Rashotte M E, Dove L D, Looney T A
J Exp Anal Behav. 1974 Mar;21(2):267-75. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1974.21-267.
Two pigeons that attacked a taxidermically prepared target pigeon during a schedule of positive reinforcement for key pecking, and two that did not, were shocked through implanted electrodes in the presence of the target. Shock intensities of 2 and 4 mA, durations of 0.1 and 1.3 sec, and frequencies of 2, 6, 20, and 35 per minute were delivered across 16 sessions with 180 shocks per session. No pigeon attacked the target; one pecked the shockplug on its back. The two pigeons that had not attacked during the positive reinforcement schedules were conditioned to peck the target for food reinforcement before another 16 sessions of shock. No attack was observed in these shock sessions. During subsequent positive reinforcement of key pecking, the target was attacked by the two pigeons that had originally attacked and by one that had not. Absence of shock-elicited attack in these pigeons may be related to the parameters of the experiment or may be yet another instance of the absence of shock-elicited attack in the class Aves. At least under the present conditions, it was not possible to predict the level of attack during electric shock from the level of attack during schedules of positive reinforcement for key pecking.
两只在啄键正强化训练期间攻击填充标本制作的目标鸽的鸽子，以及两只未攻击的鸽子，在目标鸽在场的情况下通过植入电极接受电击。电击强度为2毫安和4毫安，持续时间为0.1秒和1.3秒，频率为每分钟2次、6次、20次和35次，共进行16次训练，每次训练180次电击。没有鸽子攻击目标；有一只啄了它背上的电击插头。在正强化训练期间未攻击的两只鸽子在另外16次电击训练之前，经过训练学会为了食物强化而啄目标鸽。在这些电击训练中未观察到攻击行为。在随后的啄键正强化训练期间，最初攻击过的两只鸽子和一只未攻击过的鸽子攻击了目标鸽。这些鸽子中电击引发的攻击行为缺失可能与实验参数有关，也可能是鸟类中电击引发的攻击行为缺失的又一个例子。至少在目前的条件下，无法根据啄键正强化训练期间的攻击水平来预测电击期间的攻击水平。
