The release of catecholamines by shocks and stimuli paired with shocks

One monkey and five baboons were surgically prepared so that heart rate and blood pressure could be monitored continuously, and an extra-corporeal blood path was established to detect the secretion of epinephrine (adrenaline) and norepinephrine (noradrenaline). A respondent conditioning procedure was used in which a tone was paired with electric shocks. Epinephrine, but not norepinephrine was released by shocks, and a corresponding release was demonstrated by the tone alone. Heart rate and blood pressure changes were also elicited by shocks and by the tone.     

Schedules using noxious stimuli. III. Responding maintained with response-produced electric shocks

Responding was maintained in two squirrel monkeys under several variations of a 10-min fixed-interval schedule of electric shock presentation. The monkeys were first trained under a 2-min variable-interval schedule of food presentation, and then under a concurrent schedule of food presentation and shock presentation. In one monkey, when shocks (12.6 ma) followed each response during the last minute of an 11-min cycle ending with a timeout period, responding was increased during the first 10 min and suppressed during the last minute of each cycle. When the shock schedule was eliminated, both the enhancement and suppression disappeared, and a steady rate of responding was maintained under the variable-interval schedule. When the food schedule was eliminated, the shock schedule maintained a characteristic fixed-interval pattern of responding during the first 10 min, but suppressed responding during the last minute of each cycle. The fixed-interval pattern of responding was maintained when the timeout period was eliminated and when only one shock could occur at the end of the cycle. In the second monkey, responding under the concurrent food and shock schedule was suppressed when responses produced shocks after 3-min. Under an 11-min cycle, responding continued to be maintained at increasing shock intensities. When the food schedule was eliminated, a fixed-interval pattern of responding was maintained under a 10-min schedule of shock presentation (12.6 ma). Whether response-produced electric shocks suppressed responding or maintained responding depended on the schedule of shock presentation.     

Persistent behavior maintained by unavoidable shocks

Squirrel monkeys were trained on a multiple schedule in which 10-min periods on a continuous shock avoidance schedule, indicated by a yellow light, alternated with 10-min periods on a 1.5-min variable interval schedule of food reinforcement (VI 1.5). A white light indicated that VI 1.5 was in effect, except for the middle 2 min of the period on VI 1.5, in which a blue light appeared and terminated with the delivery of a 0.5-sec unavoidable shock. Stable response rates developed in the avoidance and VI 1.5 components. However, the highest response rates occurred in the blue, preshock stimulus. A series of experiments showed that responding in the blue stimulus persisted even when responding had been extinguished on both the VI schedule of food reinforcement and the shock avoidance schedule. Responding in the blue stimulus ceased when the blue stimulus terminated without shock or when it terminated with a response-contingent shock. Each time responding ceased, it was restored by terminating the blue stimulus with an unavoidable shock. When the blue stimulus was on throughout each session and unavoidable shocks were delivered at regular 10-min intervals, responding was well maintained. These results show that in monkeys that have been trained on a continuous avoidance schedule, unavoidable shocks can maintain responding even under conditions where responses have no programmed consequences.     

Variable-interval escape from stimuli accompanied by shocks

Individual performances of three rats were examined under a procedure in which steady rates of bar pressing were maintained by conditioned aversive stimulation. Originally neutral visual and auditory stimuli were accompanied by widely and irregularly spaced pulses of shock; they were terminated on a variable-interval schedule by pressing a bar. The contingencies between behavior and shock were also duplicated in a control procedure in which no visual or auditory stimuli were provided. Pressing observed under the control procedure was attributed to differences in the aversiveness of pressing and nonpressing behavior engendered by differences in the incidence of shock following the two classes of behavior. Increased rates with visual and auditory stimuli were attributed to termination of conditioned aversive stimulation. Control rates declined more rapidly than did experimental rates as the mean interval between successive shocks was lengthened; both rates tended to decline when less than 60 sec was allowed as time out from shocks following the successful response. In the control procedure, discrimination between the continuation and discontinuation of the shock series, as measured by relative rates, depended on the relative length of the interval between shocks and the time-out period. Regular warm-up accelerations in rate were noted following an initial delay in responding at the beginning of each session. The length of time required for the warm-up depended on the length of the mean interval between shocks, indicating that exposure to a certain amount of shock was required to establish a supporting state for the observed performance.     

Facilitation of discriminated lever-press avoidance by noncontingent shocks

Two experiments investigated the effect of presenting a brief noncontingent, unsignaled shock prior to warning-signal onset on discriminated lever-press avoidance behavior in rats. The main finding was that noncontingent shock delivered 2 sec but not 16 sec prior to warning-signal onset facilitated avoidance performance and learning. These results were predicted on the basis of shock-elicited response bursting which was expected to increase the operant level of the lever-press response at short shock-warning signal intervals. It was suggested that species-specific limitations on rats' lever-press avoidance are not unconditional, but rather can be overcome with environmental manipulations.     

Concurrent avoidance of shocks by pigeons pecking a key

Three pigeons were studied on concurrent, unsignaled, avoidance schedules in a two-key procedure. Shock-shock intervals were two seconds in both schedules. The response-shock interval on one key was always 22 seconds, while the response-shock interval associated with the other key was varied from 7 to 52 seconds in different experimental conditions. Response rates on the key associated with the varied schedule tended to decrease when the response-shock interval length was increased. Responding on the key associated with the constant schedule was not systematically affected.     

Integrating turnover reasons and shocks with turnover decision processes

We interviewed and classified 186 quitters from many jobs and organizations via a theoretically-based protocol into five decision process types. We then tested exploratory hypotheses comparing users of these types on their propensity to report certain turnover reasons and turnover shocks. “Impulsive-type quitters,” with neither a job offer in hand nor turnover plan when they quit, reported poor management, work stress, and family demands as frequent turnover reasons, with manager conflicts and family events as frequent shocks. “Comparison quitters,” who had a job offer in hand and no plan, reported pay and advancement opportunities as top reasons with information about an alternative job being the most frequent shock. “Preplanned quitters,” who had a definite plan to quit well in advance, reported relocation and life/career changes as frequent reasons, with increasing family demand, relocation, and school starting as frequent shocks. “Satisficing quitters,” who made a plan conditional on getting an acceptable job offer, reported pay, poor management, work responsibilities, and work schedules as frequent reasons. Implications of these and other findings are discussed.     

The buffering effects of job embeddedness on negative shocks

Unpleasant events are a fact of organizational life. The way in which people respond to such events, however, varies. In the present study, we hypothesized and found that some individuals choose to respond to negative events in ways that helped the organization. Instead of withdrawing in an attempt to “get even” by reducing work outputs, these individuals improved their in-role and extra-role performance. The study examined the role that job embeddedness plays in creating this work enhancement reaction. Specifically, we discovered that on-the-job embeddedness helps reduce the impact of negative shocks on organizational citizenship and overall job performance. The findings of this study have important implications for both theory and practice.     

Feedback during exposure to inescapable shocks and subsequent shock-escape performance

In two experiments, we assessed the ability of a feedback stimulus during helplessness training to reduce the performance deficits common to inescapable shock. In each experiment, four groups of rats were exposed to either escapable shock (E), inescapable shock with a feedback stimulus following shock termination (Y-FS), inescapable shock with no feedback stimulus (Y-NFS), or no shock (N). The feedback stimulus eliminated the interference effects of inescapable shock when tested with an FR-3 lever press escape task (Experiment 1) or on an FR-1 task with a 3-s delay between the response and shock termination (Experiment 2). These results suggest that stress-induced biochemical changes may mediate the interference effects seen in inescapably shocked rats.     

Group aversion by imaginal, vicarious and shared recipient-observer shocks

Sixty college students completed waiting control or alternative group aversion conditions, matched for severity and chronicity of nail-biting. Treatments spanned four sessions. Imaginai aversion (covert sensitization) clients visualized shocks to themselves. Vicarious aversion clients observed shocks to a trained model. A ‘hotseat’ format randomized a few actual shocks to each client with observing peers shocked on remaining trials. The predominant pattern of outcome and subjective impact results was as follows: Hotseat consistently best; vicarious typically second; imaginal usually third; controls worst. Clinical and conceptual issues are raised.     

Algebraic models for integration of painful and nonpainful electric shocks

Subjects rated the average intensity of two sequentially presented electric shocks, which were either painful (intensity range from 1 to 4 mA, Experiment 1) or nonpainful (intensity range from .6 to .9 mA). In both experiments, stimuli were presented in a 4 by 4 factorial design to allow tests of algebraic models of the integration process under analysis of variance (Anderson, 1970, 1974). Both sets of data were fit by the equation R_{i j}=w₁s₁+w₂+s₂, (w₁+w₂=1), where R_{i j}is the rating scale response, s₁ and s₂ the scale values for the first and second stimuli, respectively, and w₁ and w₂ associated weights. When stimuli were painful, w₁=w₂, and when stimuli were nonpainful, w₁< w₂. Subjective scale values as a function of stimulus intensity appear to increase nonlinearly for painful stimuli and linearly for nonpainful stimuli. Some implications of the results for pain research are discussed.