AVOIDANCE LEARNING IN SHUTTLING AND NONSHUTTLING SITUATIONS, WITH AND WITHOUT A BARRIER

EIJI KUNITOMI; TERUZO SHIKANO; HIROSHI IMADA

doi:10.4992/psycholres1954.6.129

EIJI KUNITOMI, TERUZO SHIKANO, HIROSHI IMADA

Author information

JOURNAL FREE ACCESS

1964 Volume 6 Issue 3 Pages 129-135

DOI https://doi.org/10.4992/psycholres1954.6.129

Details

Published: 1964 Received: August 28, 1964 Available on J-STAGE: February 24, 2009 Accepted: - Advance online publication: - Revised: -
Correction information
Date of correction: February 24, 2009 Reason for correction: - Correction: ABSTRACT Details: Wrong : A 2×2 factorial experiment was run in order to obtain information regard-ing the effects of “shuttling” condition and those of 15-cm barrier upon avoidance learning in a modified Mowrer-Miller shuttle box. 40 male albino rats were randomly assigned to one of the four groups, Sh-0, Sh-15, nonSh-0, and nonSh-15, and they all underwent 15 daily avoidance learning sessions of 10 trials each. The results indicated that rate of acquisition was faster and overall level of avoidance performance higher in the nonshuttling condition than in shuttling condition. The level of avoidance performance was higher in nonbarrier groups than in barrier groups. An interpretation in terms of “conflict” was attempted of the fact of inferior performance of shuttling groups. Fiullian notion of Ir was applied to account for the barrier effect.
Right : A 2×2 factorial experiment was run in order to obtain information regarding the effects of “shuttling” condition and those of 15-cm barrier upon avoidance learning in a modified Mowrer-Miller shuttle box. 40 male albino rats were randomly assigned to one of the four groups, Sh-0, Sh-15, nonSh-0, and nonSh-15, and they all underwent 15 daily avoidance learning sessions of 10 trials each. The results indicated that rate of acquisition was faster and overall level of avoidance performance higher in the nonshuttling condition than in shuttling condition. The level of avoidance performance was higher in nonbarrier groups than in barrier groups. An interpretation in terms of “conflict” was attempted of the fact of inferior performance of shuttling groups. Hullian notion of Ir was applied to account for the barrier effect.

Date of correction: February 24, 2009 Reason for correction: - Correction: AUTHOR Details: Wrong : EIJI KUNITOMI¹⁾, TERUZO SHIKANO²⁾, HIROSHI IMADA²⁾
Right : EIJI KUNITOMI, TERUZO SHIKANO¹⁾, HIROSHI IMADA¹⁾

Date of correction: February 24, 2009 Reason for correction: - Correction: AFFILIATION Details: Wrong :
1) Kobe Juvenile Detention and Classification Home
2) Kwansei Gakuin University

Right :
1) Kwansei Gakuin University

Date of correction: February 24, 2009 Reason for correction: - Correction: CITATION Details: Wrong : CHURCH, R. M., Bxusx, F. R., & SOLOMON, R. L.1956 Traumatic avoidance learning: The effects of CS-US interval with a delayed-con-ditioning procedure in a free responding situa-tion. J.comp. physiol. Psychol., 49, 301-308.
ESTES, W. K., & SKINNER, B. F. 1941 Some quanti-tative properties of anxiety. J. exp. Psychol., 29, 390-400.
IMADA, H. 1959 The effects of punishment on avoidance behavior. Jap. Pshychol. Res., 1, 27-38.
Low, L. A., & Low, H.I. 1962 Effects of CS-US interval length upon avoidance responding. 3, comp. physiol. Psychol., 55, 1059-1061.
MOWRER, O. H. 1960 Learing theory and behavior. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
MOtVRER, O. H., & LAMOREAUX, R.R. 1942 Avoid-ance conditioning and signal duration-a study of secondary motivation and reward. Psychol. Monogr., 54, No. 5, 1-34.
MOWRER, O. H., & Miller, N.E. 1942 A multi-purpose learning-demonstration apparatus. J. exp. Psychol., 31, 163-170.
SOLOMON, R. L. 1948 Effort and extinction rate: a confirmation. J. comp. physiol. Psychol., 41, 93-101.
VANOERWOLF, C. H. 1963 Improved shuttle-box performance following electroconvulsive shock. J. comp. physiol. Psychol., 56, 983-986.

Right : CHURCH, R. M., BRUSH, F. R., & SOLOMON, R. L. 1956 Traumatic avoidance learning: The effects of CS-US interval with a delayed-conditioning procedure in a free responding situation. J. comp. physiol. Psychol., 49, 301-308.
ESTES, W. K., & SKINNER, B. F. 1941 Some quantitative properties of anxiety. J. exp. Psychol., 29, 390-400.
IMADA, H. 1959 The effects of punishment on avoidance behavior. Jap. Pshychol. Res., 1, 27-38.
LOW, L.A., & LOW, H. I. 1962 Effects of CS-US interval length upon avoidance responding. J. comp. physiol. Psychol., 55, 1059-1061.
MOWRER, O. H. 1960 Learing theory and behavior. New York: John Wiley &Sons.
MOWRER, O. H., & LAMOREAUX, R. R. 1942 Avoidance conditioning and signal duration-a study of secondary motivation and reward. Psychol. Monogr., 54, No.5, 1-34.
MOWRER, O. H., & Miller, N. E. 1942 A multipurpose learning-demonstration apparatus.J. exp. Psychol., 31, 163-170.
SOLOMON, R. L. 1948 Effort and extinction rate: a confirmation. J. comp. physiol. Psychol., 41, 93-101.
VANDERWOLF, C. H. 1963 Improved shuttle-box performance following electroconvulsive shock. J. comp. physiol. Psychol., 56, 983-986.

Date of correction: February 24, 2009 Reason for correction: - Correction: PDF FILE Details: -

Date of correction: February 24, 2009 Reason for correction: - Correction: ABSTRACT Details: Wrong : A 2×2 factorial experiment was run in order to obtain information regarding the effects of “shuttling” condition and those of 15-cm barrier upon avoidance learning in a modified Mowrer-Miller shuttle box. 40 male albino rats were randomly assigned to one of the four groups, Sh-0, Sh-15, nonSh-0, and nonSh-15, and they all underwent 15 daily avoidance learning sessions of 10 trials each. The results indicated that rate of acquisition was faster and overall level of avoidance performance higher in the nonshuttling condition than in shuttling condition. The level of avoidance performance was higher in nonbarrier groups than in barrier groups. An interpretation in terms of “conflict” was attempted of the fact of inferior performance of shuttling groups. Hullian notion of Ir was applied to account for the barrier effect.
Right : A 2×2 factorial experiment was run in order to obtain information regarding the effects of “shuttling” condition and those of 15-cm barrier upon avoidance learning in a modified Mowrer-Miller shuttle box. 40 male albino rats were randomly assigned to one of the four groups, Sh-0, Sh-15, nonSh-0, and nonSh-15, and they all underwent 15 daily avoidance learning sessions of 10 trials each. The results indicated that rate of acquisition was faster and overall level of avoidance performance higher in the nonshuttling condition than in shuttling condition. The level of avoidance performance was higher in nonbarrier groups than in barrier groups. An interpretation in terms of “conflict” was attempted of the fact of inferior performance of shuttling groups. Hullian notion of Ir was applied to account for the barrier effect.

Date of correction: February 24, 2009 Reason for correction: - Correction: AUTHOR Details: Wrong : EIJI KUNITOMI, TERUZO SHIKANO¹⁾, HIROSHI IMADA¹⁾
Right : EIJI KUNITOMI¹⁾, TERUZO SHIKANO²⁾, HIROSHI IMADA²⁾

Date of correction: February 24, 2009 Reason for correction: - Correction: AFFILIATION Details: Wrong :
1) Kwansei Gakuin University

Right :
1) Kobe Juvenile Detention and Classification Home
2) Kwansei Gakuin University

Date of correction: February 24, 2009 Reason for correction: - Correction: CITATION Details: Wrong : CHURCH, R. M., BRUSH, F. R., & SOLOMON, R. L. 1956 Traumatic avoidance learning: The effects of CS-US interval with a delayed-conditioning procedure in a free responding situation. J. comp. physiol. Psychol., 49, 301-308.
ESTES, W. K., & SKINNER, B. F. 1941 Some quantitative properties of anxiety. J. exp. Psychol., 29, 390-400.
IMADA, H. 1959 The effects of punishment on avoidance behavior. Jap. Pshychol. Res., 1, 27-38.
LOW, L.A., & LOW, H. I. 1962 Effects of CS-US interval length upon avoidance responding. J. comp. physiol. Psychol., 55, 1059-1061.
MOWRER, O. H. 1960 Learing theory and behavior. New York: John Wiley &Sons.
MOWRER, O. H., & LAMOREAUX, R. R. 1942 Avoidance conditioning and signal duration-a study of secondary motivation and reward. Psychol. Monogr., 54, No.5, 1-34.
MOWRER, O. H., & Miller, N. E. 1942 A multipurpose learning-demonstration apparatus.J. exp. Psychol., 31, 163-170.
SOLOMON, R. L. 1948 Effort and extinction rate: a confirmation. J. comp. physiol. Psychol., 41, 93-101.
VANDERWOLF, C. H. 1963 Improved shuttle-box performance following electroconvulsive shock. J. comp. physiol. Psychol., 56, 983-986.

Right : CHURCH, R. M., BRUSH, F. R., & SOLOMON, R. L. 1956 Traumatic avoidance learning: The effects of CS-US interval with a delayed-conditioning procedure in a free responding situation. J. comp. physiol. Psychol., 49, 301-308.
ESTES, W. K., & SKINNER, B. F. 1941 Some quantitative properties of anxiety. J. exp. Psychol., 29, 390-400.
IMADA, H. 1959 The effects of punishment on avoidance behavior. Jap. Pshychol. Res., 1, 27-38.
LOW, L. A., & LOW, H. I. 1962 Effects of CS-US interval length upon avoidance responding. J. comp. physiol. Psychol., 55, 1059-1061.
MOWRER, O. H. 1960 Learing theory and behavior. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
MOWRER, O. H., & LAMOREAUX, R. R. 1942 Avoidance conditioning and signal duration-a study of secondary motivation and reward. Psychol. Monogr., 54, No.5, 1-34.
MOWRER, O. H., & Miller, N. E. 1942 A multipurpose learning-demonstration apparatus. J. exp. Psychol., 31, 163-170.
SOLOMON, R. L. 1948 Effort and extinction rate: a confirmation. J. comp. physiol. Psychol., 41, 93-101.
VANDERWOLF, C. H. 1963 Improved shuttle-box performance following electroconvulsive shock. J. comp. physiol. Psychol., 56, 983-986.

Abstract

A 2×2 factorial experiment was run in order to obtain information regarding the effects of “shuttling” condition and those of 15-cm barrier upon avoidance learning in a modified Mowrer-Miller shuttle box. 40 male albino rats were randomly assigned to one of the four groups, Sh-0, Sh-15, nonSh-0, and nonSh-15, and they all underwent 15 daily avoidance learning sessions of 10 trials each. The results indicated that rate of acquisition was faster and overall level of avoidance performance higher in the nonshuttling condition than in shuttling condition. The level of avoidance performance was higher in nonbarrier groups than in barrier groups. An interpretation in terms of “conflict” was attempted of the fact of inferior performance of shuttling groups. Hullian notion of Ir was applied to account for the barrier effect.

Corresponding author

Correction information

Register with J-STAGE for free!