Please review “week 2_PSYC 495” and then the “study 1 & 3” attachments too. 

Concerning Ethical Case Studies and

 

the APA Ethical Guidelines

First take a look at the 3 Case Studies below.   

Study 1, concerns Watson’s famous Little Albert.  Although we all know the story of Little Albert, we may not have read Watson and Rayner’s original 1920’s study.  Take into consideration the context and spirit of the times or Zeitgeist, if you will, when analyzing this study and the next one. 

http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Watson/emotion.htm

Study 2 tells the story of Wendell Johnson, or more specifically, Mary Tudor’s study of children in an orphanage in Iowa. It’s called the Monster Study for a reason as you will see.  

The Monster Study

Study 3 concerns Seligman and Maier’s (1967) Learned Helplessness study. Again, it helps to read these original studies when possible, so we can form our own judgments. 

http://psych.hanover.edu/classes/learning/papers/seligman%20maier%201967

Your assignment:   Please read over these studies and select one to analyze.

You will need to first review APA’s  

Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct

.  You can find the link and other very useful information in the Psychology Learning Tools under Course Content.  Go to the First Module (Intro to PSYC @ UMGC, and click on Ethical Guidelines and Considerations).  You will find ethical considerations to current events and historical studies and understand more fully the reason why we need the ethical principles.  

Next, in your analysis, give some background information and then tell us which of the General Principles and/ or which Ethical Standard was violated, and explain why.  Do you think that the study you choose would be approved by an IRB today?  Why do you think the study was allowed or tolerated at the time?  

Classics in the History of Psychology

An internet resource developed by

Christopher D. Green

York University, Toronto, Ontario

(Return to 

Classics
 index

) 

CONDITIONED EMOTIONAL REACTIONS
By John B. Watson and Rosalie Rayner(1920)

First published in Journal of Experimental Psychology, 3(1), 1-14.

In recent literature various speculations have been entered into concerning the possibility of conditioning various types of emotional response, but direct experimental evidence in support of such a view has been lacking. If the theory advanced by Watson and Morgan [

1

] to the effect that in infancy the original emotional reaction patterns are few, consisting so far as observed of fear, rage and love, then there must be some simple method by means of which the range of stimuli which can call out these emotions and their compounds is greatly increased. Otherwise, complexity in adult response could not be accounted for. These authors without adequate experimental evidence advanced the view that this range was increased by means of conditioned reflex factors. It was suggested there that the early home life of the child furnishes a laboratory situation for establishing conditioned emotional responses. The present authors have recently put the whole matter to an experimental test.

Experimental work had been done so far on only one child, Albert B. This infant was reared almost from birth in a hospital environment; his mother was a wet nurse in the Harriet Lane Home for Invalid Children. Albert’s life was normal: he was healthy from birth and one of the best developed youngsters ever brought to the hospital, weighing twenty-one pounds at nine months of age. He was on the whole stolid and unemotional. His stability was one of the principal reasons for using him as a subject in this test. We [p.2] felt that we could do him relatively little harm by carrying out such experiments as those outlined below.

At approximately nine months of age we ran him through the emotional tests that have become a part of our regular routine in determining whether fear reactions can be called out by other stimuli than sharp noises and the sudden removal of support. Tests of this type have been described by the senior author in another place.[

2

] In brief, the infant was confronted suddenly and for the first time successively with a white rat, a rabbit, a dog, a monkey, with masks with and without hair, cotton wool, burning newspapers, etc. A permanent record of Albert’s reactions to these objects and situations has been preserved in a motion picture study. Manipulation was the most usual reaction called out. At no time did this infant ever show fear in any situation. These experimental records were confirmed by the casual observations of the mother and hospital attendants. No one had ever seen him in a state of fear and rage. The infant practically never cried.

Up to approximately nine months of age we had not tested him with loud sounds. The test to determine whether a fear reaction could be called out by a loud sound was made when he was eight months, twenty-six days of age. The sound was that made by striking a hammer upon a suspended steel bar four feet in length and three-fourths of an inch in diameter. The laboratory notes are as follows:

One of the two experimenters caused the child to turn its head and fixate her moving hand ; the other stationed back of the child, struck the steel bar a sharp blow. The child started violently, his breathing was checked and the arms were raised in a characteristic manner. On the second stimulation the same thing occurred, and in addition the lips began to pucker and tremble. On the third stimulation the child broke into a sudden crying fit. This is the first time an emotional situation in the laboratory has produced any fear or even crying in Albert.

[p.3] We had expected just these results on account of our work with other infants brought up under similar conditions. It is worth while to call attention to the fact that removal of support (dropping and jerking the blanket upon which the infant was lying) was tried exhaustively upon this infant on the same occasion. It was not effective in producing the fear response. This stimulus is effective in younger children. At what age such stimuli lose their potency in producing fear is not known. Nor is it known whether less placid children ever lose their fear of them. This probably depends upon the training the child gets. It is well known that children eagerly run to be tossed into the air and caught. On the other hand it is equally well known that in the adult fear responses are called out quite clearly by the sudden removal of support, if the individual is walking across a bridge, walking out upon a beam, etc. There is a wide field of study here which is aside from our present point.

The sound stimulus, thus, at nine months of age, gives us the means of testing several important factors. I. Can we condition fear of an animal, e.g., a white rat, by visually presenting it and simultaneously striking a steel bar? II. If such a conditioned emotional response can be established, will there be a transfer to other animals or other objects? III. What is the effect of time upon such conditioned emotional responses? IV. If after a reasonable period such emotional responses have not died out, what laboratory methods can be devised for their removal?

I. The establishment of conditioned emotional responses.

At first there was considerable hesitation upon our part in making the attempt to set up fear reactions experimentally. A certain responsibility attaches to such a procedure. We decided finally to make the attempt, comforting ourselves by the reflection that such attachments would arise anyway as soon as the child left the sheltered environment of the nursery for the rough and tumble of the home. We did not begin this work until Albert was eleven months, three days of age. Before attempting to set up a conditioned response we, as before, put him through all of the regular emotional [p.4] tests. Not the slightest sign of a fear response was obtained in any situation.

The steps taken to condition emotional responses are shown in our laboratory notes.

11 Months 3 Days

1. White rat suddenly taken from the basket and presented to Albert. He began to reach for rat with left hand. Just as his hand touched the animal the bar was struck immediately behind his head. The infant jumped violently and fell forward, burying his face in the mattress. He did not cry, however. 
2. Just as the right hand touched the rat the bar was again struck. Again the infant jumped violently, fell forward and began to whimper.

In order not to disturb the child too seriously no further tests were given for one week.

11 Months 10 Days

1. Rat presented suddenly without sound. There was steady fixation but no tendency at first to reach for it. The rat was then placed nearer, whereupon tentative reaching movements began with the right hand. When the rat nosed the infant’s left hand, the hand was immediately withdrawn. He started to reach for the head of the animal with the forefinger of the left hand, but withdrew it suddenly before contact. It is thus seen that the two joint stimulations given the previous week were not without effect. He was tested with his blocks immediately afterwards to see if they shared in the process of conditioning. He began immediately to pick them up, dropping them, pounding them, etc. In the remainder of the tests the blocks were given frequently to quiet him and to test his general emotional state. They were always removed from sight when the process of conditioning was under way. 
2. Joint stimulation with rat and sound. Started, then fell over immediately to right side No crying.[p.5] 
3. Joint stimulation. Fell to right side and rested upon hands, with head turned away from rat. No crying. 
4. Joint stimulation. Same reaction. 
5. Rat suddenly presented alone. Puckered face, whimpered and withdrew body sharply to the left. 
6. Joint stimulation. Fell over immediately to right side and began to whimper. 
7. Joint stimulation. Started violently and cried, but did not fall over. 
8. Rat alone. The instant the rat was shown the baby began to cry. Almost instantly he turned sharply to the left, fell over on left side, raised himself on all fours and began to crawl away so rapidly that he was caught with difficulty before reaching the edge of the table.

This was as convincing a case of a completely conditioned fear response as could have been theoretically pictured. In all seven joint stimulations were given to bring about the complete reaction. It is not unlikely had the sound been of greater intensity or of a more complex clang character that the number of joint stimulations might have been materially reduced. Experiments designed to define the nature of the sounds that will serve best as emotional stimuli are under way.

II. When a conditioned emotional response has been established for one object, is there a transfer? Five days later Albert was again brought back into the laboratory and tested as follows:

11 Months 15 Days

1. Tested first with blocks. He reached readily for them, playing with them as usual. This shows that there has been no general transfer to the room, table, blocks, etc. 
2. Rat alone. Whimpered immediately, withdrew right hand and turned head and trunk away. 
3.Blocks again offered. Played readily with them, smiling and gurgling. [p.6] 
4. Rat alone. Leaned over to the left side as far away from the rat as possible, then fell over, getting up on all fours and scurrying away as rapidly as possible. 
5. Blocks again offered. Reached immediately for them, smiling and laughing as before.

The above preliminary test shows that the conditioned response to the rat had carried over completely for the five days in which no tests were given. The question as to whether or not there is a transfer was next taken up.

6. Rabbit alone. The rabbit was suddenly placed on the mattress in front of him. The reaction was pronounced. Negative responses began at once. He leaned as far away from the animal as possible, whimpered, then burst into tears. When the rabbit was placed in contact with him he buried his face in the mattress, then got up on all fours and crawled away, crying as he went. This was a most convincing test. 
7. The blocks were next given him, after an interval. He played with them as before. It was observed by four people that he played far more energetically with them than ever before. The blocks were raised high over his head and slammed down with a great deal of force. 
8. Dog alone. The dog did not produce as violent a reaction as the rabbit. The moment fixation occurred the child shrank back and as the animal came nearer he attempted to get on all fours but did not cry at first. As soon as the dog passed out of his range of vision he became quiet. The dog was then made to approach the infant’s head (he was lying down at the moment). Albert straightened up immediately, fell over to the opposite side and turned his head away. He then began to cry. 
9. The blocks were again presented. He began immediately to play with them. 
10. Fur coat (seal). Withdrew immediately to the left side and began to fret. Coat put close to him on the [p.7] left side, he turned immediately, began to cry and tried to crawl away on all fours. 
11. Cotton wool. The wool was presented in a paper package. At the end the cotton was not covered by the paper. It was placed first on his feet. He kicked it away but did not touch it with his hands. When his hand was laid on the wool he immediately withdrew it but did not show the shock that the animals or fur coat produced in him. He then began to play with the paper, avoiding contact with the wool itself. He finally, under the impulse of the manipulative instinct, lost some of his negativism to the wool. 
12. Just in play W. put his head down to see if Albert would play with his hair. Albert was completely negative. Two other observers did the same thing. He began immediately to play with their hair. W. then brought the Santa Claus mask and presented it to Albert. He was again pronouncedly negative.

11 Months 20 Days

1. Blocks alone. Played with them as usual. 
2. Rat alone. Withdrawal of the whole body, bending over to left side, no crying. Fixation and following with eyes. The response was much less marked than on first presentation the previous week. It was thought best to freshen up the reaction by another joint stimulation. 
3. Just as the rat was placed on his hand the rod was struck. Reaction violent. 
4. Rat alone. Fell over at once to left side. Reaction practically as strong as on former occasion but no crying. 
5. Rat alone. Fell over to left side, got up on all fours and started to crawl away. On this occasion there was no crying, but strange to say, as he started away he began to gurgle and coo, even while leaning far over to the left side to avoid the rat. 
6. Rabbit alone. Leaned over to left side as far as possible. Did not fall over. Began to whimper but reaction not so violent as on former occasions. [p.8] 
7. Blocks again offered. He reached for them immediately and began to play.

All of these tests so far discussed were carried out upon a table supplied with a mattress, located in a small, well-lighted dark-room. We wished to test next whether conditioned fear responses so set up would appear if the situation were markedly altered. We thought it best before making this test to freshen the reaction both to the rabbit and to the dog by showing them at the moment the steel bar was struck. It will be recalled that this was the first time any effort had been made to directly condition response to the dog and rabbit. The experimental notes are as follows:

8. The rabbit at first was given alone. The reaction was exactly as given in test (6) above. When the rabbit was left on Albert’s knees for a long time he began tentatively to reach out and manipulate its fur with forefingers. While doing this the steel rod was struck. A violent fear reaction resulted. 
9. Rabbit alone. Reaction wholly similar to that on trial (6) above. 
I0. Rabbit alone. Started immediately to whimper, holding hands far up, but did not cry. Conflicting tendency to manipulate very evident. 
11. Dog alone. Began to whimper, shaking head from side to side, holding hands as far away from the animal as possible. 
12. Dog and sound. The rod was struck just as the animal touched him. A violent negative reaction appeared. He began to whimper, turned to one side, fell over and started to get up on all fours. 
13. Blocks. Played with them immediately and readily.

On this same day and immediately after the above experiment Albert was taken into the large well-lighted lecture room belonging to the laboratory. He was placed on a table in the center of the room immediately under the skylight. Four people were present. The situation [p.9] was thus very different from that which obtained in the small dark room.

I. Rat alone. No sudden fear reaction appeared at first. The hands, however, were held up and away from the animal. No positive manipulatory reactions appeared. 
2. Rabbit alone. Fear reaction slight. Turned to left and kept face away from the animal but the reaction was never pronounced. 
3. Dog alone. Turned away but did not fall over. Cried. Hands moved as far away from the animal as possible. Whimpered as long as the dog was present. 
4. Rat alone. Slight negative reaction. 
5. Rat and sound. It was thought best to freshen the reaction to the rat. The sound was given just as the rat was presented. Albert jumped violently but did not cry. 
6. Rat alone. At first he did not show any negative reaction. When rat was placed nearer he began to show negative reaction by drawing back his body, raising his hands, whimpering, etc. 
7. Blocks. Played with them immediately. 
8. Rat alone. Pronounced withdrawal of body and whimpering. 
9. Blocks. Played with them as before. 
10. Rabbit alone. Pronounced reaction. Whimpered with arms held high, fell over backward and had to be caught. 
11. Dog alone. At first the dog did not produce the pronounced reaction. The hands were held high over the head, breathing was checked, but there was no crying. Just at this moment the dog, which had not barked before, barked three times loudly when only about six inches from the baby’s face. Albert immediately fell over and broke into a wail that continued until the dog was removed. The sudden barking of the hitherto quiet dog produced a marked fear response in the adult observers!

[p.10] From the above results it would seem that emotional transfers do take place. Furthermore it would seem that the number of transfers resulting from an experimentally produced conditioned emotional reaction may be very large. In our observations we had no means of testing the complete number of transfers which may have resulted.

III. The effect of time upon conditioned emotional responses. We have already shown that the conditioned emotional response will continue for a period of one week. It was desired to make the time test longer. In view of the imminence of Albert’s departure from the hospital we could not make the interval longer than one month. Accordingly no further emotional experimentation was entered into for thirty-one days after the above test. During the month, however, Albert was brought weekly to the laboratory for tests upon right and left-handedness, imitation, general development, etc. No emotional tests whatever were given and during the whole month his regular nursery routine was maintained in the Harriet Lane Home. The notes on the test given at the end of this period are as follows:

1 Year 21 Days

1. Santa Claus mask. Withdrawal, gurgling, then slapped at it without touching. When his hand was forced to touch it, he whimpered and cried. His hand was forced to touch it two more times. He whimpered and cried on both tests. He finally cried at the mere visual stimulus of the mask. 
2. Fur coat. Wrinkled his nose and withdrew both hands, drew back his whole body and began to whimper as the coat was put nearer. Again there was the strife between withdrawal and the tendency to manipulate. Reached tentatively with left hand but drew back before contact had been made. In moving his body to one side his hand accidentally touched the coat. He began to cry at once, nodding his head in a very peculiar manner (this reaction was an entirely new one). Both hands were withdrawn as far as possible from the coat. The coat [p.11] was then laid on his lap and he continued nodding his head and whimpering, withdrawing his body as far as possible, pushing the while at the coat with his feet but never touching it with his hands. 
3. Fur coat. The coat was taken out of his sight and presented again at the end of a minute. He began immediately to fret, withdrawing his body and nodding his head as before. 
4. Blocks. He began to play with them as usual. 
5. The rat. He allowed the rat to crawl towards him without withdrawing. He sat very still and fixated it intently. Rat then touched his hand. Albert withdrew it immediately, then leaned back as far as possible but did not cry. When the rat was placed on his arm he withdrew his body and began to fret, nodding his head. The rat was then allowed to crawl against his chest. He first began to fret and then covered his eyes with both hands. 
6. Blocks. Reaction normal. 
7. The rabbit. The animal was placed directly in front of him. It was very quiet. Albert showed no avoiding reactions at first. After a few seconds he puckered up his face, began to nod his head and to look intently at the experimenter. He next began to push the rabbit away with his feet, withdrawing his body at the same time. Then as the rabbit came nearer he began pulling his feet away, nodding his head, and wailing “da da”. After about a minute he reached out tentatively and slowly and touched the rabbit’s ear with his right hand, finally manipulating it. The rabbit was again placed in his lap. Again he began to fret and withdrew his hands. He reached out tentatively with his left hand and touched the animal, shuddered and withdrew the whole body. The experimenter then took hold of his left hand and laid it on the rabbit’s back. Albert immediately withdrew his hand and began to suck his thumb. Again the rabbit was laid in his lap. He began to cry, covering his face with both hands. [p.12] 
8. Dog. The dog was very active. Albert fixated it intensely for a few seconds, sitting very still. He began to cry but did not fall over backwards as on his last contact with the dog. When the dog was pushed closer to him he at first sat motionless, then began to cry, putting both hands over his face.

These experiments would seem to show conclusively that directly conditioned emotional responses as well as those conditioned by transfer persist, although with a certain loss in the intensity of the reaction, for a longer period than one month. Our view is that they persist and modify personality throughout life. It should be recalled again that Albert was of an extremely phlegmatic type. Had he been emotionally unstable probably both the directly conditioned response and those transferred would have persisted throughout the month unchanged in form.

IV. “Detachment” or removal of conditioned emotional responses. Unfortunately Albert was taken from the hospital the day the above tests were made. Hence the opportunity of building up an experimental technique by means of which we could remove the conditioned emotional responses was denied us. Our own view, expressed above, which is possibly not very well grounded, is that these responses in the home environment are likely to persist indefinitely, unless an accidental method for removing them is hit upon. The importance of establishing some method must be apparent to all. Had the opportunity been at hand we should have tried out several methods, some of which we may mention. (I) Constantly confronting the child with those stimuli which called out the responses in the hopes that habituation would come in corresponding to “fatigue” of reflex when differential reactions are to be set up. (2) By trying to “recondition” by showing objects calling out fear responses (vsual) and simultaneously stimulating the erogenous zones (tactual). We should try first the lips, then the nipples and as a final resort the sex organs. (3) By trying to “recondition” by feeding the subject candy or other food just as the animal is shown. This method calls for the food control of the subject. (4) By building up “constructive” activities around the object by imitation and [p.13] by putting the hand through the motions of manipulation. At this age imitation of overt motor activity is strong, as our present but unpublished experimentation has shown.

INCIDENTAL OBSERVATIONS

(a) Thumb sucking as a compensatory device for blocking fear and noxious stimuli. During the course of these experiments, especially in the final test, it was noticed that whenever Albert was on the verge of tears or emotionally upset generally he would continually thrust his thumb into his mouth. The moment the hand reached the mouth he became impervious to the stimuli producing fear. Again and again while the motion pictures were being made at the end of the thirty-day period, we had to remove the thumb from his mouth before the conditioned response could be obtained. This method of blocking noxious and emotional stimuli (fear and rage) through erogenous stimulation seems to persist from birth onward. Very often in our experiments upon the work adders with infants under ten days of age the same reaction appeared. When at work upon the adders both of the infants arms are under slight restraint. Often rage appears. They begin to cry, thrashing their arms and legs about. If the finger gets into the mouth crying ceases at once. The organism thus apparently from birth, when under the influence of love stimuli is blocked to all others.[

3

] This resort to sex stimulation when under the influence of noxious and emotional situations, or when the individual is restless and idle, persists throughout adolescent and adult life. Albert, at any rate, did not resort to thumb sucking except in the presence of such stimuli. Thumb sucking could immediately be checked by offering him his blocks. These invariably called out active manipulation instincts. It is worth while here to call attention to the fact that Freud’s conception of the stimulation of erogenous zones as being the expression of an original “pleasure” seeking principle may be turned about [p.14] and possibly better described as a compensatory (and often conditioned) device for the blockage of noxious and fear and rage producing stimuli.

(b) Equal primacy of fear, love and possibly rage. While in general the results of our experiment offer no particular points of conflict with Freudian concepts, one fact out of harmony with them should be emphasized. According to proper Freudians sex (or in our terminology, love) is the principal emotion in which conditioned responses arise which later limit and distort personality. We wish to take sharp issue with this view on the basis of the experimental evidence we have gathered. Fear is as primal a factor as love in influencing personality. Fear does not gather its potency in any derived manner from love. It belongs to the original and inherited nature of man. Probably the same may be true of rage although at present we are not so sure of this.

The Freudians twenty years from now, unless their hypotheses change, when they come to analyze Albert’s fear of a seal skin coat – assuming that he comes to analysis at that age – will probably tease from him the recital of a dream which upon their analysis will show that Albert at three years of age attempted to play with the pubic hair of the mother and was scolded violently for it. (We are by no means denying that this might in some other case condition it). If the analyst has sufficiently prepared Albert to accept such a dream when found as an explanation of his avoiding tendencies, and if the analyst has the authority and personality to put it over, Albert may be fully convinced that the dream was a true revealer of the factors which brought about the fear.

It is probable that many of the phobias in psychopathology are true conditioned emotional reactions either of the direct or the transferred type. One may possibly have to believe that such persistence of early conditioned responses will be found only in persons who are constitutionally inferior. Our argument is meant to be constructive. Emotional disturbances in adults cannot be traced back to sex alone. They must be retraced along at least three collateral lines – to conditioned and transferred responses set up in infancy and early youth in all three of the fundamental human emotions.

Footnotes

[1] ‘Emotional Reactions and Psychological Experimentation,’ American Journal of Psychology, April, 1917, Vol. 28, pp. 163-174.

[2] ‘Psychology from the Standpoint of a Behaviorist,’ p.202.

[3] The stimulus to love in infants according to our view is stroking of the skin, lips, nipples and sex organs, patting and rocking, picking up, etc. Patting and rocking (when not conditioned) are probably equivalent to actual stimulation of the sex organs. In adults of course, as every lover knows, vision, audition and olfaction soon become conditioned by joint stimulation with contact and kinaesthetic stimuli.

Journal of Experimental Psychology

VoL. 74, No. 1 MAY 1967

FAILURE TO ESCAPE TRAUMATIC SHOCK 1

MARTIN E; P. SELIGMAN 2 AND STEVEN F. MAIER 8

University of Pennsylvania

Dogs which had 1st learned to panel press in a harness in order to escape shock subsequently showed normal acquisition of escape/ avoidance behavior in a shuttle box. In contrast, yoked, inescapable shock in the harness produced profound interference with subsequent escape responding in the shuttle box. Initial experience with escape in the shuttle box led to enhanced panel pressing during inescapable shock in the harness and prevented interference with later responding in the shuttle box. Inescapable shock in the harness and failure to escape in the shuttle box produced interference with escape responding after a 7-day rest. These results were interpreted as supporting a learned “helplessness” explanation of interference with escape re­ sponding: Ss failed to escape shock in the shuttle box following in­ escapable shock in the harness·. because they had learned that shock termination was independent of responding.

Overmier and Seligman (1967) have shown that the prior exposure of dogs to inescapable shock in a Pavlovian harness reliably results in interfer­ ence with subsequent escape/avoidance learning in a shuttle box. Typically, these dogs do not even escape from

1 This research was supported by grants to

R. L. Solomon from tlie National Science Foundation (GB-2428) and tlie National In­ stitute of Mental Healtli (MH-04202). The

authors are grateful to R. L. Solomon, J.

Aronfreed, J. Geer, H. Gleitman, F. Irwin,

D. Williams, and J. Wishner for their advice in tlie conduct and reporting of these ex­ periments. The authors also thank J. Bruce Overmier with whom Exp. I was begun.

2 National Science Foundation pre

doctoral fellow.

8 National Institute of Mental Health pre­

doctoral fellow.
shock in the shuttle box. They initi­ ally show normal reactivity to shock, but after a few trials, they passively “accept” shock and fail to make escape movements. Moreover, if an escape or avoidance response does occur, it does not reliably predict future escapes or avoidances, as it does in normal dogs. This pattern of effects is probably not the result of incompatible skeletal responses reinforced during the in­ escapable shocks, because it can be shown even when the inescapable shocks are delivered while the dogs are paralyzed by curare. This be­ havior is also probably not the result of adaptation to shock, because it occurs even when escape/avoidance shocks are intensified. However, the fact that in-

2 MARTIN E. P. SELIGMAN AND STEVEN F. MAIER

terference does not occur if 48 hr. elapse between exposure to inescap­ able shock in the harness and escape/ avoidance training, suggests that the phenomenon may be partially depend­ ent upon some other temporary proc­ ess.

Overmier and Seligman (1967) sug­ gested that the degree of control over shock allowed to the animal in the harness may be an important deter­ minant of this interference effect. Ac­ cording to this hypothesis, if shock is terminated independently of S’s re­ sponses during its initial experience with shock, interference with sub­ sequent escape/avoidance responding should occur. If, however, S’s re­ sponses terminate shock during its initial experience with shock, normal escape/avoidance responding should subsequently occur. Experiment I in­ vestigates the effects of escapable as compared with inescapable shock on subsequent escape/avoidance respond­ ing.

EXPERIMENT I

Method

Subjects.-The Ss were 30 experimentally naive, mongrel dogs, 15-19 in. high at the shoulder, and weighing between 25 and 29 lb. They were maintained on ad lib food and water in individual cages. Three dogs were discarded from the Escape group, two because they failed to learn to escape shock in the harness ( see procedure), and one be­ cause of a procedural error. Three dogs were discarded from the “Yoked” control group, two because they were too small at the neck to be adequately restrained in the harness; the third died during treatment. This left 24 Ss, eight in each group.

Apparatus.-The apparatus was the same as that described in Overmier and Seligman (1967). It consisted of two distinctively different units, one for escapable/inescapable shock sessions and the other for escape/ avoidance training. The unit in which Ss were exposed to escapable/inescapable shock consisted of a rubberized, cloth hammock located inside a shielded, white, sound-at­ tenuating cubicle. The hammock was con-

structed so that S’s legs hung down below its body through four holes. The S’s legs were secured in this position, and S was strapped into the hammock. In addition, S’s head was held in position by panels placed on either side and a yoke between the panels across S’s neck. The S could press the panels with its head. For the Escape group pressing the panels terminated shock, while for the “Yoked” control group, panel presses did not effect the preprogrammed shock. The shock source for this unit consisted of 500 v. ac transformer and a parallel voltage divider, with the current applied through a fixed resistance of 20,000 ohms. The shock was applied to S through brass plate elec­ trodes coated with commercial electrode paste and taped to the footpads of S’s hind feet. The shock intensity was 6.0 ma. Shock presentations were controlled by automatic relay circuitry located outside the cubicle.

Escape/avoidance training was conducted in a two-way shuttle box with two black compartments separated by an adjustable barrier (described in Solomon & Wynne, 1953). The barrier height was adjusted to S’s shoulder height. Each shuttle-box com­ partment was illuminated by two 50-w. and one 7½-w. lamps. The CS consisted of turn­ ing off the four 50-w. lamps. The US, electric shock, was administered through the grid floor. A commutator shifted the polar­ ity of the grid bars four times per second. The shock was 550 v. ac applied through a variable current limiting resistor in series with S. The shock was continually regu­ lated by E at 4.5 ma. Whenever S crossed the barrier, photocell beams were inter­ rupted, a response was automatically re­ corded, and the trial terminated. Latencies of barrier jumping were measured from CS onset to the nearest .01 sec. by an electric clock. Stimulus presentations and temporal contingencies were controlled by automatic relay circuitry in a nearby room.

White masking noise at approximately

70-db. SPL was presented in both units.

Procedure.-The Escape group received escape training in the harness. Sixty-four unsignaled 6.0 ma. shocks were presented at a mean interval of 90 sec. (range, 60-

120 sec.). If the dog pressed either panel with its head during shock, shock termi­ nated. If the dog failed to press a panel during shock, shock terminated automatically after 30 sec. Two dogs were discarded for failing to escape

18

of the last 20 shocks.4

4 It might be argued that eliminating these two dogs would bias the data. Thus naive

ESCAPE FAILURE WITH TRAUMATIC SHOCK 3

Twenty-four hours later dogs in the Es­ cape group were given 10 trials of escape/ avoidance training in the shuttle box: S was placed in the shuttle box and given 5 min. to adapt before any treatment was begun. Presentation of the CS began each trial. The CS-US interval was 10 sec. If S jumped the barrier during this interval, the CS terminated and no shock was presented. Failure to jump the barrier during the CS­ US interval led to shock which remained on until S did jump the barrier. If no response occurred within 60 sec. after CS onset, the trial was automatically terminated and a 60- sec. latency recorded. The average inter­ trial interval was 90 sec. with a range of 60- 120 sec. If S failed to cross the barrier on all of the first five trials, it was removed, placed on the other side of the shuttle box, and training then continued. At the end of the tenth trial, S was removed from the shuttle box and returned to its home cage. The Normal control group received only 10 escape/avoidance trials in the shuttle box

as described above.

The “Yoked” control group received the same exposure to shock in the harness as did the Escape group, except that panel pressing did not terminate shock. The duration of shock on any given trial was determined by the mean duration of the corresponding trial in the Escape group. Thus each S in the “Yoked” control group received a series of shocks of decreasing duration totaling to 226 sec.

Twenty-four hours later, Ss in the “Yoked” control group received 10 escape/ avoidance trials in the shuttle box as de­ scribed for the Escape group. Seven days later, those Ss in this group which showed the interference effect received 10 more trials in the shuttle box.

Results 5

The Escape group learned to panel press to terminate shock in the harness. Each S in this group showed decreas-

dogs which failed to learn the panel-press escape response in the harness might also be expected to be unable to learn shuttle box escape/avoidance. One of these dogs was run 48 hr. later in the shuttle box. It escaped and avoided normally. The other clog was too ill to be run in the shuttle box 48 hr. after it received shock in the harness. 6 All p values are based upon two-tailed

tests.

TABLE 1

INDEXES OF SHUTTLE Box ESCAPE/AVOID­ ANCE RESPONDING: EXP. l

Group

Mean Latency (in sec,)

% Ss Failing to Escape Shock on 9 or More
of the 10 Trials

Mean No. Failures to Escape Shock•

Escape

27.00

0

2.63

Normal Control

25.93

12.5

2.25

“Yoked” Control

48.22

75

7.25

· Out of 10 trials,

ing latencies of panel pressing over the course of the session (p

=

.008, sign test, Trials 1-8 vs. Trials 57-64).

Individual records revealed that each S learned to escape shock by emitting a single, discrete panel press following shock onset. The Ss in the “Yoked” control group typically ceased panel pressing altogether after about 30 trials.

Table 1 presents the mean latency of shuttle box responding, the mean number of failures to escape shock, and the percentage of Ss which failed to escape nine or more of the 10 trials during escape/avoidance training in the shuttle box for each group. The “Yoked” control group showed marked interference with escape responding in the shuttle box. It differed signifi­ cantly from the Escape group and from the Normal control group on mean latency and mean number of failures

to escape (in both cases, p < .05, Dun­

can’s multiple-range test). The Escape group and the Normal control group did not differ on these indexes.

Six Ss in the “Yoked” control group failed to escape shock on 9 or more of the 10 trials in the shuttle box. Seven days after the first shuttle-box treat­ ment, these six Ss received 10 further trials in the shuttle box. Five of them continued to fail to escape shock on every trial.

4 MARTIN E. P. SELIGMAN AND STEVEN F. MAIER

Discussion

The degree of control over shock al­ lowed a dog during its initial exposure to shock was a determinant of whether or not interference occurred with subse­ quent escape/avoidance learning. Dogs whic lea=ned to escape shock by panel pressing m the harness did not differ from untreated dogs in subsequent escape/ avoidance learning in the shuttle box. Dogs for which shock termination was independent of responding in the harness showed interference with subsequent es­ cape learning.

Because the Escape group differed from

!h. “Yoked” control group during their m1t1al exposure to shock only in their control over shock termination, we sug­ gest that differential learning about their control over shock occurred in these two groups. This learning may have acted in_ t?e fol!o ing way: (a) Shock initially elicited active responding in the harness in both groups. ( b) Ss in the “Yoked” control group learned that shock termi- 1;1atio_n was independent of their respond­ ing, 1.e., that the conditional probability of s ock termination in the presence of any given response did not differ from the conditional probability of shock termina­ tion in the absence of that response. ( c) The incentive for the initiation of active responding in the presence of electric sh_ock_ is the expectation that responding will increase the probability of shock termination. In the absence of such in­ centive, the probability that responding will be initiated decreases. (d) Shock in the shuttle box mediated the generalization of b to the new situation for the “Yoked” co rol group, thus decreasing the prob­ ability of escape response initiation in the shuttle box.

Escapable shock in the harness (Escape

group) did not produce interference, be­ cause Ss learned that their responding was correlated with shock termination. The incentive for the maintenance of re­ sponding was thus present, and escape response initiation occurred normally in the shuttle box.

Learning that shock termination is inde­ pendent of responding seems related to

the concept of learned “helplessness” or “hopelessness” advanced by Richter (1957), Mowrer (1960, p. 197), Cofer and Appley (1964, p. 452), and to the concept of external control of reinforce­ ment discussed by Lefcourt (1966) .

In untreated Ss the occurrence of an es­ cape or avoidance response is a reliable predictor of future escape and avoidance responding. Dogs in the “Yoked” con­ trol group and in the groups which showed the interference effect in Over­ mier and Seligman (1967) occasionally made an escape or avoidance response nd then reverted to “passively” accept­ mg shock. These dogs did not appear to benefit from the barrier-jumping-shock termination contingency. A possible in­ terpretation of this finding is that the prior learning that shock termination was independent of responding inhibited the formation of the barrier-jumping-shock­ termination association.

The Ss in the “Yoked” control group which showed the interference effect 24 hr. after inescapable shock in the har­ ness again failed to escape from shock after a further 7-day interval. In con­ trast, Overmier and Seligman (1967) found that no interference occurred when hr. elapsed between inescapable shock

18

m the harness and shuttle-box training. This time course could result from a temporary state of emotional depletion (Brush, Myer, & Palmer, 1963), which was produced by experience with ines­ capable shock, and which could be pro­ longed by being conditioned to the cues of the shuttle box. Such a state might be related to the parasympathetic death which Richter’s (1957) “hopeless” rats died. Further research is needed to clarify the relationship between the learn­ ing factor, which appears to cause the initial occurrence of the interference ef­ fect, and an emotional factor, which may be responsible for the time course of the effect.

The results of Exp. I provide a further disconfirmation of the adaptation expla­ nation of the interference effect. If Ss in the “Yoked” control group had adapted to shock and, therefore, were not suffi-

ESCAPE FAILURE WITH TRAUMATIC SHOCK 5

ciently motivated to respond in the shuttle box, Ss in the Escape group should also have adapted to shock. Further, the Es­ cape and the “Yoked” control groups were equated for the possibility of ad­ ventitious punishment for active respond­ ing by shock onset in the harness. Thus it seems unlikely that the “Yoked” con­ trol group failed to escape in the shuttle box because it had been adventitiously punished for active responding in the harness.

EXPERIMENT II

Experiment I provided support for the hypothesis that S learned that shock termination was independent of its responding in the harness and that this learning inhibited subsequent es­ cape responding in the shuttle box. Experiment II investigates whether prior experience with escapable shock in the shuttle box will mitigate the ef­ fects of inescapable shock in the har­ ness on subsequent escape/avoidance behavior. Such prior experience might be expected (a) to inhibit S’s learning in the harness that its responding is not correlated with shock termination and ( b) to allow S to discriminate be­ tween the escapability of shock in the shuttle box and the inescapability of shock in the harness.
Method

Subjects.-The Ss were 30 experimentally naive, mongrel dogs, weight, height, and housing as above. Three dogs were dis­ carded: two because of procedural errors and one because of illness. The remaining

27
dogs were randomly assigned to three groups of nine Ss each.

Apparatus.-The two units described for Exp. I were used.

Procedure.-The Preescape group received 3 days of treatment. On Day 1, each S received 10 escape/avoidance trials in the shuttle box as described in Exp. I. On Day 2, approximately 24 hr. after the shuttle­ box treatment, each S in this group received an inescapable shock session in the harness. All inescapable shocks were unsignaled. The inescapable shock session consisted of

64, 5-sec. shocks, each of 6.0 ma. The aver­ age intershock interval was 90 sec. with a range of 60-120 sec. On Day 3, approxi­ mately 24 hr. after the inescapable shock, S was returned to the shuttle box and given 30 more escape/avoidance trials, as described for Day 1.

The No Pregroup received no experience in the shuttle box prior to receiving in­ escapable shock. On the first treatment day for this group, each S was placed in the harness and exposed to an inescapable shock session as described for the Preescape group, Day 2. Approximately 24 hr. later, S was placed in the shuttle box and given 40 trials of escape/avoidance training as described above. If S failed to respond on all of the first five trials, S was moved to the other side of the shuttle box. If S continued to fail to respond on all trials, it was put back on the original side after the twenty-fifth trial. Thus, if S failed to escape on every trial, it received a total of 2,000 sec. of shock. The No Inescapable group was treated exactly as the Preescape group except that it received no shock in the harness. On Day 1, S received 10 escape/avoidance trials in the shuttle box. On Day 2, it was strapped in the harness for 90 min., but received no shock. On Day 3, it was returned to the shuttle box and given 30 more escape/avoid­

ance trials.

Results

The No Pregroup showed significant interference with escape/avoidance re­ sponding in the shuttle box on Day 3. The Preescape and the No Inescapable groups did not show such interference. Figure 1 presents the mean median latency of jumping responses for the three groups (and a posterior control group, see below) over the four blocks of 10 trials. Analysis of variance on

the three groups revealed that the ef­

fect of groups, F (2, 24) = 3.55, p <

.05, and the effect of trial blocks, F (3,

72) = 6.84, p < .01, were significant.

Duncan’s multiple-range test indicated

that the No Pregroup differed from the other two groups across all 40 trials

both p < .05. The Preescape and the

No Inescapable groups did not differ from each other. Similar results held

6 MARTIN E. P. SELIGMAN AND STEVEN F. MAIER

60

se,o

Zl$50

:It 30

zz

le

w

:I ..I 10

·
HARNESS TREATMENT

escapable group showed significantly

more improvement than the Preescape group, Mann-Whitney U test, U = 15, p < .05, No significant differences

were found on difference scores for any subsequent blocks of trials.

Figure 2 presents the mean number of failures to escape shock for the three

o–1 –2–3–4—

TRIALS (BLOCKS OF 10)

FIG. 1. Mean median latency of escape/ avoidance responding. (The position of the arrow denotes whether the harness treat­ ment occurred 24 hr. before the first or second block of trials.)

for the mean of mean latencies. A small, transitory disruption of improve­ ment in shuttle-box performance fol­ lowing inescapable shock in the harness occurred in the Preescape group rela­ tive to the No Inescapable group. Difference scores for latencies between consecutive blocks of trials measure improvement in performance. A com­ parison of the Preescape group with the No Inescapable group on the dif­ ference between the mean latency on Trials 1-10 and the mean latency on Trials 11-20 revealed that the No In-

….,..

+.,.

.;;:,…….., ,•..:::::·-xNO INESC.

,.••.•PRE ESC.

1 2 3 4

TRIALS (BLOCKS OF 10)

FrG. 2. Mean number of failures to escape shock. (The position of the arrow denotes whether the harness treatment occurred 24 hr. before the first or second block of trials.)

groups across the four blocks of trials.

Analysis of variance revealed a signifi­ cant overall effect of blocks, F ( 3, 72) 5.94, p < .0l, and a significant Groups X Blocks interaction, F (6,

=

72) = 17.82,
p < .01. Duncan's tests

indicated that the No Pregroup showed

significantly more failures to escape

than the other two groups across the 40 trials, both p < .05. The Preescape and the No Inescapable groups did not

differ.

Figure 3 presents the total number of avoidance responses for the groups across the blocks of trials. Only the blocks effect was significant in the overall analysis of variance, F (3, 72)

= 27.90, p < .01. No other effects

were significant.

Panel presses made in the harness during the inescapable shock session

FIG. 3. Mean number of avoidances. (The position of the arrow denotes whether the harness treatment occurred 24 hr. before the first or second block of trials.)

ESCAPE FAILURE WITH TRAUMATIC SHOCK 7

were counted. On either side of S’s head were panels which S could press ; panel pressing had no effect on the shock, but merely indicated attempts to respond and/or struggling in the har­ ness. The Preescape group, having received 10 trials with escapable shock in the shuttle box the previous day, made more panel presses during the inescapable shock session than did the No Pregroup, the group for which the inescapable shock in the harness was the first experimental treatment,

Mann-Whitney U test, U = 9, p < .02.

Posterior control group.-Subse­ quent to this experiment, a control group was run to determine if the escapability of shock in the shuttle box on Day 1 for the Preescape group was responsible for its enhanced panel pressing in the harness and lack of interference with responding in the shuttle box. Or would the mere oc­ currence of inescapable shock for a free-moving animal in the shuttle box have produced these results? Nine naive dogs received the following treat­ ment: On Day 1, Ss were placed in shuttle box and given 10 trials as for the Preescape and the No Inescapable groups. Unlike these groups, how­ ever, S’s barrier jumping did not (ex­ cept adventitiously) terminate the shock and CS, because trial durations were programmed independently of S’s behavior. The duration of each of the 10 trials for this Preinescapable group corresponded to the mean trial dura­ tion for the Preescape and the No In­ escapable groups on that trial. On Day 2, Ss received 64 trials of inescap­ able shock in the harness. On Day 3, Ss received 40 escape/avoidance trials in the shuttle box.

Figures 1, 2, and 3 present the escape/avoidance performance of the Preinescapable group on Day 3. In general this group performed like the

No Pregroup. This impression was borne out by statistical tests. The Pre­ inescapable group showed significantly slower median latency of barrier jump­ ing than the Preescape and the No Inescapable groups across all 40 trials,

both p < .05, Duncan's test. The Pre­

inescapable group did not differ from the No Pregroup. Similar results held for the other indexes.

Analysis of the panel press data showed that the Preinescapable group made significantly fewer panel presses

in the harness than the Preescape group, Mann-Whitney U test, U = 14, p < .05. The Preinescapable group

did not differ significantly from the No Pregroup, U = 26.

Discussion

Three main findings emerged from Exp. II: (a) Ss (Preescape), which first received escapable shock in the shuttle box, then inescapable shock in the har­ ness, did not react passively to subsequent shock in the shuttle box, as did Ss which either first received inescapable shock in the shuttle box ( Preinescapable) or no treatment prior to shock in the harness (No Pre). (b) The Preescape group, having received experience with escapa­ ble shock in the shuttle box, showed en­ hanced panel pressing when exposed to inescapable shock in the harness, relative to naive Ss given inescapable shock in the harness. Such enhanced panel press­ ing was specifically the result of the es­ capability of shock in the shuttle box: The Preinescapable group did not show enhanced panel pressing. ( c) The inter­ ference effect persisted for 40 trials.

The Ss which have had prior experi­ ence with escapable shock in the shuttle box showed more energetic behavior in response to inescapable shock in the har­ ness, This contrasts with the interfer­ ence effect produced by inescapable shock in Ss which have had no prior experience with shock or in Ss which have had prior experience with inescapable shock. Thus, if an animal first learns that its re-

8 MARTIN E. P. SELIGMAN AND STEVEN F. MAIER

sponding produces shock termination and then faces a situation in which reinforce­ ment is independent of its responding, it is more persistent in its attempts to es­ cape shock than is a naive animal.

GENERAL DISCUSSION

We have proposed that S learned as a consequence of inescapable shock that its responding was independent of shock termination, and therefore the probability of response initiation during shock de­ creased. Alternative explanations might be offered: (a) Inactivity, somehow, re­ duces the aversiveness of shock. Thus S failed to escape shock in the shuttle box because it had been reinforced for inac­ tivity in the harness. Since the inter­ ference effect occurred in Ss which had been curarized during inescapable shock, such an aversiveness-reducing mechanism would have to be located inward of the neuro-myal junction. ( b) S failed to es­ cape in the shuttle box because certain responses which facilitate barrier jumping were extinguished in the harness during inescapable shock. In conventional ex­ tinction procedures, some response is first explicitly reinforced by correlation with shock termination, and then that response is extinguished by removing shock alto­ gether from the situation. Responding during extinction is conventionally not uncorrelated with shock termination· rather, responding is correlated with th total absence of shock. In our harness situation, no response was first explicitly reinforced, and shock was presented throughout the session. A broader con­ cept of extinction, however, might be tenable. On this view, any procedure which decreases the probability of a re­ sponse by eliminating the incentive to respond is an extinction procedure. If the independence of shock termination and responding eliminates the incentive to respond ( as assumed), then our har­ ness procedure could be thought of as an extinction procedure. Such an explana­ tion seems only semantically different from the one we have advanced, since both entail that the probability of re­ sponding during shock has decreased be-

cause S learned that shock termination was independent of its responses.

Learning that one’s own responding and reinforcement are independent might b expected to play a role in appetitive situations. If S received extensive pre­ training with rewarding brain stimula­ tion delivered independently of its operant responding, would the subsequent acquisi­ tion of a bar press to obtain this reward be retarded? Further, might learned “helplessness” transfer from aversive to appetitive situations or vice versa?

If dogs learn in one situation that their active responding is to no avail, and then transfer this training to another shock situation, the opposite type of transfer (avoidance learning sets) might be possible: If a dog first learned a bar­ rier-hurdling response which avoided shock in the shuttle box, would that dog be facilitated in learning to panel press to avoid shock in the harness (to a dif­ ferent CS) ? Our finding, that dogs which first successfully escape shock in the shuttle box later showed enhanced panel pressing in the harness, is conso­ nant with this prediction.

Does learning about response-rein­ forcement contingencies have its analogs in classical conditioning? If S experi­ enced two stimuli randomly interspersed with each other ( adventitious pairings possible), would it be retarded in form­ ing an association between the two stim­ uli once true pairing was begun? Con­ versely, pretraining in which one stimulus is correlated with a US might facilitate the acquisition of the CR to a new CS. Pavlov (1927, p. 75) remarked that the first establishment of a conditioned in­ hibitor took longer than any succeeding one.

In conclusion, learning theory has stressed that two operations, explicit contiguity between events (acquisition) and explicit noncontiguity (extinction), produce learning. A third operation that is proposed, independence between events, also produces learning, and such learning may have effects upon behavior that dif­ fer from the effects of explicit pairing and explicit nonpairing. Such learning

ESCAPE FAILURE WITH TRAUMATIC SHOCK 9

may produce an S who does not attempt to escape electric shock; an S who, even if he does respond, may not benefit from instrumental contingencies.

REFERENCES

BRUSH, F. R., MYER, J. s., & PALMER, M. E.

Effects of kine! of prior training and inter­ session interval upon subsequent avoidance learning. J. comp. physiol. Psychol., 1963, 56, 539-545.

CoFER, C. N., & APPLEY, M. H. Motivation: Theory and research. New York: Wiley, 1964.

LEFCOURT, H. M. Internal vs. external con­ trol of reinforcement: A review. Psycho!. Bull., 1966, 65, 206-221.

MowRER, 0. H. Learning theory and be­ havior. New York: Wiley, 1960.

OVERMIER, J. B., & SELIGMAN, M. E. P. Ef­

fects of inescapable shock on subsequent escape and avoidance learning. J. comp. physiol. Psycho!., 1967, 63, 28-33.

PAVLOV, I. P. Conditioned reflexes. New York: Dover, 1927.

RICHTER, C. On the phenomenon of sudden death in animals and man. Psychosom. Med., 1957, 19, 191-198.

SOLOMON, R. L., & WYNNE, L. C. Trau­

matic avoidance learning: Acquisition in normal dogs. Psycho!. Monogr., 1953, 67(4, Whole No. 354).

(Received June 1, 1966)