Classical Avoidance without a warning stimulus

White rats were scheduled to be shocked every 15 sec; but they were given a limited time interval between shocks when they could prevent the next scheduled shock from occurring if they pressed a lever. The duration of this limited avoidance period was varied, as was its location within the interval between scheduled shocks. Response rate, shock frequency, and the temporal distribution of lever presses were examined. Conditions were generated in which the formation of a temporal discrimination prevented the animals from maintaining successful avoidance behavior.     

Avoidance response rates during a pre-food stimulus in monkeys

Free-operant avoidance responding was maintained by a shock avoidance schedule in three monkeys. The frequency of avoidance responses during a stimulus terminated by response-independent food pellet presentation was dependent upon the method of pellet delivery. Avoidance rates were relatively increased when food retrieval responses followed pellet delivery. Avoidance rates were decreased when retrieval responses preceded pellet delivery.     

Avoidance conditioning as a function of appetitive stimulus pretraining: Response and stimulus transfer effects

Pretrained appetitive discriminative stimuli were used as warning signals in subsequent avoidance learning. In Expt 1 identical responses were required in pretraining and in avoidance learning. An appetitive S+ facilitated avoidance learning in rats in comparison to S? or a stimulus previously uncorrelated with food. In Expt 2, the type of response in pretraining and in avoidance learning was varied. Groups with homogeneous responses in the two situations replicated Expt 1 results, whereas groups with different responses in pretraining and avoidance learning failed to show an advantage when S+ served as warning; in the heterogeneous response groups, S? was as effective as S+. Inhibitory factors in the heterogeneous groups were discussed as an explanation for these results.     

Comparisons of stimulus learning and response learning in a punishment situation

These experiments use a procedure in which a rat is trained to make two topographically distinct responses on a single manipulandum, and then one of the responses is punished. Differential suppression of the punished response is taken as evidence of response learning, whereas the common suppression of both responses is attributed to stimulus learning or to general and nonassociative factors. Thus, this procedure begins the experimental separation of animals learning about the consequences of their behavior and animals learning what happens in a particular environment. A further separation is effected by using two such manipulanda; this procedure begins to distinguish between stimulus learning about the manipulandum and the more gereral factors that cause suppression. Some parameters affecting the relative importance of stimulus learning and response learning are examined.     

Aversive properties of the negative stimulus during learning with and without errors

In a successive discrimination four groups of pigeons were trained to discriminate between red and green. The groups differed with respect to the procedure used to introduce S?: Early-Progressive, Early-Constant, Late-Progressive, and Late-Constant. The aversive properties of S? were measured by an escape response in which a single peck at a second key terminated S? for 10 sec and darkened the chamber. The correlation between the aversive and error-producing properties of extinction was zero. More errors occurred when S? was introduced abruptly at a constant intensity while more timeouts from S? occurred when S? was introduced late. The procedure for introducing S? rather than the number of responses to S? appears crucial in determining how aversive S? becomes.     

Avoidance learning by Guinea pigs

Albino guinea pigs were trained in shuttle-boxes. Superior performances were achieved with longer CS-US (15 sec. against 5 sec.) and intertrial intervals (90 sec. against 30 sec.). There were no performance increments within sessions, but improvements in performance occurred between sessions. Consolidation mechanisms probably play an important part in avoidance learning by guinea pigs.     

Avoidance responding as a function of stimulus duration and relation to free shock

Response-independent pairings of a tone and a brief shock were superimposed on uncued avoidance responding in four groups of rhesus monkeys. For one group, tone presentations were immediately followed by an unavoidable electric shock; for the remaining groups, gaps of 5, 20, and 80 sec intervened between tone termination and shock delivery. These temporal values subsume paradigms usually treated as discrete procedures; the conditioned emotional response procedure (0-sec gap between tone and shock), trace procedure (5-sec gap) and safety-signal training (80-sec gap). Within each group, tone durations of 10, 20, 40, and 80 sec were examined. A response pattern marked by maximum response rate in the initial 5 sec of the tone followed by deceleration before shock was observed when shock immediately followed the tone, but not when gaps were interposed between the tone and shock. Response rates in the first 5 sec of the tone were a function of both tone duration and duration of the gap. When the gap was 0 to 5 sec, initial response rates were highest in longer duration tones; this relationship between tone duration and initial tone response rate was not observed for longer gaps.     

Learning to fear a second-order stimulus following vicarious learning

Vicarious fear learning refers to the acquisition of fear via observation of the fearful responses of others. The present study aims to extend current knowledge by exploring whether second-order vicarious fear learning can be demonstrated in children. That is, whether vicariously learnt fear responses for one stimulus can be elicited in a second stimulus associated with that initial stimulus. Results demonstrated that children's (5–11 years) fear responses for marsupials and caterpillars increased when they were seen with fearful faces compared to no faces. Additionally, the results indicated a second-order effect in which fear-related learning occurred for other animals seen together with the fear-paired animal, even though the animals were never observed with fearful faces themselves. Overall, the findings indicate that for children in this age group vicariously learnt fear-related responses for one stimulus can subsequently be observed for a second stimulus without it being experienced in a fear-related vicarious learning event. These findings may help to explain why some individuals do not recall involvement of a traumatic learning episode in the development of their fear of a specific stimulus.