title: Analysis of the importance of controllable versus uncontrollable stress on subsequent behavioral and physiological functioning.
abstract: Original observations of the effects of stress exposure on behavioral, physiological and pathological indices were documented in the mid 1960s [J.B. Overmier, Interference with avoidance behavior: failure to avoid traumatic shock, J. Exp. Psychol. 78 (1968) 340-343 [12]; J.B. Overmier, M.E.P. Seligman, Effects of inescapable shock upon subsequent escape and avoidance learning, J. Comp. Physiol. Psychol. 63 (1967) 28-33 [13]; M.E.P. Seligman, S.F. Maier, Failure to escape traumatic shock, J. Exp. Psychol. 74 (1967) 1-9 [15]; J.M. Weiss, Effects of coping responses on stress, J. Comp. Physiol. Psychol. 65 (1968) 251-260 [18]]. Studies employing the triadic design (e.g. escapable stress, yoked-inescapable stress and no stress) indicated that the deficits following stress exposure were not caused by stress per se, rather the uncontrollability of the stress was the critical determinant. In this paradigm, the first group (escape) receives exposure to an environmental event that it can "control" by performing a behavioral response. Stress control or coping behavior includes the ability to alter the onset, duration, intensity or pattern of an aversive experience [S.F. Maier, M.E.P. Seligman, Learned helplessness: theory and evidence, J. Exp. Psychol.: Gen. 105 (1976) 3-46 [10]]. The second group is "yoked" to its escape partner and receives the identical physical stressor as its escape counterpart, but there is no behavioral response that the yoked subject can make to alter the outcome. The third group (naive) receives no stress exposure and is either restrained in the experimental apparatus or remains in the home cage until subsequent testing. Researchers using this triadic design should be aware of the concerns of certain investigators [R.M. Church, Systematic effect of random error in the yoked control design, Psychol. Bull. 62 (1964) 122-131 [3]; E.A. Wasserman, Response bias in the yoked control procedure, Behav. Brain Sci. 11 (1988) 477-478 [17]] who have raised important issues about the validity of the yoked control design because of the possibility of systematic biases. For example, individual differences in stress reactivity may result in random error in the yoked control group. This point will be addressed further in Section 5. This procedure allows the investigator to analyze the contributions of the importance of psychological dynamics of stress on a variety of dependent measures including: behavioral, pharmacological, neurochemical and immunological indices.
authors.affiliation: Department of Psychology, University of New Hampshire, Durham 03824-3567, USA.
authors.forename: R C
authors.initials: RC
authors.lastname: Drugan
authors.forename: A S
authors.initials: AS
authors.lastname: Basile
authors.forename: J H
authors.initials: JH
authors.lastname: Ha
authors.forename: D
authors.initials: D
authors.lastname: Healy
authors.forename: R J
authors.initials: RJ
authors.lastname: Ferland
mesh_terms: D000818:Animals; D004597:Electroshock / Q000295:instrumentation / Q000379:methods; D004867:Equipment Design; D004924:Escape Reaction; D006380:Helplessness, Learned; D007858:Learning; D051381:Rats; D011919:Rats, Inbred Strains; D015203:Reproducibility of Results; D013045:Species Specificity; D013315:Stress, Psychological / Q000503:physiopathology* / Q000523:psychology*