Source Paper
REFLEXIVE FIGHTING IN RESPONSE TO AVERSIVE STIMULATION<sup>1</sup>
R. E. Ulrich, N. H. Azrin
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior • 1962
Source Paper
R. E. Ulrich, N. H. Azrin
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior • 1962
Reflexive fighting was elicited between paired rats as a reflex reaction to electric shock prior to any specific conditioning. Such fighting was fairly stereotyped and easily differentiated from the rats' usual behavior. The strength of this reflex was not attributable to any apparent operant reinforcement. Elicitation of fighting was a direct function of the enclosed floor area and a nonmonotonic function of the shock intensity. Failure to scramble the polarity of the electrified grid produced inconsistent fighting. Under optimal conditions fighting was consistently elicited by shock regardless of the rat's sex, strain, previous familiarity with each other, or the number present during shock. Repeated shock presentations did not produce an appreciable decrease in fighting until signs of physical debility appeared. Although shock did not cause a rat to attack inanimate objects, it did produce attack movements toward other small animals. Failure of guinea pigs to defend themselves revealed that the elicitation of fighting from the rat does not require reciprocal attack. Paired hamsters showed fighting reactions similar to those of the rats, whereas guinea pigs failed to fight. Electrode shock and a heated floor elicited fighting between the rats, but intense noise and a cooled floor did not.
Objective: To measure reflexive fighting responses elicited between paired rats as a direct reflex reaction to electric shock, and to determine how fighting strength varies as a function of shock intensity, enclosed floor area, and other variables
This is a Reflexive Fighting Elicitation by Electric Shock protocol using rat as the model organism. The procedure involves 9 procedural steps, 5 equipment items, 1 materials. Extracted from a 1962 paper published in Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior.
Model and subjects
rat • not specified • both • not specified • not specified • 2
Study window
Estimated timing pending
Core workflow
Subject pairing and placement • Electric shock delivery with polarity scrambling • Vary shock intensity
Primary readouts
Key equipment and reagents
Verified items
0
Direct vendor links
0
Use this page as an execution guide, then fall back to the source paper whenever you need exact exclusions, dosing details, or assay-specific caveats.
Confirm first
Use the page like this
Start here. The step list is optimized for running the experiment, with direct vendor links available inline when you need to source a cited item.
Place two rats together in the enclosed chamber with electrified grid floor. Vary conditions including rat sex, strain, previous familiarity with each other, and number of rats present.
Note: Fighting was consistently elicited regardless of rat sex, strain, previous familiarity, or number present
“Under optimal conditions fighting was consistently elicited by shock regardless of the rat's sex, strain, previous familiarity with each other, or the number present during shock.”
Deliver electric shock to paired rats through the electrified grid floor. Ensure polarity of the grid is scrambled to produce consistent fighting responses.
Note: Failure to scramble polarity produced inconsistent fighting results
“Failure to scramble the polarity of the electrified grid produced inconsistent fighting.”
Test multiple shock intensity levels to determine the relationship between shock intensity and fighting strength. Shock intensity produces a nonmonotonic function with fighting elicitation.
Note: Relationship is nonmonotonic, not linear
“Elicitation of fighting was a direct function of the enclosed floor area and a nonmonotonic function of the shock intensity.”
Test multiple enclosed floor area sizes to determine the relationship between available space and fighting strength.
Note: Fighting strength is directly proportional to floor area
“Elicitation of fighting was a direct function of the enclosed floor area”
Present electric shock repeatedly to the same paired rats across multiple trials to assess habituation or sensitization effects.
Note: Repeated shock did not produce appreciable decrease in fighting until physical debility appeared
“Repeated shock presentations did not produce an appreciable decrease in fighting until signs of physical debility appeared.”
Compare fighting elicitation using electrode shock, heated floor, intense noise, and cooled floor to determine stimulus specificity.
Note: Only electrode shock and heated floor elicited fighting; noise and cooled floor did not
“Electrode shock and a heated floor elicited fighting between the rats, but intense noise and a cooled floor did not.”
Expose shocked rats to inanimate objects to determine if shock-induced fighting is specific to other animals.
Note: Shock did not cause rats to attack inanimate objects
“Although shock did not cause a rat to attack inanimate objects, it did produce attack movements toward other small animals.”
Expose paired rats and guinea pigs to electric shock to test whether fighting requires reciprocal attack or defensive behavior from the target animal.
Note: Guinea pigs failed to defend themselves or fight; rats still attacked them
“Failure of guinea pigs to defend themselves revealed that the elicitation of fighting from the rat does not require reciprocal attack.”
Expose paired hamsters to electric shock to compare fighting responses across species.
Note: Hamsters showed fighting reactions similar to rats; guinea pigs failed to fight
“Paired hamsters showed fighting reactions similar to those of the rats, whereas guinea pigs failed to fight.”
This section explains what the experiment is doing, which readouts matter, what the data artifacts usually look like, and how the analysis should flow from raw capture to reported result.
To measure reflexive fighting responses elicited between paired rats as a direct reflex reaction to electric shock, and to determine how fighting strength varies as a function of shock intensity, enclosed floor area, and other variables
Objective
To measure reflexive fighting responses elicited between paired rats as a direct reflex reaction to electric shock, and to determine how fighting strength varies as a function of shock intensity, enclosed floor area, and other variables
Subjects
From paperrat • not specified • both • not specified • not specified
Sample count
From paper2
Cohort notes
From paperPaired rats tested; sex, strain, previous familiarity with each other, and number present during shock varied across conditions
Subject pairing and placement (not specified)
Electric shock delivery with polarity scrambling (not specified)
Vary shock intensity (not specified)
Vary enclosed floor area (not specified)
Presence and intensity of fighting behavior in response to electric shock
From papernot specified
Artifact type
Endpoint measurements summarized by group or timepoint
Comparison focus
Compare endpoint magnitude between groups, timepoints, or both
Relationship between shock intensity and fighting strength (nonmonotonic function)
From papernot specified
Artifact type
Endpoint measurements summarized by group or timepoint
Comparison focus
Compare endpoint magnitude between groups, timepoints, or both
Relationship between enclosed floor area and fighting strength (direct function)
From papernot specified
Artifact type
Endpoint measurements summarized by group or timepoint
Comparison focus
Compare endpoint magnitude between groups, timepoints, or both
Consistency of fighting across repeated shock presentations
From papernot specified
Artifact type
Endpoint measurements summarized by group or timepoint
Comparison focus
Compare endpoint magnitude between groups, timepoints, or both
Presence and intensity of fighting behavior in response to electric shock
From paperRaw artifact
Per-sample or per-animal endpoint measurements collected during the experiment
Processed artifact
Structured table with cleaned measurements ready for comparison
Final reported form
Summary statistics and between-group or across-timepoint comparisons
Relationship between shock intensity and fighting strength (nonmonotonic function)
From paperRaw artifact
Per-sample or per-animal endpoint measurements collected during the experiment
Processed artifact
Structured table with cleaned measurements ready for comparison
Final reported form
Summary statistics and between-group or across-timepoint comparisons
Relationship between enclosed floor area and fighting strength (direct function)
From paperRaw artifact
Per-sample or per-animal endpoint measurements collected during the experiment
Processed artifact
Structured table with cleaned measurements ready for comparison
Final reported form
Summary statistics and between-group or across-timepoint comparisons
Consistency of fighting across repeated shock presentations
From paperRaw artifact
Per-sample or per-animal endpoint measurements collected during the experiment
Processed artifact
Structured table with cleaned measurements ready for comparison
Final reported form
Summary statistics and between-group or across-timepoint comparisons
Acquisition
Collect raw experimental outputs with enough metadata to preserve sample identity, condition, and timing.
Preprocessing / cleaning
not specified
Scoring or quantification
Quantify the primary readouts for this experiment: Presence and intensity of fighting behavior in response to electric shock; Relationship between shock intensity and fighting strength (nonmonotonic function); Relationship between enclosed floor area and fighting strength (direct function); Consistency of fighting across repeated shock presentations.
Statistical comparison
Statistical method not yet structured for this page.
Reporting output
Report representative outputs alongside summary comparisons for Presence and intensity of fighting behavior in response to electric shock, Relationship between shock intensity and fighting strength (nonmonotonic function), Relationship between enclosed floor area and fighting strength (direct function), Consistency of fighting across repeated shock presentations.
Source links and direct wording from the methods section for validation and deeper review.
Citation
R. E. Ulrich et al. (1962). REFLEXIVE FIGHTING IN RESPONSE TO AVERSIVE STIMULATION<sup>1</sup>. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior
“”
“”
“”
“”
Direct vendor pages are linked from the protocol above. This section stays focused on the full comparison view and the prep checklist.
Gather these items before starting the experiment. Check off items as you prepare.
not specified • not specified • not specified • not mentioned
not specified • not specified • not specified • not mentioned
not specified • not specified • not specified • not mentioned
not specified • not specified • not specified • not mentioned
not specified • not specified • not specified • not mentioned
not specified • not specified • not specified • not mentioned
Use this section as the page quality checkpoint. It keeps section navigation, evidence access, readiness, and verification meaning in one place.
Current status surfaces were computed from experiment data updated Feb 28, 2026.
Source access
Jump back into the original paper or the methods evidence section when you need exact wording, exclusions, or method-specific caveats.
This protocol has structured steps plus evidence quotes, and is ready for canonical sync.
Steps
9
Evidence Quotes
15
Protocol Items
6
Linked Products
0
Canonical Sync
Pending
What this means
The completeness score reflects how much structured protocol data is present: steps, methods evidence, listed materials, linked products, and paper provenance.
Computed from the current experiment record updated Feb 28, 2026.
Canonical Sync shows whether a ConductGraph-backed protocol is available for this experiment route right now. It is a sync-status signal, not a claim that every downstream vendor link or step detail is perfect.
Steps
9
Evidence
15
Specific Products
0/0
Canonical Sync
Pending
What this score means
The verification score reflects evidence coverage, subject detail, paper provenance, step depth, and whether linked products resolve to specific item pages instead of generic searches.
Computed from the current experiment record updated Feb 28, 2026.
A page can have structured steps and still need review when evidence is thin, product links are generic, or canonical protocol coverage is still pending.
What still needs work