Comparison of Reaction Time and Interpersonal Communication Tasks to Test Effectiveness of a Matching Strategy in Reducing Attack-Instigated Aggression

1982 ◽  
Vol 55 (2) ◽  
pp. 659-665 ◽  
Author(s):  
H. S. Bertilson ◽  
S. K. Lien

The effects of an opponent's matching strategy on attack-instigated aggression have been investigated in at least four studies. Two studies with the Taylor reaction-time task found little or no significant decreases in aggression. Two studies with the interpersonal-communications task reported more rapid decreases. While many differences between the studies other than type of task could account for the different results, the reaction-time task may be less sensitive to matching contingencies than the interpersonal-communications task. The present research compared these two procedures in the same experiment. Subjects exchanged shocks with an opponent who attacked them and then switched to a matching strategy. Results confirmed the hypothesis that the matching strategy leads to a more rapid decrease in aggression on the interpersonal-communications task than on the reaction-time task.

GeroPsych ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 24 (4) ◽  
pp. 169-176 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philippe Rast ◽  
Daniel Zimprich

In order to model within-person (WP) variance in a reaction time task, we applied a mixed location scale model using 335 participants from the second wave of the Zurich Longitudinal Study on Cognitive Aging. The age of the respondents and the performance in another reaction time task were used to explain individual differences in the WP variance. To account for larger variances due to slower reaction times, we also used the average of the predicted individual reaction time (RT) as a predictor for the WP variability. Here, the WP variability was a function of the mean. At the same time, older participants were more variable and those with better performance in another RT task were more consistent in their responses.


Author(s):  
Chiara Toschi ◽  
Mona El-Sayed Hervig ◽  
Parisa Moazen ◽  
Maximilian G. Parker ◽  
Jeffrey W. Dalley ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Work in humans has shown that impulsivity can be advantageous in certain settings. However, evidence for so-called functional impulsivity is lacking in experimental animals. Aims This study investigated the contexts in which high impulsive (HI) rats show an advantage in performance compared with mid- (MI) and low impulsive (LI) rats. We also assessed the effects of dopaminergic and noradrenergic agents to investigate underlying neurotransmitter mechanisms. Methods We tested rats on a variable inter-trial interval (ITI) version of the 5-choice serial reaction time task (5CSRTT). Rats received systemic injections of methylphenidate (MPH, 1 mg/kg and 3 mg/kg), atomoxetine (ATO, 0.3 mg/kg and 1 mg/kg), amphetamine (AMPH, 0.2 mg/kg), the alpha-2a adrenoceptor antagonist atipamezole (ATI, 0.3 mg/kg) and the alpha-1 adrenoceptor agonist phenylephrine (PHEN, 1 mg/kg) prior to behavioural testing. Results Unlike LI rats, HI rats exhibited superior performance, earning more reinforcers, on short ITI trials, when the task required rapid responding. MPH, AMPH and ATI improved performance on short ITI trials and increased impulsivity in long ITI trials, recapitulating the behavioural profile of HI. In contrast, ATO and PHEN impaired performance on short ITI trials and decreased impulsivity, thus mimicking the behavioural profile of LI rats. The effects of ATO were greater on MI rats and LI rats. Conclusions These findings indicate that impulsivity can be advantageous when rapid focusing and actions are required, an effect that may depend on increased dopamine neurotransmission. Conversely, activation of the noradrenergic system, with ATO and PHEN, led to a general inhibition of responding.


2021 ◽  
Vol 86 ◽  
pp. 346-353
Author(s):  
Geneviève N. Olivier ◽  
Serene S. Paul ◽  
Christopher S. Walter ◽  
Heather A. Hayes ◽  
K. Bo Foreman ◽  
...  

1970 ◽  
Vol 31 (2) ◽  
pp. 343-348 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jerry W. Thornton ◽  
Paul D. Jacobs

Two tasks (simple and choice reaction time) were examined while varying three types of stressors (shock, threat of shock, and noise) and the stressor task relationship (i.e., task-related stress, task-unrelated stress, and no-stress). Four specific hypotheses were tested and 3 were supported in the simple reaction-time task. There were no significant differences among stressors for either task, although greater differences were reported in the simple than in the choice reaction-time task. A significant difference between the “task-relatedness” of stress levels in the simple task was interpreted as possibly due to a “coping” or “protective adaptive mechanism” in which increases in performance serve to reduce stress. Practical applications were examined.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document