Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Partial avoidance contingencies.

G G Neffinger, J Gibbon

    Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior
    |May 1, 1975
    PubMed
    Summary
    This summary is machine-generated.

    Rats showed two responses to changes in shock avoidance. Some ignored shock density, while others responded to both contingency and shock density, especially when shocks followed a response.

    Related Concept Videos

    You might also read

    Related Articles

    Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

    Sort by
    Same author

    Mr. Gibbon's Case of Ann Foulkes.

    The Medical and physical journal·2018
    Same author

    Dynamics of time matching: Arousal makes better seem worse.

    Psychonomic bulletin & review·2013
    Same author

    Temporal landmarks: proximity prevails.

    Animal cognition·2003
    Same author

    Event-related brain potentials isolate the motor component in a tapping task.

    Neuroreport·2001
    Same author

    Numerical subtraction in the pigeon: evidence for a linear subjective number scale.

    Psychological science·2001
    Same author

    Responding to care needs in long term care. A position paper by the Irish Society of Physicians in Geriatric Medicine.

    Irish medical journal·2001
    Same journal

    The Genoeconomics of Impulsive Intertemporal Choice: A Critical Review.

    Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior·2026
    Same journal

    Shaping the extinction burst: Increasing its probability and preventing its emergence across topographies.

    Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior·2026
    Same journal

    Evaluating the combined effects of effort and probability on monetary discounting.

    Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior·2026
    Same journal

    An improved translational approach to studying persistence-strengthening effects of differential reinforcement of alternative behavior.

    Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior·2026
    Same journal

    Interactions between the effects of food and water motivating operations on concurrent food- and water-reinforced responding in mice.

    Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior·2026
    Same journal

    Odor-visual and visual-visual matching to sample with dogs.

    Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior·2026
    See all related articles

    Area of Science:

    • Behavioral Neuroscience
    • Animal Behavior
    • Learning and Conditioning

    Background:

    • Avoidance learning is crucial for understanding behavioral responses to aversive stimuli.
    • The role of shock density versus contingency in maintaining avoidance behavior requires further investigation.

    Purpose of the Study:

    • To investigate how rats respond to alterations in avoidance contingencies.
    • To differentiate between sensitivity to shock contingency and shock density in avoidance learning.

    Main Methods:

    • Rats were trained in a discrete-trial avoidance paradigm.
    • Avoidance contingencies were manipulated by altering the conditional probability of shock given no response (P(0)) and given a response (P(1)).
    • Noncontingent shock conditions were established where P(0) equaled P(1).

    Related Experiment Videos

    Main Results:

    • Under noncontingent conditions (P(0)=P(1)), most subjects ceased responding.
    • Reducing the probability of shock given no response (P(0)) led to decreased responding.
    • When shocks could follow a response (P(1)>0), some rats stopped responding as P(1) increased, while others continued.
    • Approximately half of the subjects were sensitive to both contingency and shock density, particularly when P(1)>0.

    Conclusions:

    • Two distinct patterns of responding to weakened avoidance contingencies were observed.
    • Some rats prioritized contingency over shock density, while others showed sensitivity to both factors.
    • The influence of shock density on avoidance behavior is most apparent when shocks can occur after a response (P(1)>0).