https://www.researchgate.

net/profile/J-Overmier/publication/
17155992_Overmier_JB_Seligman_ME_Effects_of_inescapable_shock_upon_subsequent_
escape_and_avoidance_responding_J_Comp_Physiol_Psychol_63_28-33/links/
0deec5169fcab40c72000000/Overmier-JB-Seligman-ME-Effects-of-inescapable-shock-
upon-subsequent-escape-and-avoidance-responding-J-Comp-Physiol-Psychol-63-28-33.pdf

The text discusses an experiment that explores the interference phenomenon in relation to
shock duration, the number of shocks, and shock density. The experiment aims to identify
factors that determine interference with subsequent instrumental responding. Specifically, it
tests whether the interference is dependent on the presence of a particular signal during the
training situation that was also present in the inescapable shock session.

This text is describing an experiment involving 32 adult mongrel dogs. Here are the key
points explained in simpler terms:

1. **Subjects**: 32 dogs were used in the experiment. They were kept in individual cages
and were divided into four groups with 8 dogs each. These dogs were of medium size and
weight.

2. **Apparatus**: The experiment used two different setups. The first one was a hammock in
a quiet room where dogs received inescapable shocks. The shocks were delivered through
electrodes on their hind feet. The second setup was a two-compartment box where dogs
were tested for their response to shocks. The level of light in these compartments and the
shocks were controlled for the experiment.

3. **Treatments**: The dogs underwent two treatments on different days. First, they were
exposed to inescapable shocks. Depending on the group, the duration and frequency of
these shocks varied. Then, about a day later, all groups received escape-avoidance training
in the two-compartment box. If they jumped over a barrier when the lights dimmed, they
avoided shocks. If not, they received a shock. The timing between the light change and the
shock also varied.

In simple terms, this experiment aimed to study how dogs responded to different types of
shocks and training situations. It involved different groups of dogs, two different setups (one
for shock exposure and the other for testing their reactions), and two treatments (shock
exposure and escape-avoidance training). The goal was to understand how these variables
affected the dogs' behavior.
The text is describing the results of an experiment in a simplified manner:

1. **Table 1**: This table summarizes the performance data of dogs in a shuttle-box (an
experimental setup).

2. **Group Differences**: An analysis showed that the groups of dogs performed differently
in terms of how quickly they responded in the shuttle-box.

3. **Inescapable Shocks Effect**: The groups that were exposed to inescapable shocks
responded slower in the escape-avoidance task compared to the group that didn't receive
such shocks.

4. **No Significant Difference Among Shocked Groups**: Interestingly, among the groups
that received inescapable shocks, they didn't show significant differences in their response
times.

5. **Failure to Escape**: Dogs that were exposed to inescapable shocks were more likely to
fail in escaping from shocks compared to the group that didn't receive inescapable shocks.

In simple terms, the experiment found that dogs exposed to inescapable shocks were slower
in their response and more likely to fail in escaping from shocks compared to the group that
didn't receive these shocks. Among the shocked groups, there wasn't a significant difference
in their performance.

In simple terms, this text describes an experiment that shows how previous exposure to
unavoidable shocks affects an animal's ability to learn how to escape from shocks.

Here are the main points:

1. **Interference with Learning**: Exposure to unavoidable shocks in different conditions

makes it harder for the animals to learn how to escape from future shocks.

2. **Shock Density**: Groups that experienced more intense shock situations showed
slightly more interference, suggesting that the intensity of the shocks might affect the
interference effect.

3. **General Phenomenon**: The interference doesn't seem to depend on specific conditions

or the pairing of shocks with particular stimuli. It appears to be a general result of exposure
to unavoidable shocks.

4. **Behavioral Differences**: Animals that were exposed to unavoidable shocks initially

reacted similarly to those who weren't exposed. However, they eventually became passive
and stopped reacting to the shocks, whereas the unexposed animals continued to try to
escape.

5. **Inconsistent Escape Responses**: Animals previously exposed to unavoidable shocks

did not reliably continue to try to escape when shocked again. In contrast, those not exposed
initially tried to escape, and their efforts were more predictable.

6. **Physical Capability**: All animals were physically capable of escaping the shocks but
those previously exposed to unavoidable shocks sometimes chose not to escape even
though they were physically able.

In essence, the experiment demonstrates that prior exposure to unavoidable shocks can
make animals less motivated to escape from future shocks, and this effect is not necessarily
tied to specific conditions or stimuli.

This text is discussing an experiment that tries to understand why animals may fail to escape
from shocks even when they are physically capable of doing so. Here's a simplified
explanation:

1. **Interference Phenomenon**: The experiment looks into two possible reasons for why
animals don't try to escape from shocks. The first reason is "adaptation," which means that if
they've gotten used to the shocks, they might not be motivated to escape. The second
reason is the "learning of incompatible motor responses," which means they might have
learned certain movements that interfere with escaping from shocks.

2. **Testing Motivation**: To test the first reason (adaptation), the experiment uses a group
of animals that receive stronger shocks during training, making them more motivated to
escape. If this group still doesn't escape, it suggests that adaptation might not be the main
issue.

3. **Incompatible Movements**: The second reason involves the possibility that the animals
may have learned movements that prevent them from escaping. To rule this out, another
group of animals has their muscles temporarily paralyzed so they can't make any
movements during the shock exposure.

In simple terms, the experiment is trying to figure out why animals sometimes don't try to
escape from shocks. They're testing whether it's because they've become used to the
shocks and aren't motivated or if they've learned movements that interfere with escaping.
They use different groups of animals and techniques to investigate these possibilities.
In simple terms, this text describes an experiment conducted with 24 adult dogs. The dogs
were divided into three groups, and they used the same equipment as a previous
experiment.

Here's what each group experienced:

1. **High-Motivation Group**: This group of dogs went through a similar treatment as a

group from a previous experiment (Group II in Experiment 1). They received a series of 5-
second electric shocks at certain intervals during one phase of the experiment to motivate
them.

2. **Curarized Groups**: In these groups, the dogs were temporarily paralyzed using a drug
called tubocurarine chloride. This paralyzed state was necessary to test whether certain
movements or behaviors affected their responses. One of these groups received electric
shocks while paralyzed, and the other group did not receive shocks.

After a day, all three groups were trained to avoid shocks using the same procedure as in
the previous experiment. The high-motivation group experienced stronger shocks to see if
this increased motivation would affect their behavior.

In essence, the experiment aimed to understand how the dogs' behavior would change
when they were temporarily paralyzed and subjected to different levels of shock, and how
this would affect their response to avoidance training.

The text discusses the results of an experiment comparing different groups of dogs and their
response times to escaping from shocks. Here's a simplified breakdown of the findings:

1. **High-Motivation Group vs. Group II**: There was no significant difference in the
response times between the high-motivation group and Group II.

2. **High-Motivation Group vs. Group I**: The high-motivation group was significantly slower
in responding compared to Group I.

3. **High-Motivation Group vs. Group II (Failures to Escape)**: The high-motivation group

didn't significantly differ from Group II in the number of failures to escape from shocks.

4. **High-Motivation Group vs. Group I (Failures to Escape)**: The high-motivation group

had significantly more failures to escape compared to Group I.

5. **Curare-Shock Group vs. Curare-No Shock Group (Response Times)**: The dogs in the
curare-shock group were significantly slower in their responses compared to the curare-no
shock group.
6. **Curare-Shock Group vs. Curare-No Shock Group (Failures to Escape)**: The curare-
shock group had significantly more failures to escape from shocks compared to the curare-
no shock group.

7. **Curare-No Shock Group vs. Group I**: The curare-no shock group had response times
similar to Group I.

8. **Curare-Shock Group vs. Group II**: The curare-shock group had response times similar
to Group II.

In simple terms, the experiment found that the high-motivation group responded slower and
had more failures to escape compared to Group I, but they were similar to Group II. The
dogs in the curare-shock group were slower and had more failures to escape than the
curare-no shock group, and their response times were similar to Groups I and II.

This passage discusses the results of an experiment and their implications regarding the
interference phenomenon. Here's a simplified explanation:

1. **Interference Still Occurs**: The interference phenomenon, where animals struggle to

escape from shocks after prior exposure to them, still happens. The use of stronger shocks
during escape-avoidance training doesn't significantly reduce this interference.

2. **Adaptation Hypothesis**: Some might argue that the stronger shocks used (6.5
milliamps) weren't enough to motivate the animals that had been previously exposed to
shocks. However, using even stronger shocks can be physically harmful and prevent the
animals from responding, making it doubtful that adaptation explains the interference.

3. **Paralysis Doesn't Prevent Interference**: Paralyzing the animals during exposure to

shocks didn't prevent interference. Animals subjected to both paralysis and shocks showed
interference, while paralyzed animals not exposed to shocks did not. This casts doubt on the
idea that the interference is due to incompatible motor responses learned during exposure to
shocks.

In simple terms, the experiment found that the interference phenomenon still occurs even
with stronger shocks, and it's unlikely that the animals' adaptation to shocks or their motor
responses during exposure to shocks are the main reasons for this interference. The exact
cause remains unclear.

This passage discusses how the passage of time can affect the impact of shock on behavior.
Previous studies have shown that there are changes in behavior when there's a time gap
between experiencing something fearful and receiving training. For example, when there's a
24-hour gap between learning to fear something and training to avoid it, animals can escape
from the fearful situation. However, when the time gap is very short (only 3 minutes),
interference occurs, and animals struggle to avoid the fearful situation.
The experiments mentioned in this passage, Experiments 1 and 2, have used a 24-hour gap
between exposure to inescapable shock and training for escape and avoidance. However,
this experiment aims to investigate how the time gap between these two experiences affects
the interference phenomenon. In other words, it wants to see how the timing between
exposure to shock and training impacts the way animals respond.

This text describes an experiment involving 32 adult dogs that were randomly divided into
eight groups of 4 dogs each. The same equipment as in previous experiments was used.

The experiment focused on two sets of four groups. Each group was treated similarly, with
the main difference being the amount of time that passed between being exposed to
inescapable shocks and undergoing instrumental escape-avoidance training.

The first set of four groups, like Group II in a previous experiment, received 64 unsignaled 5-
second shocks of 6.0 milliamps. The shocks occurred at intervals of 60-120 seconds, with an
average of 90 seconds between shocks.

The second set of four groups was given the same shocks but, during the shock exposure,
they were temporarily paralyzed using curare. Half of the shocks were signaled by a tone,
and the other half were unsignaled. There was an equal number of tone presentations
without subsequent shocks. The time intervals between shocks and training varied, with
groups experiencing 24, 48, 72, or 144 hours between the two treatments.

All groups then underwent 10 trials of instrumental avoidance training, with the timing
between the two treatments being the key difference between the groups. This experiment
aimed to investigate how different time intervals between exposure to shocks and escape-
avoidance training affected the dogs' responses.

The text discusses the results of an experiment and the statistical analysis of those results.
Here's a simplified explanation:

1. **Group Comparison**: The experiment compared two sets of groups - one that
experienced shocks with curare and one without curare. The analysis showed that there was
no significant difference in how these two sets of groups responded. So, the results for
curarized and uncurarized dogs were combined.

2. **Time Interval Effect**: The dogs did show differences in their response times depending
on the time that passed between the exposure to inescapable shocks and the instrumental
avoidance training. The groups that had 48, 72, or 144 hours between the two treatments
responded significantly faster than the group that only had 24 hours. However, there were no
significant differences in response times among the 48, 72, and 144-hour groups.

3. **Comparison with Other Groups**: When comparing the response times of the 48, 72,
and 144-hour groups with a group of dogs that were not exposed to inescapable shocks in a
previous experiment (Group I), there were no significant differences.

4. **Failures to Escape**: The groups also tended to differ in the total number of failures to
escape from shocks. The 48, 72, and 144-hour groups had significantly fewer failures
compared to the 24-hour group.

In simple terms, the analysis of the experiment's results showed that dogs responded
differently based on the time interval between their exposure to inescapable shocks and their
training. The groups that had more time between these two events responded faster and had
fewer failures compared to the group with a shorter time interval. Additionally, their
responses were similar to a group of dogs that had not been exposed to inescapable shocks
in a previous experiment.

The text is summarizing the findings of an experiment. It suggests that the negative effects
of inescapable shocks on an animal's ability to learn how to escape from them go away fairly
quickly. After just 48 hours, the animal's behavior returns to normal. This aligns with
observations made in previous studies, which found that introducing a delay between
experiencing inescapable shocks and training for avoidance responses actually makes it
easier for the animals to learn to avoid the shocks.

Interestingly, the magnitude of the interference phenomenon and the recovery from the
effects of inescapable shocks didn't seem to be affected by whether the shocks were
signaled or not signaled, or whether the animals were paralyzed or not during the shocks. In
other words, these factors didn't seem to change how quickly the animals recovered or how
much the shocks interfered with their behavior.

The text discusses the phenomenon of proactive interference, which refers to the impact of
prior exposure to inescapable shock on an animal's ability to learn instrumental escape-
avoidance responses. The text highlights the following points:

1. **Reliable Phenomenon**: Proactive interference from inescapable shock is a consistent

and reliable phenomenon observed in experiments.

2. **Inadequate Hypotheses**: Two hypotheses, "incompatible instrumental response" and

"adaptation," do not fully explain this interference phenomenon.
3. **Common Elements**: In these experiments, the search for a common element in both
treatment situations that could mediate the interference phenomenon found very few
candidates. The only common elements were electric shock and white noise. It is suggested
that one of these might be sufficient to mediate the interference.

4. **Parasympathetic Reaction**: One possible mechanism that could explain the

interference is a parasympathetic reaction that occurs after exposure to inescapable shock.
This mechanism has been proposed in the past to explain similar interference effects and
their dissipation over time.

5. **Learned Helplessness**: An alternative explanation is that the interference is a result of

learned helplessness. This occurs when an individual receives aversive stimuli in a situation
where their attempts to respond or take action do not alleviate or reduce the severity of the
trauma. This interpretation leads to the suggestion that the degree of control given to the
subject over the shock exposure conditions is an important factor for future investigation.
Providing more control might "immunize" the subject against proactive interference and
could even lead to proactive facilitation.

In summary, the text explores different potential explanations for the proactive interference
phenomenon, including physiological reactions and psychological responses like learned
helplessness. Further investigation is needed to fully understand the underlying
mechanisms.