3 white tats were trained to rotate an activity wheel to avoid signaled shocks. Response latencies varied inversely with intertrial intervals and directly with signal-shock intervals. 2 animals responded early in the signal-shock interval and always avoided nearly all shocks. The third animal typically responded late in the interval and was less successful in avoiding shocks.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BehrendE.BittermanM. E.Avoidance conditioning in the goldfish: exploratory studies of the CS-US interval. Amer. J. Psychol., 1962, 75, 18–34.
2.
BrushF. R.BrushE. S.SolomonR. L.Traumatic avoidance learning: the effects of CS-US interval with a delayed conditioning procedure. J. comp. physiol. Psychol., 1955, 48, 285–293.
3.
ChurchR. M.BrushF. R.SolomonR. L.Traumatic avoidance learning: the effects of CS-US interval with a delayed conditioning procedure in a free-responding situation. J. comp. physiol. Psychol., 1956, 49, 301–308.
4.
HurwitzH. M. B.DillowP. V.Discrimination learning under avoidance schedules. In GilbertR. (Ed.), Discrimination learning: a symposium. Univer. of Aberdeen: Experimental Analysis of Behaviour Group, 1967. Pp. 465–523. (Mimeographed)
5.
KeehnJ. D.The effect of a warning signal on unrestricted avoidance behaviour. Brit. J. Psychol., 1959, 50, 125–135.
6.
KeehnJ. D.Running and bar pressing as avoidance responses. Psychol. Rep., 1967, 20, 591–602.
7.
LowL. A.LowH. I.Effects of CS-US interval length upon avoidance responding. J. comp. physiol. Psychol., 1962, 55, 1059–1061.
8.
SidmanM.Some properties of the warning stimulus in avoidance behavior. J. comp. physiol. Psychol., 1955, 48, 444–450.
9.
UlrichR. E.HolzW. C.AzrinN. H.Stimulus control of avoidance behavior. J. exp. Anal. Behav., 1964, 7, 129–133.
