Fear inhibition and species specific defense reaction termination may contribute independently to avoidance learning

A series of three experiments was conducted to test the proposal of Cicala and Owen (Learning and Motivation, 1976, 7, 356–367) that warning signal termination reinforces avoidance learning by permitting fear to dissipate and that a feedback signal reinforces avoidance learning through conditioned inhibition of fear. A CER procedure with a second-by-second analysis was used to measure fear elicitation and fear reduction following classical conditioning or avoidance training. The results show that a feedback signal produces rapid and marked fear reduction, suggesting an inhibitory process. Although warning signal termination produced fear reduction, the slowness of this process suggests fear dissipation and not an inhibitory process. The combination of both events reduced fear no more effectively than a feedback signal alone. It is suggested that warning signal termination is effective in some avoidance learning situations not because it reduces fear, but possibly because it helps terminate an avoidance response that closely resembles a species specific defense reaction.     

Acquisition and extinction of signaled avoidance as a function of intermittent reinforcement

Signaled, shuttle-box avoidance responding in female rats of the Fischer₃₄₄ strain was examined as a function of four separate contingencies of intermittent reinforcement. In Experiment 1, when avoidance responses during acquisition were reinforced 25% of the time with prompt CS termination, animals responded equally often during acquisition and significantly more often during extinction than animals who received such reinforcement on a 100% schedule. Similar results were found under a trace procedure in Experiment 2 when avoidance responses were reinforced 25% of the time with informational feedback stimuli. In contrast, during Experiment 3, when animals were shocked on only 25% of the trials on which they failed to respond, the level of avoidance responding during both acquisition and extinction was significantly less than it was when animals were shocked on a 100% schedule. Comparable results were found in Experiment 4 when avoidance responses during acquisition averted shock on only 25% of the trials. Thus, intermittent reinforcement contingencies involving response-contingent feedback stimuli and shock have differential effects on avoidance responding during both acquisition and extinction trials under the signaled avoidance procedure.     

Effects of naloxone on acquisition and extinction of jump-up avoidance behavior in rats

Two experiments were carried out to assess the effects of the opioid antagonist, naloxone, on the acquisition and extinction of shock avoidance by rats in the jump-up apparatus. In Experiment 1 naloxone pretreatment facilitated acquisition but had no effect on extinction of avoidance behavior. In the second experiment the effect of naloxone on acquisition was replicated and in addition, it was shown that naloxone enhanced freezing when a response prevention or flooding procedure was introduced. Again naloxone failed to alter the course of extinction, nor did it interact with the effects of flooding which, by itself, facilitated extinction. The results suggest that naloxone's effects are limited to increasing the functional intensity of the US, and provide further support for the dissociation between extinction of avoidance behavior and other indices of fear.     

Dissociative effects of different types and amounts of nonreinforced CS exposure on avoidance extinction and the CER

Two experiments examined the effectiveness of two amounts of flooding or response-prevention on hastening avoidance response extinction and on reducing CS-produced suppression of bar-pressing for food. In Experiment 1, 20 and 30 flooding trials were both shown to be effective in hastening the extinction of a well-learned shuttlebox avoidance response. In Experiment 2, rats trained under comparable conditions to those in Experiment 1 were tested following flooding for the CER in a different apparatus. The results indicated that 30, but not 20, flooding trials were sufficient to reduce the CER. In each experiment the results of additional control groups equated with the flooded groups for nonreinforced CS exposure also revealed a dissociation between the effectiveness of this CS time control procedure in hastening avoidance response extinction and in reducing the CER. Further comparisons showed that although 30 flooding trials did reduce the CER, the same total duration of nonreinforced CS Exposure in the form of avoidance extinction trials did not. Thus the context in which CS exposure occurs may affect the dynamics of extinction of the CER. The experiments are discussed in the broader context of dissociation of various indices of fear in humans.     

Transfer of approach responding between punishment and frustrative nonreward sustained through continuous reinforcement

A block of continuously reinforced nonpunished trials was interpolated between acquisition of a runway response with either partial reinforcement or intermittent punishment and subsequent tests for resistance of that response to the suppressive effects of either extinction or continuous punishment. As previous investigations have shown, both the partial reinforcement effect (PRE) and the intermittent punishment effect (IPE) were sustained through the block of continuously reinforced nonpunished trials. Furthermore, the increased resistance to extinction following intermittent punishment and the increased resistance to punishment following partial reinforcement were also sustained through the interpolated continuous reinforcement. These results support a hypothesized similarity of punishment and frustrative nonreward and were interpreted in an extension of Amsel's conditioning model theory of the role of nonreinforcement in the PRE.     

Reaction to punishment, reflectivity, and passive avoidance learning in extraverts

Passive avoidance learning occupies a central role in accounts of disinhibited behavior, ranging from psychopaths' persistent criminality (Hare 1970) to extraverts' gregariousness (Gray, 1972). To explore the mechanism underlying passive avoidance deficits, we assessed the relation of extraversion, neuroticism, and response latency after punishment to passive avoidance learning by using two successive go/no go discrimination tasks. The tasks were designed to examine two aspects of subjects' reactions to punishment: response speed on trials immediately following punishment (Experiment 1) and time to terminate punishment feedback between successive trials (i.e., reflectivity; Experiment 2). Consistent with previous findings, the results of Experiment 1 showed that extraverts commit more passive avoidance errors than introverts do (Newman, Widom, & Nathan, 1985) and fail to pause following punished errors (Nichols & Newman, 1986). In Experiment 2, only neurotic extraverts displayed this pattern of performance differences. In both experiments, longer pausing following punishment predicted better learning from punishment for both introverts and extraverts. These results suggest that, in the presence of salient cues for reward, extraverts' characteristic reaction to punishment interferes with processing punished errors and may contribute to their more general propensity for impulsive, nonreflective action.     

Punishment of an extinguishing shock-avoidance response by time-out from positive reinforcement

Two experiments were conducted to determine the effects of punishment by time-out from positive reinforcement on the extinction of discriminated shock-avoidance responding. Subjects were trained initially to bar press for food on an intermittent schedule of reinforcement and, concurrently, to avoid shock at the onset of a warning signal. Experiment I compared avoidance extinction performance under no punishment and when avoidance responding resulted in a 30-sec TO from reinforced appetitive responding. In Exp II, the contingent use of TO punishment was compared with its random, or noncontingent use. The results of both experiments showed that in the absence of punishment, avoidance extinction was characterized by short latencies and nearly 100% avoidance responding. Avoidance responding in extinction was little affected by noncontingent TO punishment. When TO was made contingent upon avoidance responding, however, avoidance latencies immediately increased and the frequency of avoidance responses subsequently decreased to zero.     

Determinants of fear over the course of avoidance learning

Most theorists have explained attenuation of fear over the course of avoidance learning by assuming that fear extinguishes with repeated nonreinforced avoidance trials. Experiment 1 replicates the finding that rats trained to a criterion of 27 consecutive avoidance responses (CARs) show less fear during the CS than rats trained to a criterion of 3 or 9 CARs. This attenuation of fear cannot, however, be accounted for by simple Pavlovian fear extinction, because yoked partners receiving the exact same pattern of CSs and USs did not show this attenuation and did not differ from yoked partners receiving only reinforced CS presentations. Experiment 2 found that feedback from the master avoidance learner's response is sufficient to produce this attenuation in yoked animals; “control” per se is not necessary. Several possible explanations are discussed regarding the mechanism underlying this role of feedback in diminishing fear of the CS in the avoidance learning context.     

Dissociation between conditioned emotional response and extended avoidance performance

The present experiments examined the dissociation between the strength of a shuttlebox avoidance response (AR) and one index of fear of the avoidance CS. Avoidance response strength was indexed by resistance to extinction of the AR and by changes in response latency, and fear of the CS was indexed by the conditioned emotional response (CER) technique. Experiments 1, 2A, and 3A all found that rats trained to a criterion of 27 consecutive avoidance responses (CARs) showed response strength comparable or superior to rats trained to a criterion of 9 CARs. Experiments 2B and 3A demonstrated that rats trained to 27 CARs showed less suppression of bar pressing during the avoidance CS (less CER) than rats trained to 9 CARs. Experiment 3A also found that, when extinguished in the shuttlebox to a moderate criterion (5 consecutive trials without a response) before CER testing, rats trained to 9 CARs showed some, although not complete, loss of CER, whereas rats trained to 27 CARs showed no loss of CER. In Experiment 3B rats that took 1 vs 2 days to reach a criterion of 27 CARs were compared for their AR strength and for their CER. Although rats taking 2 days to reach criterion showed somewhat greater resistance to extinction of the AR than rats reaching criterion in 1 day, this variable had no apparent effect on the CER. Implications of the present results for current theories of avoidance learning are discussed.     

Relative time in dangerous and safe places influences one-way avoidance learning in the rat

This paper reports three experiments on one-way avoidance learning in rats which examined the effect of time spent in the safe and dangerous compartments on acquisition, maintenance, and extinction of avoidance. In Experiment 1 time spent in safety was manipulated, and time spent in danger was held constant. Animals spending more time in safety needed fewer trials to reach the acquisition criteria and more trials to reach the extinction criteria; both effects became stronger as the required criteria for acquisition and extinction were increased. In Experiment 2 time spent in safety/danger was manipulated while holding the intertrial interval constant. Groups simultaneously spending more time in safety and less time in danger again needed fewer trials to reach the learning criteria. In Experiment 3 time spent in danger was manipulated, whereas time spent in safety was held constant. Groups spending less time in danger needed fewer trials to reach the learning criteria. These results indicate that the magnitude of the reinforcement or incentive value of the safety compartment is not a linear function of absolute time spent therein, but a function of the ratio between the length of time spent in safety and in danger.     

Pavlovian processes and response competition as determinants of avoidance response-prevention effects

Two experiments investigated the facilitation of avoidance extinction by exposure to lengthy (5-sec) shock during avoidance response prevention. In Experiment 1, animals exposed to light only or to light-shock pairings during response prevention showed equal facilitation of extinction relative to shock-only animals or to animals receiving no response prevention. Preshock rearing, directly antagonistic to the avoidance response, developed for shocked animals during response prevention and persisted during extinction for light-shock animals. Immediately before extinction, half of each group was permitted a single escape from a light-shock compound by means of the response previously required for avoidance. The only effect was upon the extinction performance of light-shock animals. Rearing was eliminated and extinction responding increased to a level far above that for any of the other animals. Experiment 2 demonstrated that the shock-only treatment affected the extinction performance and rearing of nonescape and escape animals in a manner entirely equivalent to the effects of the light-shock treatment of Experiment 1, provided stimulus conditions (light absent) were the same for all experimental phases. Thus, lengthy shock during avoidance response prevention simultaneously leads to the acquisition of competing behavior and enhances control by a warning signal or contextual stimuli over the avoidance response. Implications for the CS-only response-prevention treatment and the transfer of aversive control are discussed.     

Leverpress escape/avoidance conditioning in rats: Safety signal length and avoidance performance

Leverpress escape/avoidance is an excellent model for assessing coping in rats. Acquisition of the leverpress response is determined by the interstimulus (signal-shock) interval, as well as the type and duration of the aversive event. One factor that has received less research attention is the safety or feedback signal. The safety signal presumably negatively reinforces leverpress responding through fear reduction. Here, we present a parametric manipulation of safety signal length and avoidance performance. All rats were trained with a 60-s tone conditioned stimulus and an intermittent 1-s, 1.0-mA footshock. Training was further accomplished with a 1−, 2−, 4−, or 6-min safety signal. Acquisition of the avoidance response was comparable at all safety signal durations. Rats trained with the shortest safety signal (1 min) exhibited more leverpresses during the safe period, a measure of anxiety. Thus, acquisition of the leverpress avoidance response was efficient regardless of safety signal duration, even though shorter periods were associated with greater anxiety.     

The decrement in conditioned fear with increased trials of simultaneous conditioning is not specific to the simultaneous procedure

Three experiments using a conditioned punishment paradigm with rat subjects examined the possibility that the nonmonotonic acquisition function previously found to characterize simultaneous conditioning was due to the noninformative nature of the conditioned stimulus (CS). In Experiment 1 the suppressive effects of a CS previously presented with an unconditioned stimulus (US) in a simultaneous and forward (informative) manner were compared following 20 and an additional 60 conditioning trials. Excitatory conditioning similarly diminished with increased trials for both the simultaneous and forward procedures. Experiment 2 employed a between-groups design. Simultaneous, forward, and trace conditioning procedures were compared following 20 or 100 trials. Each of the three 100-trial groups showed less resistance to extinction than their 20-trial counterparts. Experiment 3 determined that the decrement in excitatory conditioning for the 100-trial groups was not due to the greater number of US presentations, per se, but rather to the number of CS-US pairings. The nonmonotonic acquisition function observed with all three conditioning procedures indicated that informational factors were not responsible for the decrement observed in simultaneous conditioning. The pattern of results suggested that subjects receiving extended conditioning trials were better able to discriminate between training and testing.     

Extinction effects following interpolation of instrumental trials among response prevention periods

Two experiments evaluated the effectiveness of response prevention when prevention periods were interpolated with instrumental trials which permitted performance of the originally trained instrumental behavior. In Experiment 1, interpolation of instrumental escape trials under shock and nonshock procedures reliably reduced prevention's influence on performance and yielded extinction responding similar to that of pseudo-prevention controls. In Experiment 2 interpolation of instrumental escape trials under nonshock conditions yielded passive avoidance performance similar to that of pseudo-prevention controls but reliably different from that of a regular prevention group.     

The partial punishment effect following minimal acquisition training: Sodium amobarbital and the stimulus properties of early punished trials

In a runway investigation, six groups of rats received limited runway training such that partial punishment, partial reinforcement, or continuous reinforcement was accompanied by sodium amobarbital or saline. Following an interpolated phase of continuous reinforcement without injections, all groups were given punished extinction. The entire experiment was conducted under widely spaced conditions (ITI = 24 hr). It was found that partial punishment increased resistance to punished extinction relative to partially and continuously reinforced controls when acquisition was given under saline. When partial punishment training was accompanied by amobarbital this effect was eliminated. The drug was observed to have no effect on the punished extinction performance of the partial reinforcement and continuous groups, respectively. Moreover, the partial reinforcement effect (PRE) did not generalize to punished extinction. These data provide information concerning the difference between the stimuli associated with the early trials of punishment and nonreward and indicate that the former but not the latter contain emotional elements.     

Effects of US-Presentation and CS-termination contingencies on avoidance extinction following partial and continuous reinforcement

The present study assessed the role of both the US-presentation (punishment) and CS-termination contingencies on the maintenance of the shuttlebox avoidance responding in gerbils following acquisition under either partial reinforcement (PR) or continuous reinforcement (AV). Following PR, a stronger relationship obtained between delay of CS termination CR frequency than was found between delay of punishment and extinction performance. Following AV training, however, delay of CS termination and delay of punishment were equally effective determinants of avoidance extinction. These results were interpreted in terms of both the enhanced efficacy of the CS-termination contingency, possibly due to its increased informational value, and the attenuation of punishment suppression in PR-trained Ss.     

Dissociative effects of flooding on a multivariate assessment of fear reduction and on jump-up avoidance extinction

Two experiments examined the effectiveness of three different amounts of flooding on hastening extinction of a jump-up avoidance response and on reducing fear as assessed by the multivariate fear assessment techniques of D. P. Corriveau and N. F. Smith (Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 1978, 107, 145–158). In Experiment 1, a 40-min flooding treatment significantly hastened jump-up avoidance extinction, 10 min of flooding had a marginal effect, and 5 min had no effect. In Experiment 2, flooding treatments of 5, 10, and 40 min duration were all effective in reducing fear of the grid floor as indexed by seven of our nine dependent measures, including approach latency, safety test latency, and amount of time spent on the grids. Flooded subjects that were dumped onto the grid floor once at the start of the fear observation phase were found to show somewhat more fear reduction than were flooded subjects that were simply placed on the ledge at the outset of the fear observation phase and never dumped. These results, i.e., less flooding is required to reduce fear than to hasten avoidance extinction, are contrasted with those of previous experiments indicating that more flooding may be required to reduce fear than to hasten shuttlebox avoidance extinction. Such differences are discussed in the context of SSDR theory.     

Incentive shift in the rat following training to resist punishment

An incentive shift paradigm was used to test for the similarity of fear and frustration. In Experiment 1, rats trained to resist electric shock punishment showed neither a negative contrast effect nor any performance decrement when reward was shifted from 10 to one pellet. Experiment 2 replicated the basic findings of Experiment 1, but also showed that punishment training did not influence the magnitude of performance shift for animals receiving increases in reward magnitude. Finally, Experiment 3 additionally found that rats sensitized to punishment showed an increase in negative contrast effect. These results support the hypothesized functional similarity between conditioned fear and conditioned frustration with learned persistence or sensitivity to one generalizing to the other as suggested by Amsel's (1972) theory of persistence.     

Avoidance extinction in goldfish

Independent groups of goldfish trained to avoid shock in a shuttlebox situation were presented with several extinction procedures in which the relationships between the conditioned stimulus and shock were altered and/or response contingencies removed. Random shock presentations, equivalent to the number of shocks received during avoidance acquisition, resulted in response decrements similar to those obtained when the conditioned stimulus was presented alone. Pairing the conditioned stimulus with shock on every trial, however, served to maintain response levels. When response-contingent punishment was superimposed upon these Pavlovian pairings, performance was facilitated slightly although punishment alone resulted in somewhat faster response reduction than that produced by exposure only to the conditioned stimulus. Extinction of avoidance responding produced by exposure to the conditioned stimulus alone was dependent on the total duration of exposure and independent of both number of stimulus onsets and response prevention. These experiments demonstrated that, in general, the procedures used to reduce avoidance responding in rats were equally effective for goldfish, with one exception: the introduction of a Pavlovian contingency following avoidance acquisition, making the previously avoidable shock unavoidable, maintained response probabilities near previously established levels.     

Stimulus control of responding in the early trials of differential conditioning

In Experiment 1 two groups of rats were given 12 differential conditioning trials, seven to the rewarded alley (S+) and five to the nonrewarded alley (S?), prior to being extinguished in both alleys. Group S?S+ received S+ trials, following S? trials in acquisition, while Group S+S? did not receive S+ trials following S? trials in acquisition. In extinction S+ and S? trials were presented according to a quasi-random sequence for both groups. Running on the last 3 trials of acquisition was found to be faster following S+ than following S? trials. Group S?S+ showed greater resistance to extinction and less discriminative responding in extinction than Group S+S?. These results suggest that responding in differential conditioning is controlled not merely by S+ and S? but by the memories of reward (S^R) and of nonreward (S^N) as well. When the joint effects of both classes of cues were considered, e.g., S^R+S+, responding in the early trials of differential conditioning was shown to be highly orderly. Experiment 2 was highly similar to Experiment 1 except that Groups S?S+ and S+S? were equated along dimensions not equated in Experiment 1. The results obtained in Experiment 2 were highly similar to those obtained in Experiment 1.