The experiment by Seligman & Maier (1967 attempted to solve issues presented by Overmier and Seligman in their 1967study. In the study, the researchers showed that previous exposure to dogs to inescapable shock in Pavlonian harness led to interference in the ensuing escape/avoidance learning. In most cases, the dogs fail to escape box when shocked. Originally, they exhibit typical response to shock, but the passively accept the shock after a few trials and fail to make any escape attempts. Additionally, if the escape or avoidance response is produced, it does not predict future behaviors as with usual dogs. According to the researchers, this behavioral pattern is not caused by incompatible skeletal reactions reinforced by inescapable shock because they are exhibited by the dogs even when they are restricted using curare. Furthermore, the responses was not the outcome of getting used to shock because it is exhibited even after the shock is increased. Nevertheless, the behavior or interference is not exhibited if forty eight hours pass between the introduction to unavoidable shock and escape/evasion teaching. Therefore, the response may be explained by another short-term process.
The purpose of the experiment was to determine how dogs react to shock if they were capable of escaping from the shuttle box. Based on Overmier & Seligman (1967), the amount of control over shock given to the subjects in the yoke may be a significant factor in explaining the interference effect. Using this basis, the researchers developed two hypotheses for their experiment. First, if the shock is ended independently of the subjects; reaction during its first familiarity with shock, intervention with the ensuing escape/evasion reaction should ensue. The second hypothesis is that of the subjects' reactions terminate shock during the preliminary experience with shock, normal escape/avoidance behavior is exhibited. The independent variable, one that is manipulated by the researcher was the escapable shock, while the dependent variable was the dogs' reaction to the electrical shock (shock termination).
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
In the first part of the experiment, the researchers investigated the influence of escapable shock as compared to inescapable shock on the ensuing escape/avoidance repose. In the first experiment, 30 naïve mongrel dogs were selected for the study; they were separated into three groups comprising the normal, the escape, and the "yoked" groups. The procedure entailed providing the "escape" group with training on the escape in the yoke. 64 shocks were presented in 90 seconds. If a subject pressed its head on the panel, the shock terminated automatically after thirty seconds. Two dogs were removed for not evading eighteen of the twenty shocks. After 24 hours, subjects in the escape group were given ten trials of escape/avoidance training. The shocks were given at an interval of 10 seconds, and if the dog learned to jump the obstacle at the interval, the shock was ended, and no further shock was given. In case the subject did not jump the obstacle, the shock continued until it learned to jump the barrier. The shock was ended after 60 seconds if the dog failed to jump the barrier.
The researchers exposed the normal group to only ten escape/avoidance trials. The "yoked" group was exposed to the same shock treatment as the first group, but panel pressing to end the shock did not occur. After 24 hours this group were exposed to 10 escape/avoidance trials similar to that of the escape group. After seven days, subjects in the "yoked" group who exhibited in interference were treated to 10 additional trials. Results showed that dogs in the escape group were able to panel press to terminate the shock. However, subjects in the third (yoked) group stopped pressing the panel after 30 attempts.
In the first part of the experiment, Maier and Seligman concluded that the level of control by the subjects in the initial contact with shock determined whether interference will take place or not. Termination of shock was independent of reaction in the York, which showed interference in the ensuing escape learning. The incentive to initiate response is that the response will increase the probability that the shock will be terminated. The lack of this incentive lowers the initiation of a response. Learning that shock termination was not related to response is associated with the idea of learned "helplessness" postulated by Richter (1957) and Mowrer (1960). In the control group, the incidence of an escape/evasion reaction is a reliable future indicator of escape/evasion response. The harnessed group and subjects that exhibited interference learned that shock cessation was autonomous of the response, which impeded the escape-shock ending relationship. Although these subjects initially exhibited reactions to the shock, they resorted to passively accepting the shock.
In the second part of the experiment, Maier and Seligman tried to support the hypothesis that the dogs learned that shock cessation was autonomous of its reaction to shock in the yoke, and that learning impeded ensuing evasion response in the box. In the second test, the researchers separated 27 dogs into three sets. The pre-escape set was presented with three days of escape/avoidance treatment that were not signaled. The no pre-group were not exposed to treatment before exposure to shock. Finally, the no inescapable group was exposed to shock just like the prep-group but received no shock in the harness. Results showed that the pre-group exhibited significant interference after three days, while the no inescapable group and the prep-escape group did not exhibit interference (Seligman & Maier, 1967).
In the experiment, the researchers showed that a subject learned as an outcome of inevitable shock that its reaction was autonomous of shock cessation. The researchers offer two alternative explanations. First, inactivity somehow lowers evasiveness to shock. Therefore, the dogs failed to escape shock because it had been reinforced to for inactivity. Secondly, the subject failed to escape because some responses that support escape were switched off in the harness during unavoidable shock. To conclude, the researchers claimed that learning theory emphasize two processes: obvious contiguity between occurrences (acquisition) and obvious non-contiguity (extinction) (Seligman & Maier, 1967). These operations produce learning. However, they introduce a third variable, independence between occurrences, which may produce learning and influence behavior in a way that is different from pairing explicit and non-explicit pairing. The learning produced leads to a subject that does not attempt- to escape electric shock nor one that knows that it may not benefit from instrumental contingencies.
Seligman and Maier's experiment could be varied by first reinforcing a response through association with shock termination. It is then followed by completely extinguishing the response by removing the shock from the experiment. By varying the experiment in this manner, response during extinction is not associated with shock the absence of shock. By altering the experiment this way, a more tenable concept of extinction is acceptable. On this perspective, any activity that lowers the likelihood of a response by removing the incentive to respond is extinction. However, the researchers use their harness procedure as an extinction procedure. However, arguing that the harness procedure is only semantically different from completely removing the incentive for response is not convincing enough. The researchers should have removed the shock to reinforce the response instead of using the harness procedure. However, such a variation may not explain the third variable that explains learning, the independence between events that the researchers sought to uncover.
Reference
Seligman, M. and Maier, S. (1967). Failure to Escape Traumatic Shock. Journal of Experimental Psychology ; Vol 74, No. 1.
