Analysis of the importance of controllable versus uncontrollable stress on subsequent behavioral and physiological functioning
Analysis of the importance of controllable versus uncontrollable stress on subsequent behavioral and physiological functioning
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/s1385-299x(97)00031-7
复制
发表时间：
1997-12-01
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Ferland, RJ
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Drugan, RC;Basile, AS;Ferland, RJ
关于压力暴露对行为、生理和病理指标的影响的最初观察是在20世纪60年代中期记录下来的[J.B.Overmier，对回避行为的干扰：未能避免创伤性休克，J.Exp。精神病患者。78(1968)340-343[12]；J.B.Overmier，M.E.P.塞利格曼，不可避免的冲击对随后逃避和回避学习的影响，J.Comp.物理。精神病患者。63(1967)28-33[13]；M.E.P.塞利格曼，S.F.迈尔，未能逃脱创伤性休克，J.Exp.精神病患者。74(1967)1-9[15]；J.M.Weiss，应对反应对压力的影响，J.Comp.物理。精神病患者。65(1968)251-260[18]。采用三因素设计的研究表明，应激暴露后的缺陷并不是由应激本身引起的，而是应激的不可控性是关键的决定因素。在这个范例中，第一组(逃脱)接受环境事件的暴露，它可以通过执行行为反应来“控制”该环境事件。压力控制或应对行为包括改变厌恶体验的开始、持续时间、强度或模式的能力[S.F.迈尔，M.E.P.塞利格曼，获得性无助：理论和证据，J.Exp。精神病学：Gen.105(1976)3-46[10].第二组受试者与其逃脱伙伴“捆绑”在一起，并受到与其逃脱同伴相同的身体压力，但受试者无法做出任何行为反应来改变结果。第三组(幼稚组)不接受压力暴露，要么被束缚在实验设备中，要么留在家中笼子里，直到随后的测试。使用这种三元设计的研究人员应该意识到某些研究人员的担忧[R.M.丘奇，轭控制设计中随机误差的系统效应，心理学。胡说八道。62(1964)122-131[3]；E.A.Wasserman，《轭控制程序中的响应偏差》，Behav。脑科学。11(1988)477-478[17]，由于可能存在系统性偏差，他们对轭控制设计的有效性提出了重要问题。例如，应激反应的个体差异可能会导致负轭对照组的随机误差。这一点将在第5节中进一步阐述。这一程序使研究人员能够分析应激心理动力学对各种依赖指标的重要性，包括：行为、药理学、神经化学和免疫学指数。(C)1997年爱思唯尔科学公司。
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. (C) 1997 Elsevier Science B.V.