICITED  OF  AGGRESSION  BAR  BITING  SITUATION  by  SARA B.A.,  A  THESIS THE  S.  MITCHELL  University  SUBMITTED  of  IN  REQUIREMENTS  PARTIAL  1968  F U L F I L M E N T OF  FOR THE DEGREE OF  MASTER  in  Kentucky,  OF  the  ARTS  Department of  Psychology  We  accept  required  THE  this  thesis  as  conforming  to  standard  UNIVERSITY  OF  BRITISH  September,  1970  COLUMBIA  the  In  presenting  an  advanced  the I  Library  further  for  degree shall  agree  scholarly  by  his  of  this  wri tten  this  thesis  in  at  University  the  make  that  it  purposes  for  freely  permission may  representatives. thesis  partial  be  It  financial  of  of  Columbia,  for  by  I S ^ c ^ - t  The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h V a n c o u v e r 8, Canada  the  understood  gain  Columbia  for  extensive  shall  p e rm i s s i o n .  Department of  British  available  granted  is  fulfilment  t^<^t  Head  be  requirements  reference copying  that  not  the  of  agree  and  of my  I  this  or  allowed  without  that  study. thesis  Department  copying  for  or  publication my  ABSTRACT  Ss  were  placed  Azrin,  Rubin  a  t a i l  shock,  target  that  550v  metal CR  and  the  avoidance in  the  and  a  the was  ?-in.  was  higher  the  restraining also  than  for  device  attacked  the No  a  who the  like  5-sec  the of  rate  either  hot  metal d o l l  of  had  target. at  a  was  higher  UCS  the  on UCR,  classical  subsequently  prior  Ss  and  A bite  attack  the  designed  noise,  rat  W h e n j3_s w e r e the  that  200 m s e c .  of  evidence  had  rubber  a  was  nose  obtained.  rats  was  which  situation,  with  apparatus CS  of  from  response.  aggression  was  (1968).  duration  conditioning  rat  restraining  Hutchinson  avoidance  paired  experience  in  with rate  against  than  was the the  or placed another  experience this  by  in  prior naive  Sis.  i i i  Table  of  Contents Page  Introduction  1  Method  9  Subjects  9  Apparatus  ^  Procedure  ^  Results  '  *  '  '  1  I Discussion References  4  o  iv  List  of  Tables Page  Table  1  Percentage pair  and  of  attack  against  doll  responses  in 26  V  List  of  Figures Page  Figure  1  Total near  Figure  2  Total  responses  and  total  shock Ss  not  27 responding  sessions Figure  3  Daily  responses  responses  over  daily 28  of  4  Ss  29  1  Ulrich shock,  and  paired  rats  rearing,  baring  biting.  Since  a  preceding  Pain  with  escape  past  Classical of  since  sessions  in  placed move  i n  made  by  occasional behavior Ulrich  was  in  "The a  the  no  naive  other  other  animal,  became,  through  capable  of  would  was  was the  originally pairing  long  of  during  the  had  other  been  with  enduring  shock,  when  only  naive  no  a  fighting  to  posture  subsequently  Any  noise  and  an  rat.  was  This  explanation age  18  seconds.  days Always  shock-elicited  neutral  another stimulus,  conditioned fighting  or  presented.  His  since  rats,  experimental  were  shock  of  the  rat.  preceded  conditioned  conditioning  pair  for  three  whose  a  a  observed  experimental  a  defined  stimulation,  been  seconds  every  simply  is  classical  together  animal  by  unconditioned,  initiating  followed.  inevitably was  of  which  procedure  elicited  termed  have  fighting  presented  movements  consistent the  the  animals  shock  varied which  on  the  rarely  1965).  three a  be  aversive  together  with  of  but  Aggression  occurred  every  part  with  rat, to  is  of  Azrin,  1962)  paired  the  act  evidence  brought  sessions  these  shock  producing  on  the  and  e l i c i t  i t  foot  consisting  appears  organisms  f i r s t  presented  two  where  the  The  details  time  Ulrich  chamber  rat  over  which  (Ulrich,  response  other  only  with  and  was  as  electric  other  1938).  synonymous  and  the  conditioning,  from  age  experimental  situation  fighting  of  shock  continued  associated  The  days  striking  gives  states,  18  posture  pattern  (1965)  (Hutchinson,  aggression  which  the  variables  receiving  at  (Skinner,  being  conditioning.  shock-elicited  isolated  response  Azrin  upon  aggressive  previous  as  that  striking  behavior  defined  those  the  no  an  and  aggressive  incorporating i n  teeth,  Ulrich.and is  found  assume  reflexive  Hutchinson,  attack.  would  the  or  (1962)  of.the  shock  respondent, by  Azrin  shock. later  stimulus behavior  2  observed  in  the  Vernon aggression of a  tone  and  i n  and  shock,  Creer,  alone  fighting  fighting  not  and  a  40  db  buzzer  Avoidance found by The  that  of  a  presence  Attacks the  every  on  shock  of  the  were was  to  the  lever  down  99%  performance  trials shock  of  a  by  db  also  buzzer  a  the  of  2000  pairings  presentations  were  e l i c i t i n g  end  as  classically  conditioned  obtained  a  CS.  in  Again  fighting  delayed  50%  of  response.  simultaneous  Azrin,  the  CS  Conditioning  conditioning  the  there not  the  lever  was  when  20-sec  biting. by  the  extend  the  with  press  a  with  shock period  paradigm  target  avoidance  was  to  a  were  when  shock  ej:  a l . ,  when  (Azrin Exp.  conditioned the  CS,  3,  to  hold  were  shock  holding  was  shock-avoidance  the  avoidance  et_ a l . , 1967)  stimulus tone,  97%  Almost  required  only  only  Over  shock..  occurred  a  shock  responding.  subjects  that  1967)  avoid  delivered.  after  1,  present.  both  of  during  learned  (Exp.  day  findings  attack  Hake  bite-hose  fourth  Biting  (Azrin  a  When m o n k e y s  time.  delivery  situation  interfere  only  produces  the  H u t c h i n s o n and  avoidance  shock,  situation A  (1966)  with  made  within  experiment  avoidance  At  alone  conditioned  did  were  results  permits  delivery.  80  though  target  procedure  next  an  Sidman  avoid  These  shock-escape  a  followed  down  CS  CS.  shock-elicited  CS.  made  lever  the  as  conditioned  C o n d i t i o n i n g was  attempted  even  target  the  delivered.  in  tone  of  conditioning.  lever  the  bites  The  as  monkeys  pressing  rats.  elicited  when  a  Shaeffer  paradigm with  obtained  1962).  response.  and  i n  50%  (Ulrich,  i :  classically  with  almost  presentations  was  (1966)  rats  Hitzing  conditioning  chamber.  Ulrich  paired  conditioned  reflexive  second  Exp.  or 2,  involved  terminated  escape 1967).  a  preceding  or  discrete each  the  shock  3  and had no e f f e c t when the tone was not p r e s e n t .  The number o f l e v e r  p r e s s e s and the number o f shocks f o r e i t h e r monkey were ncn a f f e c t e d by the of  presence of the t a r g e t .  No b i t e s o c c u r r e d d u r i n g the .one, and 92%  the l e v e r p r e s s e s were e m i t t e d d u r i n g t h e tone.  The number of b i t e s  d u r i n g a s e s s i o n was p r o p o r t i o n a l t o the number of shocks r e c e i v e d . absence of a t t a c k responses was due t o the absence of shocks  The  received  and n o t to response i n c o m p a t i b i l i t y between p r e s s i n g and b i t i n g . The f i n a l experiment  i n the s e r i e s  ( A z r i n e t a l . , Exp. 4, 1967)  was a g a i n a d i s c r e t e t r i a l s avoidance s i t u a t i o n , b u t the a t t a c k response was a l s o the avoidance response. o c c u r r e d d u r i n g the tone.  The c o n d i t i o n e d avoidance  The u n c o n d i t i o n e d a t t a c k responses o c c u r r e d  immediately a f t e r the shock.  A 200v shock was d e l i v e r e d every 5 sec  d u r i n g the sounding o f the tone.  I f the monkey b i t the tube d u r i n g the  tone then the tone t e r m i n a t e d f o r 15 s e c . 5 s e c a f t e r tone onset.  response  The next shock was d e l i v e r e d  When the tone was not b e i n g p r e s e n t e d , a b i t e  had no e f f e c t on the p r e s e n t a t i o n of tone o r shock. c o n d i t i o n i n g almost a l l shocks were avoided. and o c c u r r e d p r i m a r i l y d u r i n g the tone.  A f t e r 2 h r s of  The number of b i t e s decreased  In avoidance e x t i n c t i o n , tone and  shock were p r e s e n t e d as u s u a l , b u t shock was u n a v o i d a b l e .  At that  more b i t e s o c c u r r e d i n response t o the shock than d u r i n g the tone.  time When  avoidance was a g a i n made p o s s i b l e , b i t e s o c c u r r e d d u r i n g the tone showing rapid reconditioning. the  I f b i t e s had c o n t i n u e d to o c c u r i n response to  tone when shocks were u n a v o i d a b l e , t h e r e would have been evidence f o r  respondent c o n d i t i o n i n g w i t h i n the avoidance s i t u a t i o n .  The monkeys  a c q u i r e d the b i t e response and avoidance c o n d i t i o n i n g f a s t e r than i f a b a r p r e s s were used, and the e l i c i t i n g  p r o p e r t i e s o f the shocks seemed t o  4  facilitate  acquisition  Attack inanimate to  bite  the  a  attack  inanimate  object  situation d o l l ,  of  1962).  (Ulrich  attack  a  rat,  presentations during  each  target  object  five the  one  or  of  with the  i n  of  at  sec  to  The of  stuffed  once.  et:  as  the  of  one  Three  reciprocal  of  observed avoidance  inanimate  1962).  (Ulrich the  Rats  and  did  Azrin,  stimulus  the as  apparently  but  Azrin  of  aggression  lower the  was  14  took of  rats  of  occurring  i n  present to  the attacked  attack place  the  any  within  shocks  that  the  failure  and  the  success  aggressiveness  s q u i r r e l monkey" objects  shock  subjects not  postulated  another 10  delivered  some  level  time:  items  did  by  a  monkeys  were  the  only  shock-elicited  There  always  objects  target  aggression  i t  at  bite  subjects  occurred  inanimate  one  five a  the  Fourteen  b a l l .  Eleven  other  1964) .  inanimate  a  defined  compared w i t h of  an  shock-induced  items,  and  presentation,  attack  a  Azrin,  monkeys.  five  monkey.  attack  al. ,  Sidman  investigated  by  doll,  was  shock  use  objects  An  (Azrin  rat  (1964)  following  the  in  an  1965).  Sallery  attack  been  chamber  of  bite  have  attack  determine  e l i c i t a t i o n  Only  "reflects  p.226).  a  When a n  e l i c i t  the  session.  least  after  domesticated  complication  the  a n i m a l by  items.  monkeys  1964,  for  not  and  the  to  consistently Rats  would  about  1967).  delivery  (Ulrich  necessary  inanimate  each  or  attack  efforts  one  is  shock.  rat  doll  Hake, w i l l  shock  A  moved  Azrin,  a mouse,  Items  two  and  1962).  was  research  session.  five  elicited  that  H u t c h i n s o n and  animate  after  a moving  necessary  paired with  monkey,  of  rat  Monkeys  aversive  shortly  or  H u t c h i n s o n and  of  to  Azrin,  rat,  Additional  Azrin,  a l l  and  deceased  (Ulrich,  bar  H u t c h i n s o n and  objects.  response  response  characteristics  were  in  deceased a  (Azrin,  (Azrin  eliminates self-defense  on  e_t  a l . ,  the i n  paired  5  animals.  It  because  of  animal,  but  "since cause  it a  (Azrin,  could  a  learned this  is  a  on  the  hardly to  conceive  and  Hutchinson  Rubin  of  an  was  by  every  This  experience  with  Ulrich  and  Azrin  of  and were  daily  Test  Day  1,  fighting  was  very  low  with  one at  50,  there  was  a  sharp  The  probability  Day  100.  The  rats  laboratory.  had  bite  were  Day a  rise  of  inanimate process  another object,  that  with  would  pain"  rat's  wood,  direct  days 36,  of  attack  The  through  Day  15,  100  the  from  fighting  probability  increase,  used, i n  this  study  fought  previously  been  observed  in  more  time.  more  inanimate  of  past  21  days  days  of  From  age. of  Day  of  5%  to  slowly,  to  93%  frequently  Ulrich's  time  probability  over  to  occurred  of  from  increase  continued  metal  Hutchinson,  slight a  or  effect by  bite  t a i l  of  individually  age  Test  by  A  frequently  investigated  housed  nose.  function  aggression. was  e l i c i t i n g  restrained  rubber,  most  biting  at  were  delivered  a  a  the  attempt  the  these  as  3 968)  al_. ,  from  on  biting;  aggression  only  75%.  than  a  et  21  an  subjects  Shock  to  from  animals  presence  another  s-in.  similar  rats  paired  associated  The  decreased  through  of  viciously  rats.  pain-elicited  Ten  21,  Day  is  upon  made  automatically.  produced  the  generalization  (1968)  by  and  in  p.227).  fixed  pain-elicited  Day  pain  strongly  target  (Hutchinson  tested  so  by  response  (1965).  a  1964,  Biting  with  of  attack  attack  target  shock  experience  to  become  followed  shock.  monkeys  Past  a  recorded  after  shock.  with  generally  Almost  to  inanimate  tube  was  immediately  to  apply  Sallery,  target.  From  could  produces  between  and  electrodes  age  association  Hutchinson  target  objects  pain  sphere  plexiglas  since  that  stationary  biting  in  said  difficult  Azrin, the  be  or  and  Azrin's  36  more  6  Powell the  and  increased  first  Creer  aggressive  possibility  analysis  of  occurrence  (1969)  behavior  compatible  s  shock-elicited of  offered  the  with  with  hypothesis  behavior  was  instrumental  fighting used a  behavior.  three  groups  different  sessions given  in  100  the  type  of  which  by  a  the  exposure  Day  11  when  plexiglas sessions  to  100  and  frequency  the  same  fighting 10  shock,  as  20  fighting  sessions. a  were  per  the  In  group  of  in  removed. each  shocks  at per  showed  The  group  similar  but  i n a  placed  the  placed  A l l  subjects  steady  A l l first  of  2 ma,  groups  over  to  and  pair  shock  which  were  i n  was prior  began  chamber of  duration  to  on  with  10 of  the  daily .5  sec  approximately  group  fighting  10  placed  total  The  exposure  increase  no  to  possibility  was  exhibited  session. in  the  treatment  a  (1969)  subjected  the  standard  received  increase  received  lesser  but  situation the  intensity  the  that  i n  further  chamber  pair  experimental  was  min.  group  fighting  became  Creer  of  to  the  received  eliminating  f i r s t  once  each  test  The  the  exposure  and  members  each  for  of  group  the  explain  reflexive  response  were  One  group  no  the  Powell  The  thereby  that  occurrence  in  aggression  an  of  which  session.  received  rats  rats  another  pairs  of  (1962)  repeated  states  to  presentations.  threshold  by  hypotheses  partition,  frequency  experience  showed  shocks  shocks  cf  rats  the  experience.  shock-induced  pair  partition of  of  fighting.  the  two  pre-fighting  third  each  the  shock  !  properties  probability  hypotheses  Azrin s  lowered  community-housed  plexiglas  The  the  test  pairs  situation  delivered.  the  of  shock-elicited same  To  inescapable  separated of  increased  that  second  The  which  is  and  was  stimulation.  operative  repeated  reflex  aversive  e l i c i t e d ,  possible  Ulrich  fighting,  fighting  two  with  frequency  the  sessions.  chamber The  no  pre-  over but  group  no  7  that in  received  fighting  with  the  over  a  results  were  due a  the to  during  sessions.  chance  to  in  instrumental of  shock  inescapable  shock  of  response  systems"  to  fit  the  the  no  They  exposure  chamber  but  Interhas  been  and  between of  the  the  different  often.  over  optimal, al.  because  some  (1969)  to  rats  (1967) the  at  the  that  state  largely  reports  rats some  the  permitted  a  with  wide  authors  between  group  primarily  over  somewhat  with  even  that,  range  f a i l  ambiguous the  group  exposure  the  to  rats  the  results  to  variability shock-elicited  frequency at  for  each  differences of  each  consistency pair  fighting of  the  does  not  of  rats  pairs.  conditions by  on  identical  between  when  of  "Individual  reported  described  of  reports  almost  early  continued pairs  Evidence  absent;  was  differences  parameters of  and  research  (1962)  This  that  their  suggest  pretreatment  The  differences  variability.  subjects  (p.513).  shock  "that  p.224).  into  the  which  The  shock.  were  of  for  or  of  Azrin  found  pairs  found  account  group  shock  and  was  nonresponding  1969,  to  aggression.  response  possible  toward  Creer,  no-shock  most  and  of  (1967) and  organism  chamber  in  Ulrich  sessions  not  pairs  occur  Creer  the  exposure  trials  over  increase  incompatible  aggression  be  and  as  hypothesis  may  (Powell  later  no  elicited-reflex  It  the  interpreted  to  severity.  of  frequencies,"  the  showed  repeated  fighting  exposure  shock  separately  "debilitating"  intra-subject  pairs  since  the  the  Ulrich  were  of  understated  aggression.  experience  properties  do  no  was  shock-elicited  of  to  results  hypothesis,  support  biases  behavior  explanation.  to  pre-fighting  These  fight  assumed  increase  reducing  with  its  reflexive-analysis  without  that  shock  were  Azrin  fight  at  _e_t low  stabilized  in  held  al.  constant  (1964)  rates. their  as  Powell fighting  e_t  8  responses 2 ma, and  at  four  one  different  pairs  pair  was  Azrin,  bird out  of  had of  would  92  sec  attack  a  to  discontinue  of  attacks  social  by  the  target.  low  The  Azrin  et  another  again  nature  a l .  monkey,  attackers  to  did  tail-pinch.  individual  different  of  (1964)  a  attack  because  reinforced. to  not  found  that  plus  the  and  a  especially  out  A l l  of  10  pigeons had rate  the  caused  greater  partly  counter-aggression  with  three  only  high  that  of  Another  (1967)  relatively  is  79.  experiment  suggest  and  duration  minus  pigeon.  variability  one  or  Hutchinson  of  stabilized,  inter-  a mean  same  behavior  behavior, explain  of  They  other  never  at  responses.  had  target  pigeons  pairs  considerable  bird  In  stuffed  two  stabilized  an  inanimate  pairs  of  pigeons  aggression.  research  used  14  a  in  with  a  monkeys  subjects,  mouse,  three  differences  variability  2.  Azrin  out  later  Hutchinson, Azrin  subjects.  One  pairs  zero  found  pigeon.  attack  rat,  discard  a  relative  does  4 ma,  deviation  minus  Two  pair,  pigeons.  or  were  (1968)  at  (1966)  average  of  of  This  aggression  had  subject  attack  rates  i n  target  they  shock.  pairs  Hake  attack  pair  of  non-fighting  plus  would  one  Gentry  very  an  2,  live  of  the  had  of  before  by  target.  stable  with  pigeons  v a r i a b i l i t y  seven  v a r i a b i l i t y  a mean  40  a  3 ma,  H u t c h i n s o n and  intra-subject attack  at  intensities  were  day  of  or  of  eight  monkeys.  experiment  and  Renfrew  i n  day.  the  b a l l .  using  (1968)  absolute  there  A  a  was  given  similar  which  doll,  noted  to  three  a  Alternatively,  from  indicates  would  Azrin  One  of  not  et  reported,  relatively  shock  attack  a l .  these  tail-shock  number  variations.  of  (1965)  non-  instead  of  "Large  bites  l i t t l e  intensity  for  intra-  tended  to  9  produce bites  a  in  Dulaney  given a  session  (1969)  three  monkeys  to  the  be  When  frequency  used, as  in  to  was  near  handling  definitely  The elicited  in  Azrin,  Rubin  and  target  eliminates and  condition was  be  present  a  an  As  use  rats  in of  data  three  to  of  and  in  the  this  appears  fighting  phases.  subjects  was  to  possible  differ-  Variability  target  previously  also  same  with  classically  inanimate  was  Azrin,  conditioned  Wolff  extreme  conditions.  automatic  the  experiment  the  a l l  uncontrolled of  their  attributed  attempt  (1968). of  were  number  was  experiment.  the  replication  during  present  experiment  with  conditioning made  the  was  against  effects  for  avoidance  avoidance response  The  to  rats  i n  of  Ulrich,  shock-elicited  responding  was  Hutchinson  allows  techniques.  This  experiment  (p.86).  examining  experimental  the  variability  differences  Variability  in  and  15%,"  unpunished  general  the  to  Upon  effect,  i n  attack  individual  the  zero.  aggression  opponent  in  evidence  present  5%  subjects.  i n  or  biting  from  that  case, m a i n l y  suppressed ences  ranging  report  punishment  of  condition  described  stated,  the  objective  the  first  inanimate  Hutchinson monkeys,  stimulus  in  to  attempt  would  an  avoid  the  to  situation.  Hake's  which  by  recording  target  and  by  inanimate  counter-aggression and  shock-  (1967) attack  the  shock.  Method Subjects. Dawley  strain,  supplied Ss the jSs  were  by  approximately  Bio  Science  randomly  control in  Twenty-five  each  of  the  and  90-120  Breeding  assigned  group,  male,  15  albino days  rats  old,  Laboratory,  derived  served Oakland,  as  from  the  Sprague-  S_s.  T h e J3s w e r e  California.  Five  to  the  classical  conditioning  group,  five  to  to  the  avoidance  conditioning  group,  with  five  avoidance  extinction  groups.  .  10  Apparatus. designed  and  consisted diameter rod  and of ing of  of  tube  in  pilot  the  of  the  lined  up  along  and  consisted closed of  pressure  was  the  and  taped  The  plates  the the  strips  the  replica two  were  was  of  in  the  one  The  from both  either  above  wide,  edge  housed  facing i n  or  sound  wide  the  fastened  to  the  plate  2.5-in. rod  long and  ,5-in.  which  from  by  when  between  the  Azrin  two  et  would  only  by  be  the  metal  below  would  not  compress  rat.  The  5*in.  and  separated  restraining chambers  from  the  head  of  were the  were  the  rat.  (1968,  p.635)  by  a  releasing  the a  device  that  The  wide,  the  when  sheets,  by  a  at  tape.  closed  below  was  opening,  together  and  thick  function  right  of  a l .  sheets  open-  rubber  nose  squeezed  the  back  .25-in. by  center  the  adhesive  held  the  which  through  and  the wide  the  tube  with  by  6-in.  i n  the  places  attenuated  approximately  plate  served  passed  inside  made  of  was  It  restraining  across It  that  an  out  contacts  1/16-in. the  fitted  designed  above  t a i l  .5-in.  place.  t a i l  situated  a  with  plexiglas  and  back  t a i l  contacts  plate.  to  two  copper  the  microswitch  Situated  rat's  and  i n  long  to  of  p.634).  modification  a  plate  r o d was  aluminum sheets  1-in.  the  of  t a i l  target  bottom  were  apparatus fan.  two  from  at  a  rod,  exerted  air-space  by  a of  A blow  attempting  to  high  fastened  the  metal  was  pressure  bite.  work.  around  target  from  This  9-in,  One  rod  duplicate  (1968,  fastened  1.75-in.  t a i l .  firmly  was  t a i l  and  placed  bite,  rat  the  exact  Hutchinson  diameter.  opening,  each  The  in  nearly  plexiglas,  t a i l  t a i l  electrodes,  The  rat's  a  and  of  The  t a i l  washers.  rat's  opening  and was  problem top  the  the  tube  attach  an  was  Rubin  .25-in.  to  with  for  preventing  The  and  was  high  the  Azrin,  i n .  long  plate  by  apparatus  restraining  author  3-in. the  a 2.5  6.5-in.  present  used  of of  The  as  in  a  plates.  3/64-in. and  target  ventilated rat  was  a  11  2-in.  speaker  model  455  C,  maximum.  with  Noise  Bank  Timer,  were  recorded  were  also  At the also  j>s  which  and  end  in  sessions  the  with  sides  a  foot-shock  was  single  paired  doll  same  which  had  the in  the  with  hair  as  a  bite  was  classified  as  a  UCR  CS.  delivered  by  noise.  delayed  UCS  surface  terminated  onset, were  A  30  was min  the  The  in  the and  noise,  noise  gain  generator,  d i a l  set  controlled shock,  Recorder.  at  by  and  a  VIII  responses  Total  if  a  white  responses  object.  i t  and  It  was  a  550v  conditioning  to  4-in.  sec  the  during  grid  chamber The  wide.  The  floor.  Ss  were  2-in.  target  In  200v the.  placed  wide  i n  rubber  within  as  a  the  of  t a i l  j^.  CR of  i n t e r - t r i a l with  a  the  i f  i n  CS  of  A  the  response period  occurred  was  which  60  and  5-sec  it  interval, mean  UCR  200-msec  The  employed  the  object.  or  shock  sec  these  plexiglas.  Aggression,  electric  105  In  were  dress.  p a r a d i g m was  to  the  when They  Prototype  9.5-in.  high,  classified  The  of  situation,  S_ t o  occurred  t i f i c  top  through  lace  by  target  Scie-  deep,  a  added  the  the  doll  were  situation.  conditioning.  electrodes  15  and  sessions  aggression  standard  with  delivered  UCS was  length.  a  as  8.5-in.  above  UCS.  from  doll  sides  simultaneously.  varied  and  timed of  paired  delivered  Classical  defined  the  were  additional  inanimate  and  is  during  two  and  described  after  20kc  Esterline-Angus  a  in  high,  the  CR,  immediately  with  and  scrambled  Procedure.  an  standard  placed  metal  red  on  Gradson-Stadler  occurrences  experiment  7.75-in.  chamber  set  a  counters.  were  of  were  the  The  situation  rats  from  presentation  A.  by  of  dimensions  rat  shock  d i a l  automatically,on  placed  placed  noise  lo-pass  1431  recorded  were  two  the  model  the  delivered  CS  duration a  5-sec  the onset  sec.  CS to  and CS  Sessions  12  On  Day  omitted. was as  the  1  With same  so  a  and  fixed  which  usual  On  had  1  Day  was  control  number  t r i a l s ,  same  presentations  independent i t  was  for  of  mean  of  control refers  each  the  distributed, 60  also  sec.  the  but  presentation  group  was  s t i l l  also  was  Avoidance  of  changed  presented  contingency  The  were  of  the  UCS  duration  CS  Days  shock  16, of  some no  CS a  chance  which  30-sec within  fixed the  was  had  and  The  CS  s t i l l  treatment group  to  of  a  CS  30-sec  preceded  the  on  same the  the  15  sec of  between  the  On Days  inter-shock  UCS  and  were 105  and  were as  randomly sec  UCS  same  CS  schedule  with  for  a  the  Contingency the  UCS  17-20  has  the  interval,  intervals,  the  CS  and  of  con-  of  them.  presentation  the  number  same  and  CS  as  received  presentations  30-sec  to  400-  effect,  presentation  however,  1967).  no  of  to  increased  changed  control  pairings  contingency  continued  indication  was  same  between  and  it.  presented  (Rescorla,  randomly  the  UCS  increased  the  with  UCS  was  17-20  group;  The  any  the  procedure  began  changes  time,  was  the  These  onset.  the  of  duration  schedule,  interval  dependency  to  the  received  group.  was  the  l l  60-sec  length  UCS,  absence  From  through  the  CS w i t h  conditioning  800 m s e c .  to  of  the  the  conditioning  there  degree  prior  was  2  varied  There  to  group  other.  a  9  of  to  On Day  VI  total  the  on  Day  2  simultaneously  conditioning  group, to  as  Day  Due  onset  terminated  On Days  UCS  a  omission  On  tried.  shock  group.  of  14  on  ditioning  presentations  the  9.  on  Day  been  the  of  groups.  on  from  and  Day  a l l  30  above.  place,  change  interval  as  until  again  different UCS,  UCS  for  and  received  described  taking  duration msec,  ^  exception  above  conditioning  600  the  as  described  msec  each  and  but  upon  control the  CS  non-  maintained. •conditioning.  The  procedure  for  avoidance  conditioning  13  was  similar  naive  Ss  to  and  the  conditioning during  the  response shock  was  5  did  sec  onset.  later. group  the  Day and  of to  were  CS  the  duration  made  interval  response  was  i n  an  treatment  The was  as  a  was  the  CS  alone  The those  made  a in  bite  control the  as  for  target  on  shock  15  classical  A  during  groups,  the  the  same  and  i f  was  the  delivered  simultaneously  the  and  30-sec  fixed  shock  were  avoided.  above,  the  the the  classical  presentations.  to  for  i n  programmed  then  same  changes  was a  There  bit  terminated  described  changed  and  was  tone,  rat  shock  and  shock  employed the  CR,  onset  the and  as  UCS was  for  a  a l l  on  con-  Days  2  Days  17-20  through  interval  duration  classical  groups.  i n  effort  facilitate  20 was 30  every an  to  were  to  UCS  If  for  occurring  s t i l l  made.  terminated  of  period  groups  presented  was  tone  conditioning  increased  simultaneously.  shock  The  CS  i f  (1967).  and  the  from  i n t e r - t r i a l  conditioning  group  group.  three  was  during  onset.  same  conditioning  a l l  and  The  as  the  conditioning  consisted  shock  control  from  1  and as  Hake  CS  However,  ceased  UCR.  target  acquisition  onset  was  a  and  classified  classical  tone  change  UCS  as  UCS,  used.  noise  was  after  Avoidance  with  the  the  the  shock  were  CS  the  H u t c h i n s o n and  apparatus,  bite  interval  Ss  the  for  presentation  that  Azrin,  not  were  and  CS,  classified  ditioning  shock  same  5-sec  as  200 msec  16  of  procedure  during  schedule rat  that  put  in  sec,  sec  the  On  Day  during  CS  21 the  response  interval.  the  groups,  avoidance  the  to  on  lack Day  conditioning,  800 msec  avoidance  15-sec  of  an  and  s t i l l sec.  7  any  Due  Shock  and in  CS  CS  in  evidence  another 20  a l l  which  CS  terminated  duration  the  20  On Day  situation UCS  of  was  unless  and made  an  was  made,  was  presented  the  inter-  continuous,  avoidance  then  both again  CS 5  and sec  14  after  CS  attempt escape  onset. at  any  sort  situation  restraining 5  Neither  min.  If  of  was  put  the  these  changes  conditioning  apparatus, JS b i t  of  into  and  effect  the  target  was  CS  any  made.  for  and  once,  had  a l l  On Day Ss.  UCS w e r e  both  CS  effect,  and  so  22  a  a  one  E a c h J5 w a s  presented UCS  last t r i a l  put  in  the  continuously  ceased  and  the  for  j3_ w a s  removed.  Some effects  additional  of  prior  experience  Scientific  Prototype  of  duration  ,85-sec  presentations. the  paired  placed a  i n  rubber  situations  Six  the  exact  doll  with  chamber  i n  every  7  naive  _Ss,  situation.  instead  of  examined  shock. pairs  sec.  On D a y  same  were  On Day  and  Each  each  situation another  order  2 3 jj_s  presented  session  introduced 24  i n  at  this  on  Day  23  investigate  were  with  point the  placed  a  consisted  S_ i n c l u d i n g  as  to  200v  of  25  were six  except  the  foot-shock shock  also  put  naive  the  i n  the  in  Ss,  was  opponent  was  rat.  Results. Classical from  both  between number for  a l l  and  only  5-sec was Fig. the  conditioning  the of  Ss. 28  erratic  and  groups  avoidance  were  On D a y  1 when  responses  ranged  from  zero  made  i n  A l l  responses  bites  out  after  the  of  were  a  total  CS.  groups.  presents  the  total  responses  immediately  that after  of  On Day  a l l  occurred the  UCS.  of  the  167 2  Inter-  number  conditioning.  grouped,  groups.  for  total  period  two  bite  period  1  conditioning  because CS w a s  to  the were  23  with  f i r s t  As  can  the be  mean of  during, began  or  and  CS, seen  by  a l l  UCS,  or  in  Fig.  results  of  distinction  alone,  the  of  bites  the  v a r i a b i l i t y  r e s p o n s e s , made  during  a  half  made  intra-S  lack  presented  conditioning and  of  The  six ?-hr  within  the  responding was  extreme.  £>s e a c h within 1,  session,  the  day,  the  and  5-sec  percentage  15  Insert  of  responses  that  total  response of  Ss  made  responses  pattern  not  near  the  made  and  the  responding  Figure  on  shock  was  also  J>s  did  not  respond  lack any  of  avoidance  the  5-min  Fig.  3  erratic. on  presents  the  Day  1  shock daily  the  inter-  extreme Day j5s  as  3, made  of  and  188 at  on  responses  of  shock  25  Ss  Day  4, one  Day in  conditioning.  1  and  zero  bite to  the None  same of  233  10  times  period  but 9,  of  changes  on  of  i n  the  was  Fig.  the  erratic  the  2,  fact  number  this  at  Ss  least and  at  responding. did  not  These  once. the  end  On Day  22,  escape  four  Four  &s  the  shock.  were  not  Fig.  3  here  some  responses  22.  the  not  i n d i v i d u a l response  response,  Day  seen  presented,  f o u r J5s.  about  to  interest  response  was  session,  3  virtue  demonstrates  Of  be  by  here  were  of  only  also  a bite  no  Figure  responded  1  can  about  responses  of  As  S^ m a d e  escape  examples  S^ 1 8  least from  2  intra-S_ v a r i a b i l i t y  cases.  responses 1186  extreme  but  conditioning.  when 15  Fig.  day.  Every  Insert  selected  of  one  here  increased,  Figure  conditioning,  continuous  about  decreased.  Insert  result  1  extent,  on on  Day  several  S^ 8 m a d e the  time.  2,  but  one  introduced at  there  made  26  a  hand,  were  total made  days. of a  more  on A l l  seven total  S^ s h o w e d  any  any  appeared  time  shows  many  responses  subsequent  only  other Not  patterns.  of  evidence to  16  facilitate  conditioning.  classical  conditioning  Paired with  either  rubber jSs  11  fought the  pair  33%  of  Bays 23, be  live  the  the  in  high.  A l l  with  every  to  be  Table  I.  and  the  more  approach  aggressive  of  dominance,  rubber  doll,  the  rat  paired  with  in  some  no  signs  than of  i n  in  rate  above a  to  others.  dominance.  in  The  the  be  pairs  It  one  session  jS_ w a s  the  be  a  in  rat  the  at the  a  pairs.  100%.  They  13  14  and  were  response  to  situation,  i n  pairs,  Day  Day  24.  As  live  rat  situation  least  50%  13  did,  pairs  it  can  of  the  was  68%.  indicated other  posture.  the a l l  was  more  pair, I  to  be  pairs  that  11 in  down  this  making  and six  most  then  showed  clearly  Ss  i n  one  When  defensive,  Not  Table  as  the  S^ s e e m e d  j5_ o n  responding in  pairs  knocking  one  other  seen  to  for  fighting  and  target,  extreme  in  fighting  paired  here  dominant.  that  high  can  fighting  about  as it  with  said  I  response  dominance  defined  in  of  Table  of  in  of  the  situation.  when  conditioning  the  mean  in  the  fought  on  attack  responses,  and  only  SS  of  The  times  rate,  rate  indications  several  most  the  fought  positioned  two  presented.  i n  either  inanimate  to  pair  was  the  They  Responding  an  once  fighting  was  i n  conditioning  least  with  highest  rate.  one  Dominance  remaining  occurred of  some  or  at  comprised  that  obtained  unrelated  Insert  were  not  avoidance  rat,  the  shock  responding  but  the  3  fighting  rate  I,  presented.  There  Fig.  presented.  the  Table  in  was  S_responded  another  pair  to  appears to  Ss  lowest  shocks  also  seen  four  were  with  2-21,  shocks  The  or  Every  target,  response  the  and  was  a  12  in  situation  aggression.  doll. and  Conditioning  the  signs  indicated 12, of  showed nine.  17  cases doll  of at  exhibited a  higher  A l l no  most  of  rate  attempts.  the  time,  assumed  an  other.  The  posture  described  pair _S,  strike  did  an  bite  exceptionally her  hand  In  was  also  the  the  only  and  but  made  for  as  to  no  shock  Several  of  attempts. shock.  As  escape  attempts.  a  after  time but  did  naive  Two  of  far  third  as  not Ss  the pair  the  a  did  the  S  for  fighting  not  group grid  hop  about  spent  a  large  naive  fought  in  knows  response  the  the  did  as  the  present  shock  another  of  not 50%  fighting  not  sqteak  slight  jump  session  fight of  in  One  an 15  put  S^  was rat. as  was  the pre-  posture, as  loudly  in  response  experimental the  other  This  shock  i n  the often  sessions.  with  the  when  when  a  to  position  a  of  S[ w a s  loudly  gave  did  same  before  each  opponent.  manner  portion  pairs  to  same  pairs  much  the  rats  fighting  the  while  They as  daily  in  at  £>s w o u l d  bit  were  position  both  member back  This  chamber  squeaked  naive  his  sparring  respond  floor  The  blood.  posture  i f  motions  either  turned  the  sparring  attack  Although  a  rubber  There  stereotyped  actually  drew  assuming  shock.  author  If  occur.  and  the  three  (1962).  experimental  latter  about  ear  an  striking the  rarely  remove  the  pairs  The  the  The  to  to  upright  labeled  and  the  presentation.  as  position  they  the  and made  S_ a t t a c k e d  S.  shock  in  only  Azrin  often  assume i n  naive  hopped  long  the  J3 t o  jSs.  the  cage  every  was  likely  rat,  placed  three  experimental sented  home  and  bared,  on  to  recognized  upright  teeth  dominant  non-dominant  position  easily  less  the  remained  response  the  nervous  the  pairs  Ulrich  was  pairs,  response  was  partner  when  The  of  their  his  a  in  did  sparring  by  attack  with  delivered  and  position  out  in Most  upright  dropped  then  than  squeaked  Ss  escape  dominance  i n  or  Ss. escape  response  the  25  shocks  experiment  is  the  to  the  presented.  first  18  reported  time  restrained with  both  forepaws  Bites  were  arms,  feet,  least  once.  the  a  these  a  pair  the  At  with  limited  to  one  and  mean 4%  the  four not  both  other  and mouth.  56%. for  naive  attack  Ss  the  of  Ss  attacked  the  doll.  S^ a t t a c k e d  the  doll  for  making  doll  the  attacked each  of  their  not  fight  doll.  The  Ss  25  times,  in  contact  bite  but  the i t  an  doll  the  was  a  at  the  a  member  doll  chamber.  on  experimental doll  the  quite  made  attacked  un-  with  about  were  the  the doll  at  was  Ss  higher of.  face,  22.72%,  rate  Both  than  of  pair.  when two  paired  with  another did  naive  j3s  that  the  doll  6  O n e j>_ a t t a c k e d 5  object  and moving  the  that  member  rubber  as  j3_ w o u l d  teeth  attack  did  inanimate  experimental  pair  that  the  its  Two  dominant  times  A l l  of  an  defined  area  hair. rate  to  fighting  Sis w e r e  did  was  up  The of  attacked  it  dress,  of  The also  not  have Attack  picking  range  rate  rats  situation.  vigorously,  with  that  rat  fight  times,  in  24%,  and  20%.  Discussion The  v a r i a b i l i t y  completely  exhibited  unexpected.  The  v a r i a b i l i t y  has  been  well  in  has  been  the  the  not  at  past the One  was  that  (1966) 80  db  The in  a  the  successfully  for  as  CS,  the  comparable  not  occasional that  present way  intense  conditioned  after  to  present  occurrence  explanation  CS w a s  the  documented  proportions  possible  tone  CS  high  in  failing  as  for  inter-  £>_ t h a t  the  did i n  lack  enough.  of  obtain was  with  a  that  present  Hitzing  used  by  reported  a l l ,  but  experiment. conditioning Schaeffer  i n  rats  with  with  a  db  could  Creer  at  and  fighting  that  Also  respond  conditioning  noise  not  intra-subject  classical  Creer,  was  earlier.  not  the  shock-elicited to  and  discussed  occurred  experiment compare  of  experiment  not  et^ a l .  40 be  an tone.  measured (1966).  19  The possibly a  failure come  necessary  to  under  condition the  condition  same  for  avoidance  in  explanation.  conditioning  the  present  Perhaps  in  the  a  experiment  more  intense  shock-elicited  could GS  is  fighting  situation. Brush to  avoid  made  an  (1966)  shock  in  The  aversiveness  a  has  then  of  i t  never  sessions,  restrained, et have  never  restrained  aversive rat  animate  of  enough has  that  restraint  bites  In  social  a  an  situation  until rats  rats  before  fewer  the  In  1966;  than  rats 10  the  with  an  present  restraint  occurred  attack  against  one  inanimate  the  present  in  Ulrich  target  experiment.  a  object,  experiment  piece i t  to of  w i l l  a l l  Ss  et  make  metal. also bit  i n  i t  was  et  a l . each  (1968) of  two  60-min when  e t a l . , d . , in  1965.;  1969). an  un-  the  situation Possibly,  attack the  a l . ,  shock  Perhaps the  the  animals,  three  (Azrin  of  presented  Monkeys,  inanimate  combine  are  Azrin  presented  attack  to  measure  as  bites  and  a  paired  Ss,  never  aversive  any  ever  1968;  an  before  criterion  a l . ,  14%  others.  shocks  shock  is  learned  Hutchinson et  before  situation  with  i n  indeed  sessions.  the  e l i c i t  is  72%  difficult  i t s e l f  four  prior  and  than  required  tc  shock  more  i n  occurred  reached  reported to  a l . , occur  attack  Hutchinson et  been  is  only  non^-learners  is  situations  that  that  Six  bite  attacked  objects.  some  rats,  the  avoidance  et  other  to  in  Of  (Azrin  sessions  situation  aversiveness  situation.  222  situation  a.restrained  1967;  of  response  noteworthy  six  sample  attack  situation..  also  a l . ,  or  or  a  an  sessions. and  of  Perhaps  exists  reported  In  successive  the  the  adaptation  Azrin  subjects  biting  is  been  delivered.  Rats  a  restrained  gave  response.  some  If  that  shuttlebox  possibility  situation.  in  a  avoidance  condition  1968)  in  found  other  metal  once i n -  target  20  in a  the  restrained  rubber  doll  Prior  in  rats.  a  history  any  group  (1965) Creer age  of  felt  10  that  of  rats  rats  unrestrained with  and  that  been  had  at  a  no  prior  opportunity  the  shock  they  did  in  attack  aggression  i n  at  a l l  in  response  have  from  one  target rate  to  group  present  of  paired  The  rate  or  not  12  to  100% of  of  rats  and,  was  in  22  to  S_. 1 2  Day  21,  the  shocks  that  after  was  the  any  attacked  rats  same  in  pair  the  same  shock  than the  Powell age.  not  bite  S_ 12  was  It  history  target  did  the a  with  in  restraining  presentations,  shock  the  response but  rate  inanimate  be  pairs  paired  member  would  The  aggression  situation, on  of  aggression  than  attack  effect  three  level  experience  could  and  situation.  later  than  a l .  A l l  same the  pairs  with  vigorously  but  that  to  object  delivered.  in  part,  in  animals  Hutchinson et  prior  l i t t l e  did  more  inanimate  that  the  that  fighting  put  fighting  shock-elicited  target  example but  when  had  and  about  debilitating  have  found  indicates  the  found  was  at  paired  i n  in  For  the  Ss  affect  important  fought  level  inanimate  seems  a l l  date.  important more  days  (1969)  to  (1965)  that  the  experiment  restrained  found  experiment  fight  present  pairs..  Day  to  to an  experience  Creer  day  frequently  rats  much h i g h e r  and  the  more  occurred for  been Azrin  _S p l a y e d  present  shocked  without  the  of  have  Powell  In  and  50-day-old  situation.  aggression.  has  experience  The  not  fought  age  that  30  need  the  shock  laboratory  their  subsequent  situation.  in the  20,  a  fought  found  had  situation  on  fighting  sessions.  aggression rats  of  that  groups,  and  Hutchinson, Ulrich  (1969)  after  an  experience  paired long  situation,  of  whether of target  fought  interesting  device  to  without  examine,  .to the  their  aggression.  of  tes.ponding  in  the  restrained  situation  seemed  unrelated  21  to  the  bite  rate  the  response to  the  of  attack  against  metal  target  from  to  36%  metal  of  target  shocks  delivered.  once.  It  dominant be  seen  i n  not  fight  did  fight done  target  as  on  in a  prior  in  the  the i n  Rubin  Hutchinson  and  their  conditioning (Azrin  et  a l . ,  conditioning present in  a  have  of  particular paired  using  1967; any  Creer sort  aggression  and  six  ^3s of  than  the  the  attacked  the  that  four  doll.  The  doll.  An  group  at  a metal  situation it.  a l . , 21  j3 of  4% o f  least the  did.  can  the  This naive  naive  as  Ss  Ss  _Ss  experiment  experience  a metal  at  the  dominance,  two  rate  i n  response  doll  that  should  i n  a  d o l l -  with  target,  and  to  be  has,  as  since  their  classical  yet,  paper and  shock-elicited  1966). of  metal  the  seems  There  other  the  target  situations  shock-elicited  doll-target  only  of  not  doll  of  aggression  Both  days  effect  same  with  suspected.  in  the  with  the  did  as  Ss  situation.  with  with  cases  non-dominant  see  though  of  a l l  nine  S_ 1 4  rate to  the  pairs  high  response  the  a  attacked  i n  rubber  i f  example,  f a i r l y  interesting  paired  et  and  5  the  situation,  after  Even  was  doll  For  attacked  obtained  category  interest  the  i n  that  work  been  a  shock-elicited  (1968)  experiment.  different  to  situation  pilot  had  in  both  the  other  published  S_ 1 1  attack  fight  only  a l l  21  more  restrained  from  design  or  would  Day  also  experience  different  research  was  also  restrained  and  that  doll.  to  experienced  doll  It  pair,  experience  The  25  pairs  situation  experience with  The  I.  10  attacked  interesting  Table  Day  rubber  shocks.  and  J3 a t t a c k e d  did  be  is  the  a  There CS  and  target  experience  aggression.  than  been  Azrin,  no  other  presenting  the  avoidance attack  was  no  UCS  pairings  situations  evidence  situation  aggression  more  i n  of the  appears  situations,  to  be  of  in  this  situation  Naive  rats  showed  had  much  on  22  lower had  rates  been  of  attack  restrained  in  and  both  of  shocked  the with  latter a metal  situations target  than  present.  rats  that  23  References Azrin,  N.  H . ,  aggression of  Hake, by  Behavior,  Azrin,  N.  H . ,  behavior Journal Azrin,  N.  1965,  and  blow.  Hutchinson, by  a  Journal  Journal  R.  R. of  R.  of  R.  R.  E l i c i t a t i o n  the  Experimental  Conditioning  fixed-interval  Experimental  H . , Hutchinson,  aggression.  Hutchinson,  of Analysis  55-57.  8,  pigeons the  F . ,  physical  and  of of  a  D.  Analysis R.,  the  and  of  schedule  of  of  Behavior,  Hake,  Experimental  D.  F.  the  aggressive  reinforcement.  1967,  395-402.  JLO,  Extinction-induced  Analysis  of  Behavior,  1966,  j?,  191-204. Azrin,  N.  escape of  H . , Hutchinson, reactions  Behavior,  Azrin,  N.  toward  in  inanimate  N.  196.4,  Behavior,  learn Creer,  R. to T.  of  T.  F.  W.  On  avoid L.  L. ,  reflexive  Gentry,  to  1_,  D.  A  Hake,  shock.  D.  F.  Journal  Attack,  of  the  avoidance,  Experimental  and Analysis  R.  R.,  and  Sallery,  Journal of  the  R.  D.  Pain-aggression  Experimental  Analysis  of  223-228. H.  11_, the  and  131-148.  3.,  aversive  1968,  Unpublished Creer,  10,  objects.  H . , Rubin,  response  Brush,  1967,  R.,  aversive  H . , Hutchinson,  Behavior, Azrin,  to  R,  and  Hutchinson,  shock.  R.  J o u r n a l of  R.  the  Biting  attack  Experimental  by  rats  Analysis  of  633-639. differences  electric study  of  shock. 3  between  Psychonomic  problems  doctoral  dissertation,  Hitzing,  E.  fighting. Fixed-ratio  W.,  and  animals  related Florida  Shaeffer,  Psychonomic  learn  Science,  to  R.  and  1966,  5^,  shock-elicited  State  Science,  schedule-induced  that  W.  1966,  _4,  aggression.  not  123-124.  aggression.  University, Classical  do  1967. conditioning  89-90. Journal of  the  24  Experimental Hutchinson,  Analysis R. ,  R.  of  Azrin,  intensity  and d u r a t i o n  monkeys.  Journal  of  Behavior,  1968, 11,  N . H . , and Renfrew, on the frequency  the Experimental  of  813-817. J . W.  Effects  biting  Analysis  attack  of  of  by  shock  squirrel  Behavior,  1968,  11,  83-88.  Hutchinson, related and  R.  R., Ulrich,  factors  D. A . ,  Comparative Rescorla,  R.  New  B.  variables  A..  F.  York:  T.  1965,  L.  Pavlovian Review,  1967,  The behavior  of  of  of  developmental  1969, 69,  and i t s  organisms:  R,  E.  Unpublished  study,  Ulrich,  R.  E .  Interaction  between  of  Journal  age and Comparative  and  Journal  of  219-225.  proper  control  procedures.  71-80.  Appleton-Century-Crofts,  Journal  of  aggression.  Psychology,  74,  Effects  365-369.  Interaction  Ulrich,  escape.  59,  conditioning  N. H.  reaction.  i n shock-elicited  and P h y s i o l o g i c a l  Psychological Skinner,  Psychology,  and Creer,  environmental  E . , and A z r i n ,  on the pain-aggression  Physiological  Powell,  R.  an experimental  analysis.  1938.  1962, reflexive  the Experimental  fighting  Analysis  of  and  cooperative  Behavior,  1967,  10,  311-317. Ulrich,  R.  E . , and A z r i n ,  stimulation.  Journal  of  N. H.  Reflexive  fighting  the Experimental  i n response  Analysis  of  to  Behavior,  aversive 1 9 6 2 , j>,  511-520. Ulrich,  R.  E . , Hutchinson,  aggression. Ulrich,  R.  Psychological  E , , Wolfe,  aggression.  R.  Journal  R.,  and A z r i n ,  Record,  Pain-elicited  1965, JL5, 111-126.  M . , and Dulaney, of  N. H.  S.  the Experimental  Punishment Analysis  of  of  shock-induced  Behavior,  1969,  12,  25  1009-1015. Vernon,  W.,  and  aggression.  Ulrich, Science,  R.  E.  1966,  Classical 152,  conditioning  668-669.  of  pain-elicited  26  Table Percentage  of  attack  and  against  I responses a  in  pair  doll,  % of j3s in  J3 s h o w i n g  pair  % of  attack  A  B  responses  2  7  52  4  16  52  5  17  in  pair  signs  of  dominance  attack  responses against  doll  A  B  56  8  4  12  12  84  -  28  16  S  #2—dom  6  8  92  6  12  40  9  20  80  20  28  48  10  26  84  -  20  8  11  12  100  -  20  4  13  14  33  14  4  36  15  21  50  15  32  44  18  24  50  18  32  12  19  27  64  27  12  40  22  23  76  -  20  8  2  25  72  2  56  16  Naive pairs 1A  IB  0  -  0  0  2A  2B  0  -  0  0  3A  3B  50  -  24  20  1233  Figure 1  T o t a l responses and t o t a l responses near shock  650 600  :  T o t a l responses f o r a l l Ss  550  T o t a l responses w i t h i n a f t e r UCS f o r a l I Ss  5-sec  500 450. § 400 c  o.  1*350 *  +•  300.  o i— 250 200 150  100 50 •11 Days  12  13  1.4  15  1,6  1,7  1.8  1.9  20  21  Figure 2  T o t a l Ss not responding over d a i l y  sessions  co  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11 12 Days  13 14  15 16  17 18 19 20 21. 22 23 24 .  v  .  '  .  .  -  .  -  .  .  .  29  


Citation Scheme:


Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics



Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            async >
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:


Related Items