Reflexive fighting in response to aversive stimulation

Reflexive fighting was elicited between paired rats as a reflex reaction to electric shock prior to any specific conditioning. Such fighting was fairly stereotyped and easily differentiated from the rats' usual behavior. The strength of this reflex was not attributable to any apparent operant reinforcement. Elicitation of fighting was a direct function of the enclosed floor area and a nonmonotonic function of the shock intensity.

Failure to scramble the polarity of the electrified grid produced inconsistent fighting. Under optimal conditions fighting was consistently elicited by shock regardless of the rat's sex, strain, previous familiarity with each other, or the number present during shock. Repeated shock presentations did not produce an appreciable decrease in fighting until signs of physical debility appeared. Although shock did not cause a rat to attack inanimate objects, it did produce attack movements toward other small animals. Failure of guinea pigs to defend themselves revealed that the elicitation of fighting from the rat does not require reciprocal attack. Paired hamsters showed fighting reactions similar to those of the rats, whereas guinea pigs failed to fight. Electrode shock and a heated floor elicited fighting between the rats, but intense noise and a cooled floor did not.

     

Sex,strain, and housing: Variables influencing the effects of prior shock exposure on shock-induced aggression

A series of experiments was conducted to investigate sex, housing conditions, and strain as possible factors influencing the interference effect of prior exposure to shock on shock-induced aggression. In albino subjects, female rats and rats housed in community cages evidenced the greatest suppression in aggression following prior exposure to shock. In addition, ten sessions of prior exposure to shock produced a greater suppression in shock-induced fighting than 20 sessions of prior exposure to shock. The prior shock effect was not obtained with hooded subjects. Responsivity to shock was also investigated to determine whether the prior exposure to shock attenuation of shock-induced fighting was a consequence of reduced activity in response to shock. Responsivity to shock measured with an isometric platform accounted for less than 4% of the variance in shock-induced fighting in the single experiment that obtained a correlation between responsivity and shock-induced aggression.     

Shock source and intensity: Variables in shock-induced fighting

Alternating current, direct current, and rectified alternating current shock were compared at four shock intensities to assess differential influences on shock-induced fighting in rats. At higher shock intensities, the data paralleled the Campbell and Masterson (1969) equal aversion function, but at lower shock intensities, differences among shock types with respect to frequencies of shock-induced fighting were obtained. These results suggested that, at lower shock intensities, shock type is a variable in shock-induced aggression research with rats.     

Shock-induced aggression as a function of prior experience with avoidance, fighting, or unavoidable shock

Rats were trained in shock-induced aggression, free operant avoidance, or were presented with unavoidable shocks. Fighting in response to shock was subsequently measured by intermatching individual animals that had received the three training procedures. The fighting probabilities of animals with histories of avoidance and dominant animals with histories of fighting were higher than the fighting probabilities of non-dominant fighting rats or rats with a history of unavoidable shocks. Animals with higher fighting probabilities disrupted avoidance baselines more than animals with lower fighting probabilities. Control experiments suggested that fighting decrements produced by administration of prior grid-shock were due to the acquisition of behaviors incompatible with aggression.     

Effects of post-trial administration of naloxone and beta-endorphin on shock-induced fighting in rats

To study the involvement of endogenous opioid peptides in the development of shock-induced fighting, naloxone (2 mg/kg) or beta-endorphin (10 micrograms/kg) was administered subcutaneously immediately after the session and during nine consecutive daily sessions to rats repeatedly exposed to electric shocks. beta-Endorphin blocked the development of shock-induced fighting while naloxone facilitated it but only when shock-induced fighting occurred at a low rate. The effects of beta-endorphin were time dependent since when beta-endorphin was injected 90 min after the shock session instead of immediately after, its impairing effect disappeared. In addition, naloxone blocked the impairment produced by beta-endorphin. Differential postsession treatment of each member of pairs of rats with naloxone and beta-endorphin resulted in a higher probability of rats treated with naloxone to be dominant over rats treated with beta-endorphin in the test situation. These results are discussed in relation with the possible involvement of endogenous opioids in the modulation of the physiological consequences of defensive behavioral responses to shock.     

Effect of shock duration on shock-induced fighting

Shock-induced fighting between paired rats was a direct function of the duration of the shock stimulus. Continued presentations of the shock partially reversed this direct relationship.     

Some effects of punishment on pain-elicited aggression

Painful mechanical tail-pinch elicited aggressive responses in paired rats; response-contingent electric shock to either forepaws or hindpaws suppressed fighting and stereotyped aggressive postures, including those in which dominance was expressed. There was no evidence that aggression was facilitated by shock that was contingent on pain-elicited aggressive responses. Aggressive responding recovered when shock was discontinued.     

Punishment of irritable aggression

In a series of three experiments using a restrained target procedure the influence of shock punishment of shock-induced aggression in rats was assessed. Regardless of prior experience with shock-induced aggression, punishment resulted in a suppression of the frequency and total duration of the fighting behavior. In addition, possible alternative explanations that have clouded studies of punishment of irritable aggression were ruled out by demonstrating that the suppression was not a consequence of altered parameters of shock frequency and duration.     

Spontaneously hypertensive Wistar-derived male rats are more aggressive than those of their normotensive progenitor strain

We compared a group of spontaneously hypertensive rats (SHRs) to a group of Wistar-Kyoto (WKY) rats on each of the three most commonly studied forms of aggressive behavior in rats: muricide, intraspecific aggression, and shock-induced fighting (SIF). A significantly higher proportion of SHRs were muricidal; they also fought more at the lowest shock level. A trend for a higher incidence of intraspecific offense behaviors by SHRs was not significant. SHR flinch and jump thresholds were lower than the respective WKY thresholds. Although there were no significant correlations between shock thresholds and any aspects of SIF, the possibility that strain differences in shock sensitivity may contribute to differences in SIF cannot be ruled out. Within strains, there were no correlations among the different forms of aggression. Several different inherited characteristics may be associated with the accentuation of different forms of aggression in SHRs.     

Alterations in shock-induced fighting and locomotor activity following intracerebroventricular injection of hydrocortisone in the rat

Three experiments were conducted in an attempt to clarify the facilitatory influence of hydrocortisone on shock-induced fighting in rats. Results of the first experiment indicated a biphasic, dose-dependent action of intraventricularly-administered hydrocortisone. Low (25 μg) and intermediate (50 μg) doses both facilitated fighting whilst the high (100 μg) dose exerted a potent suppressant effect. Two control tests were performed to determine whether alterations in pain reactivity or locomotor activity could have accounted for the observed changes in fighting behaviour. None of the treatments altered shock thresholds (Experiment 2) but whilst neither low nor intermediate doses affected activity measures, the high dose preferentially reduced vertical activity (Experiment 3).     

Interaction between reflexive fighting and cooperative escape

Subjects separated by a Plexiglas partition were trained to follow a cooperative escape procedure which produced behavior like the escape responding of individual subjects. Removal of the partition produced fighting and less efficient escape. Efficient escape behavior was restored and fighting disappeared when the partition was replaced. Neither increased space nor a moving toy affected escape behavior. The results indicate that switching animals from an isolated to a social situation produced a change in the effect of shock upon escape which was related to shock-induced fighting.     

Shock preexposure and the reduced effectiveness of shock

In three experiments experience with shock was shown to reduce the effectiveness of shock as a reinforcer or motivator. In Experiment 1 rats were given signaled shock in a box separate from the runway where they were subsequently punished. These rats were less suppressed by shock punishment than rats that had no previous shock experience. In Experiment 2 preshocked rats were less suppressed by punishment and were slower to learn an escape-avoidance response than nonpreshocked rats, whether the preshock was signaled or unsignaled. In Experiment 3 as number of CS-shock pairings increased, fear of the CS decreased as did fear of the context. These results suggest that some central adaptation process produced by experience with shock reduces the effectiveness of shock as a reinforcer whenever shock is used repeatedly. This is independent of other effects, such as context blocking, that can affect responding after shock preexposure.     

Play fighting between kindling-prone (FAST) and kindling-resistant (SLOW) rats

Differences in the play behavior of 2 strains of rats suggest that different components of play fighting can be modified independently. The development of play fighting in cross-strain pairs of familiar and unfamiliar rats was examined to determine whether interacting with a non-congruent pair-mate would alter the pattern of play typical for each strain. In both strains, changes in play fighting were observed throughout development, but partner identity appeared to influence play fighting in different ways depending on age. These data suggest that some components of play may be more impervious to changes in social environment than other components.     

Playful defensive responses in adult male rats depend on the status of the unfamiliar opponent

Adult male rats reared as pairmates from weaning were tested in a neutral arena with both members of another pair (one at a time). The unfamiliar pairs were found to engage in play fighting, although they were more likely to escalate the encounter into serious fighting than were pairs of familiar rats. Based on their within‐home pair behavior, each pairmate was designated as a dominant or a subordinate. When the test encounters between unfamiliar males were analyzed with regard to whether the pairings consisted of two dominants, two subordinates, or a mixed pair, the pattern of play fighting was found to be attenuated. Both dominants and subordinates were more likely to initiate playful encounters, to respond defensively during these encounters, and to do so using adult‐typical tactics of defense when paired with an unfamiliar rat that was dominant in its home cage. The mechanisms by which the home status of unfamiliar male rats can be identified by another male are discussed, particularly with regard to the role that play fighting may serve for this function. It is concluded that the data support the hypothesis that play fighting can be used by adult rats for social testing, which in this case seems to involve ascertaining the opponent's fighting capability. Aggr. Behav. 25:141–152, 1999. © 1999 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Pavlovian conditioning of shock-elicited aggression: a discrimination procedure

Two auditory stimuli, separated by a fixed intertrial interval, were alternately presented to two rats in a closed environment. The positive conditioned stimulus (CS+) terminated with the offset of a 2-mA, 0.75-sec shock. The negative conditioned stimulus (CS-) terminated without shock. The incidence of the "stereotyped fighting posture" was recorded during the CS+, the CS-, the intertrial interval, and shock. The results showed an increase in the percentage of conditioned responses during the CS+, and a decrease during both the CS- and the intertrial interval, when the duration of the conditioned stimuli and the intertrial interval was 16 sec. Appropriate changes in the incidence of aggression during the two stimuli were obtained following the reversal of the stimulus functions. During the acquisition and reversal phases there was a between-session decrement and a within-session improvement in the incidence of aggression during the CS+, defined as warm-up. The presentation of free shocks before the conditioning sessions was effective in reducing the warm-up only when the interval between shocks was 64 sec. These data were interpreted as demonstrating classical conditioning of shock-elicited aggression, with little chance of non-associative factors contributing to the measurement of the conditioned response.     

Target-biting behavior of individually and group-housed mice and rats

The effects of housing conditions (individual or grouped) on the biting of an inanimate target by confined male mice and rats were measured. It was observed that, for both mice and rats, individual housing markedly increased the number of target bites per session. These results indicate that the target-biting paradigm is sensitive to those factors responsible for the increase in fighting behavior following individual housing.     

Frequency of attack in shock-elicited aggression as a function of the performance of individual rats

Fighting rates between paired rats were investigated as a function of the probability of attack by a single animal. Animals from stable high-fighting and low-fighting frequency pairs were intermatched to detect individual high-fighting and low-fighting rats. Pairs of high-fighting animals then received saline or different chlorpromazine dosages during successive sessions. Finally, single high-fighting members of each pair also received the different drug dosages. The chief findings were that: (a) rats showing high fighting rates when matched against each other revealed low fighting rates when matched against one, but not the other member of a low-fighting pair; and (b) high-fighting rats decreased their fighting rates as their own or their opponent's chlorpromazine dosage increased. These results indicated that a low rate of fighting on the part of one rat results in a low fighting rate on the part of its opponent.     

Reevaluation of things past

The ability of rats to reevaluate previously presented information in light of subsequently provided information was evaluated using a CER (conditioned emotional response) procedure. In Experiment 1, rats suppressed responding to a compound light + tone stimulus that was repeatedly paired with shock. Groups of rats were then presented with only one element of the compound (the tone), either presented alone or paired with shock, for 15 days. During this 15-day period, two control groups received trials with the shock alone or neither stimulus nor shock. All of the rats were then tested with the other element of the compound (the light). Rats that had received the tone paired with shock during the intervening training continued to suppress to the light, whereas rats that had received the tone alone showed rapid extinction of the CER to light. The control groups showed that this effect was not due to the number of shock presentations received. A subsequent experiment also demonstrated that these results were not due to nonspecific stimulus effects. Apparently, a subsequent change in the associative strength of one element results in a similar change to the other element of a previously established compound stimulus.     

Reflexive fighting in the albino rat: Aggressive or defensive behavior?

Specific agonistic responses of albino rats were compared for dominant colony rats and intruders, and for rats in a “reflexive fighting” task. The “reflexive fighters” showed high levels of defensive responses such as boxing and freezing, and very low levels of aggressive behaviors such as piloerection, biting, and the lateral display. This pattern clearly suggests that the behaviors measured in the reflexive fighting task reflect conspecific defensive reactions, rather than “shockelicited aggression.” Moreover, striking responses seen in the reflexive fighting task also occur at a high rate when footshock is given to a solitary rat held in a boxing posture. Thus it appears that “reflexive fighting” primarily involves defensive rather than aggressive responses.     

Ethanol effects on shock-induced fighting and muricide by rats

Ethanol (0.25-1 gm/kg body weight; IP) did not significantly alter shock-induced fighting, regardless of whether it was administered to both rats or to only one rat of the pair. Higher doses tended to decrease shock-induced fighting. Ethanol (0.25-2 gm/kg body weight; IP) also did not induce “nonkiller” rats to kill mice and only high doses (1.5 and 2 gm/kg body weight) decreased the incidence of muricide in “killer” rats. The depressant effects of ethanol on both shock-induced fighting and muricide appeared to result from drug-induced ataxia rather than from a direct effect of ethanol on aggressive behavior.