Retention of Massed vs Distributed Response-Prevention Treatments in Rats and a Revised Training Procedure

Two experiments were conducted to estimate the retention of response-prevention effects using massed vs distributed treatments in a model of animal avoidance-learning. In Exp. I, 120 rats were trained to avoid shock in a one-way platform avoidance apparatus. Groups received response-prevention treatment or nontreatment in a 36-min. massed session or in several sessions distributed over a four-day period. In Exp. II, 160 rats were given two trials of escape training in a one-way shuttle box. Groups received response-prevention treatment or nontreatment in a 24-min. session of massed or distributed treatments delivered in one day. Subjects in both studies were tested using a passive-avoidance paradigm immediately following treatment, 24 hours later, and 30 days later. Analysis showed that response-prevention treatments were effective in reducing avoidance behavior and there were no significant differences in retention of avoidance associated with massed vs distributed response-prevention treatments. Implications for animals and humans are discussed, and researchers are encouraged to change from a criterion training procedure to an escape procedure since the latter is a closer analogue to the human condition.

Download Full-text

A Preliminary Resolution of the Retention of Distributed VS Massed Response Prevention in Rats

Psychological Reports ◽

10.2466/pr0.1993.72.3c.1367 ◽

1993 ◽

Vol 72 (3_suppl) ◽

pp. 1367-1377 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Paula J. Martasian ◽

Nelson F. Smith

Keyword(s):

Passive Avoidance ◽

Avoidance Behavior ◽

Treatment Effects ◽

Treatment Time ◽

Response Prevention ◽

Training Procedure ◽

The Past ◽

Escape Learning ◽

The Difference ◽

All Treatment

This study consisted of two experiments conducted to investigate the difference in efficacy and retention of distributed response prevention when compared to massed response prevention using an animal model of avoidance learning. The purpose was to obtain an estimate of the over-all treatment time for response prevention that begins to be affected by the treatment, either distributed or massed. In Exp. 1, 50 rats were given two trials of escape learning in a one-way black-white shuttle-box. Groups received response-prevention treatment or nontreatment in 9 1-min. distributed sessions or 1 9-min. massed session. Subjects were tested using a passive-avoidance paradigm immediately following treatment, 24 hours, and 720 hours (30 days) later. Analysis showed that with an over-all response-prevention time of 9 min., response-prevention treatment was effective in reducing avoidance behavior, that the effect was retained, and that there were no differences between distributed and massed groups. These results led to Exp. II in which 50 rats were exposed to the same training procedure as in Exp. I. These groups received response-prevention treatment or nontreatment in 12 15-sec. distributed sessions or one 3-min. massed session. Analysis of passive-avoidance testing immediately following treatment, 24 hr., and 720 hr. later showed that, when the over-all response-prevention time was 3 min., only groups with distributed treatment showed reduction of avoidance behavior and retention of the treatment effects. Since past studies have produced inconsistent findings in comparing distributed vs massed delivery of response-prevention treatment these two experiments are intended to serve as a preliminary resolution of the past differing results. When the over-all treatment time is longer than 3 min., there is no delivery of treatment effect. However, with 3 min. of over-all treatment time, distributed delivery was necessary to facilitate the treatment effects. Implications for animals and humans are discussed.

Download Full-text

Wolpe's Reciprocal Inhibition Principle: An Animal Analogue

Psychological Reports ◽

10.2466/pr0.1977.40.2.395 ◽

1977 ◽

Vol 40 (2) ◽

pp. 395-401 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Andrew L. Dickson ◽

Roger L. Mellgren ◽

Andre Fountain ◽

Dennis Dyck

Keyword(s):

Passive Avoidance ◽

Avoidance Behavior ◽

Untreated Control ◽

Home Cage ◽

Reciprocal Inhibition ◽

Response Prevention ◽

Control Group ◽

Avoidance Acquisition ◽

Control Procedures ◽

Asymptotic Point

Wolpe's reciprocal inhibition principle represents, on a purely operational level, nothing more than a procedural description of counterconditioning. The most obvious implication of this principle is that a positive relationship, at least to some asymptotic point, should exist between the degree of counterconditioning and the subsequent reduction of avoidance behavior. An analogue study using rats ( N = 70) in a passive avoidance paradigm was used to test this implication and to compare the efficacy of response prevention and extinction with varying degrees of counterconditioning. Licking (the animals were water deprived) in the former safe area served as the incompatible response. The effects of five specific conditions—Counterconditioning High, Counterconditioning Medium, Counterconditioning Low, Extinction, Response Prevention—and two control procedures, Untreated Control/Home Cage and Untreated Control/Trash Can, were assessed on each of three days following passive avoidance acquisition on Day 1. A nonshock control group was also used. The Response Prevention, Counterconditioning High, Counterconditioning Medium, and Untreated Control/Home Cage subjects evidenced a significant reduction in passive avoidance behavior relative to the Counterconditioning Low, Extinction, and Untreated Control/Trash Can subjects. It is suggested that lowered arousal may enhance cue utilization and thereby serve as a facilitator for increased exposure, which allows for the elimination of motivational as well as discriminative cues associated with fear and avoidant behavior.

Download Full-text

Effect of Response Prevention on Active and Passive Components of Avoidance Behavior

Psychological Reports ◽

10.2466/pr0.1977.40.3c.1261 ◽

1977 ◽

Vol 40 (3_suppl) ◽

pp. 1261-1262

Author(s):

Andrew L. Dickson ◽

David A. Sisemore ◽

Jeffrey N. Andert ◽

Thomas L. Hustak ◽

James W. Quillin

Keyword(s):

Passive Avoidance ◽

Avoidance Behavior ◽

Active Avoidance ◽

Response Prevention ◽

Passive Components

A response prevention procedure with 30 rats eliminated oneway active avoidance. However, residual fear, as indexed by passive avoidance, was maintained following response prevention.

Download Full-text

Avoidance Conditioning in Wheel Box and Shuttle Box

Psychological Reports ◽

10.2466/pr0.1964.14.2.327 ◽

1964 ◽

Vol 14 (2) ◽

pp. 327-334 ◽

Cited By ~ 4

Author(s):

Charles Y. Nakamura ◽

Norman H. Anderson

Keyword(s):

Opposite Direction ◽

Avoidance Learning ◽

Avoidance Behavior ◽

Avoidance Conditioning ◽

High Reactivity ◽

Male And Female ◽

Shuttle Box ◽

Long Evans ◽

Sizeable Difference

Avoidance behavior in wheel box and shuttle box were compared in two experiments which tested the same rats in both apparatuses. Performance in the shuttle box was superior to performance in the wheel box for both male and female Sprague-Dawleys. The corresponding differences for the Long-Evans, though not significant, were in the opposite direction. Reactivity to shock was considered a possible explanation for the sizeable difference between the two strains in shuttle responding. High reactivity to shock was thought to inhibit avoidance learning in the shuttle but to facilitate learning in the wheel. The results, together with previous work, suggest that both apparatus variables and organismic variables, and their interaction, are important in avoidance behavior.

Download Full-text