2.... ._. 7.; ~ . . “v 51 7mv.rr.....~.__ . . 3...... L... . _ . r . . .3crrsa..:.. . _ . : _ . , .._.. .._......._ . .. . . ...... .............._....,...........__ . . . .. . 1...... . a. .v .. .... w“ 21‘?” .. . . 122...... .. 1...? . .. I... 2...... 3.. .9. ......f. a... 3....1....v.1..:..u. .12... .2. . .. .11.... .. ......c........... . 5.22.3... . x. . .......v.,~___._........_v aim. .. Xvi: urugflxa... _......,........ . ..._......._. ...: .. .......... .. .5 2 _.........._... 5...... .15... a. ... : . . um .,..._.,...:........., . .. . .2 .... s ... _. than... . . .. .. «S... .74.. K: H I .3 r2... .y .14... .3; 6...... :2. $53.... . «1...... . . .1. .1»......H.:1. Lug... VJ... , .1. . .. .r C... I, .9.-. Q43... 2 1... .m. 1... .. , .2513 _. v :2... a. in: .._. ..... .. .33.... 3.2.2.... 1:93;. 5;. 9.5.3:... 1.1.... _ r i. ....3..__:.. a? .3 ..............,..v..... 5:... . 3;..v ‘7... .4: we... .2. .. v sfilu 55...... 1.5... . 3.2:... .73... . 1.....1 3. i}... :5. tuft-J? 2.1....» x: , x .... .4 Lit-$5 3.1.54... .213... 1.... . .. $6.50!. ..:....1.;...l.t. . if... .15.. .e;z.\.zv..1x r...=.yv.,..A..L 155...: .r... .12... 3.52. x.............., t.......x...1.u . . , f .5 ... 312...... , .:. 31...}. 1.9... a...» ultiv; 9.5.0.1.... 1.. .. ES... 1... lama}... 5...... 13.2.1195 .tn: I... t :..,..L..)....I!..€Pl;ai$|t$ it: . In‘V( 1..li..\.b.n.nlh‘-1§if§|~"£ lulz Itt--§}u~u§! bxzbukftylan . 1}... ..~Lv...x. 7.5.3.6151. a: .. _ in... K. ‘ ...un_.~‘ . .Itts?—... avig'o . .. . .. ; . a $3.}; ..... xvi... . 3...... . . .7. -3... .. 7. i. a 1.2.. . , .. a... . .v... 1.1.3....Lilf . 3.1.... 7.12.13... $.1ch . .3: .. .3.1......1415113. .1... 13:81....331x \.........\..q :2. . i... .2 .112... :2. . 11......‘4... . 2.... 5.3.2.3.... 21...... .,........§.,:.. :1. ~.....;......._.....;.._ 3:1. r... 3.312;... 2.x. .\.r..._...:‘ . x.\.v....,cu ..§..r:f.z| 2:; .Z..f..... . . y: .3... v... c... 32...... 2r... . 7 .. 7.17... .. <1........(.v..,.....s: 53:21: . . Bulk... wit... :3 I. 3...... v. a. _.x..e..._...:..:u.$.. .x .53... :- cs 1...: 2.33:2... 7.12:... a: '1... ...3.........2...?.. u:........,an.§..ra:1 it;.:.3.........z....:.... rtmttxst 3,... .11. ...::.,.:. 1.. 2:1... 2 .1. 13.2.3.3. 1.4.2.73... .. .....+.....3..2,... . . .E, .33.... [~. r.¥:~a_...~ .1 . it... xu...1_.a_......1....l .15.;77; . 1...: l... . :1; . .fi... 1 3.3.31. ...1....:.. _....... .,....wr.. 7.... ... ..... . . ... ... .......Z.......... 25:13... I. . ._.....................1.31:; .1... . . a..........,.... 7.1.... «.5... .1... .35....32 3.1... #3.... 1r... 3.. 1....arsl. 4 é . .2. L. .F .. . VXv L...- ...|:u\.!. 52....» . tirw}. ..$£\a..$buo§tfi§ L .......,v..&. 4.1.7.3.... v.1... strut... . _.«......v.._.z.._::.... . .4 a. . T «£3.15... tr: ; ..I& Eli» 3.7.... I. . I. .5... by... I. 7.. 3.3... . _. . 12.3.7.3... .3271... u.........:...3.i__. .32.... 2.1.3... \§.n. .1... . .11.. 5.. 2 .21... .1.1......q..1:.vx....:...._..z.. . v. . . . x ..g. L. . .911. r1..=§..7..:.2.... m»:?......... 14 .............. 1.1.... .21.... .9. .. 111...... a.331...m:.:.r........x....‘ _....i.... .65.}... 32.1.1; .. 2.1.. . .1 .v.........:...... . .r.T...|.Z .vv~:....w ....vbl.f.z!e..:l‘b|0. .v . . LE5.&&&. Ltttfltft... til—‘l-‘9l .. r1.1.x: ya..a7a..xfiné :5. ,5..:...c.gv...... 4...». 1......7... 1.7690 1.1 Ir... .. I; ._ . .. .y .2... .........3 .4 .. 2...... .. a. .. .. .v. :r .1. :3... .1......f:..:,.:....3.,... .. 5...: , 7.... ..... .;... 77...... . .‘. .2... .1... ....; .......: :1; 11.13.1457. . . 1...... 3.23.2.3 1.32... 3.... 2.... ; .....:...3 5...... . . ...:.....t3.x1;... 2.2.1.11: ...I: .3... . 1.9:.-. .........v....... 11 ....;:. .. .. $51.13.... .I 3...}... ...x.;......... 3.3.21... l... ........... .: 7.... .. it}: . .3... 5.1.2.1.... .71....15 ..<.:...F...Q.S.n.iv.v. . .. 1. .1... .4... 3. .uv....:....;:.1 1:12;.-. . .. .1 3....s..:.vv...ya . y...,..7n¢.é.~.x.....v.uvsv.;4.. 51:3. . .. ..1......n..;..1 L .«x..a......... 1... 2.... £313... . .. .... 1.1;...ir 1...... 5.... (k; 43...... .. ........v....:......... ..:....:......v. . . L. :9 3.....3. x:v~v.:.....3.:71:€......v‘:;.tz....112... .._ swELLEerarvv‘x 1 .u:x.3>... £11.71... 3.3.}: .v«,».., .1523... .7: . ~I\?t...( .8?..¥ I.‘ .t‘?1irm.\.-tP.Q-. .._....,.:_.;:;:....(.... .é .............. .a 1.3;...1. .Yrstv £71-23 _. I . .. . . an.-. ...zrx.w..... .3 1.1.36}; ..a.........:..,.-... I... (2....2x..:..x......_.a 127:...11‘: ..T.p..v..y....v..v .5: .1. :3... .1... ,i‘ttf... . i .3... . . $11.5-» $.21... 3.1.3:}; .x..w.. v.91 arevxl...rrc s .. .3... .. ..Z............... 3.. .C...’ ..:aa>.......a.. 1,.‘13... .v... 5.3.»... ....§.....§...n..r1.1 5.3... .. Le... .31.}..111. 9.1 :3. .5723... ... 13......3. 1 ... v‘... -9..an.a.cxn.f.. . a... ..... . 35...}... .. I... ;....z..a5..1...x.. 1.3; p. I ‘.....i\...:. 7:... 3 .12.... y. .r...-a.2£. 3.... ....av......_..... . . .1331.) .1 ..:.a:a....ur:xv.:sr;rv. .... 1...... a...x..................vunwt.. .3 .3 J. 5.. i..r.......u.r:... ....v.. ~ .ym-.€Iif.: ..I4..v..x{..~i..\ ...rv~... 1.1. 3...»...1... 1.... :.w s: : .. ._ .. ,. 2...... r a... . -71.... I... ......3 .n. .. ....r: v ... 3:... . 1.33..-. r... $1.... . . y 1... 22...... .......C.... .. 52...... ..r .21....71.‘ ......L...........~:..? ,xx..?...1...¢x .2.2...1_.T....1_...., . r... 3.7:.r..nr...w.>vr2..‘zrr:. ..:.._.vyp.zu «5.3;...37...‘ , 1:: .1... ...e.'s...,T....\r..§ 3.». r.zx......l... . 7.. $1.... 2.7.2.3... I........:......r.c..r........ I... 5.1.. . J3. .. s>_e.-$q....ap.f:.. nt..y...:.....vfr3:...:3}.\x? s... 1.73.5.5. 1.§.xn:(v.s..... . 15.4.AA.¢tW;v..n..1is$..x u $33.... .33.»... 5.. 2 .2. .s «a. .. . . .1 ‘ 2....1... .w a .33: .......z....v.\w..1v 3;»..-‘52... 1.x..itfiis...» 1.3:... 3.5-... ;. ya... a‘......khu .9.49y\?ix.r.5s?ul3m azwrx... 3... a». \«.y :1... avrr r...- LTZQV fr .. Ins-1.2:... 11171.3(-.. .r-r.~.\.. , :r......... 3.... . . a 1. 2.17 A.......x...?.r......r-...H .. :25... n 2i....t.€...=7.ru...-.15: .wt.. 7 7vkui... 1.... . . Ir. :..x\:vvr..11vw>u. .a»u..:.,v.x if... .14. . ..asua..1..1av 3,-3.3... . . 41...? .51... v.....§..1.....: . .. .1:3...§l .v 3.13.3... w. ...............1.... ....:.vv‘. ....v.J..Vr.1|.vawn..awrivarywr. 9...»... .C 5.3.? ...,.y:....~.:.... 1-1).? 3... ‘ . ..v 7 .21...-1... 1r .v..s..r!z.r...v..p>.vxv. ..L\. . :.....yr.f... .... ‘15:..1rua r.. 1...; 17:39:...ax.,n......n_.:.ry.-E.s . . 1.4).»..1viiamv: . _ «.1...Fx..tk :3 .15.. Y. . 2.5.3.51. EL...b\ky..Ar..I¥hS.lev¢>.:rldI.9-. .. x. I. .‘tétitn ‘3... 3.1;... :3. .131... .11.. . 121...; ..e«. Eat-9:5. a... .1: 3.1.1.. 11-5.)... 1.. . L. . , a .31.}...1 .v.7..3........ . .; v.1...rlf. vii... r... 22.9.343. .2332... . . 16):... . 917093.... v. I: .zl. 5... 1.1.1.7.. . )5: 1.5... . ... ..,...v:.... .. .3 .,.::.I... a».......... 1.-.... C .5... [.111 earl... 3.... .3. . 13...}. \2qut.... .5. .3 1. -.e:..s..7 4nn-Ifiave nu .uaAv. 3...; 34;...1..vvax... ...........».. y. 3!: .zvv..~....r «1......tu-mla 1.? rt... ......I....cwv. .2115. .2233... ..o... :3 khaki?- r‘LM 11.7an akcbirif .. ext$1irP= ». 3 51.. aft. .96! 1 a..\ .231... =1}......... 3.3. .nu3:.,..z.... x..1..21vl. e. . 3-.nacuw: . 34......)v3rvwra, ...a..x»..h\:.,...._1 . ....x. x .23.. .yL»; .. tg.\.;.vi‘§mkr\) \..vx....v...t...n.‘h.(.. M . , -L-z: . ‘1).2... . .2 z»... .. .1... I 2. x. . I; .. ..:..t . u uneasx? L; 4......h knits! Y... 15. $.31... 1......(5... , 1...»; 3.1.4... .............. . ...,r......1... .k .851. .5. .tath...ouac.«._u\r..7..7-.... u 1. >173...) .\§a~bbLLu..v£xOA.~|.~.?a. . 3.14.... tut.\...s. 1.1.). .1...»- . x..5..0sA... 3.1% LL}... £k . u rL . SI... .113... . 1L... . 3.1.32.1}. E11151. .... . v... . 25.1.. ~....v..iv..... | .11.»... ... {xruwvif ; :7: x s...:v.~b.... .. .. .. at; at..xxx.... . «s.:...t......L. . .11 .4. rc..;:..,..1.x.h. .L... ., . . 1:1... it-.- ....p\..\r:|.\t. .19.}? \.AM;..2$ D. 1.17.... .§.\A. ~ . st»! Fri). 1.. 2. 1...... yvyaxv. ’2... . . 3.21M... 2.: 3: a. . . ..... r. . . . I. a} s. v.31}. . z 1,. xi... r... u; 9. 3..-...5. .... .1... . . .. . ......... . .. . 1...,4: .1» .suov..1.. ...x.,...: . .‘.n.....~..sy......... . m. . .. ... ......uv. amaysi...’ . \o T. . .\.....e:..)v|..s ~.. . -i J x... s-.. .8155... 1 53K... v.2. » . r ..».....I . ..\|4.~ .. . .«tl . . . . \TIYTv. . . . .. . . : 3:1,: . . .. ‘> . .l..\s>l?t.ff}-.IIA. . . . n .\.I NLx‘. if... . . .v I" ...h1.7h'7"'?’~l.7n... . 6 4 \Afilihhfif. . . . . , .. Hana Patti-’32.: .. . .. ...... . .. . . ’ ..J.’.4M.m..a, unorf. . i. . gay». I...“ It? minus LIBRARY Michigan State University 0 ¢ f.‘ :7; . I «‘5 3'. 4% thesis ent1tled CONFLICT AND THE "EXPERIMENTAL NEUROSES" 0F CATS “i“ ’ .3“ ‘4’ This is {to certify that the fi‘? presented by VICTOR MATTHEW DMITRUK has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. (19pr in Psychology_ ww 5W Majofi rofessor Date May 2,?1972 0-7639 Eight groups deprivation/shock IA, and 42 hrs de phenomenon of " seman's contenti Opment of the "ne Baseline meas Sconsecutive day cats confined in Prior to any expe ure (ELM) days we Food was plac 9I°Up of conflict sh°Ck (LL) and t1" tions, and the 85 Ever, ShOcked ea: “lion analogous ating successive A Den-confli‘ ABSTRACT CONFLICT AND THE "EXPERIMENTAL NEUROSES" OF CATS BY Victor Matthew Dmitruk Eight groups of 7 cats, 4 groups under each of 2 food- deprivation/shock-intensity conditions (18 hrs deprived, 2.5 mA, and 42 hrs deprived, 4.0 mA) were run to evaluate (l) the phenomenon of "experimental neurosis” in cats, and (2) Mas— serman's contention that conflict is necessary for the devel— opment of the "neuroses." Baseline measures of the behavior of the Ss were taken on 5 consecutive days to determine the "normal" activities of cats confined in a conditioning apparatus. This was done prior to any experimental manipulations. The baseline—meas— ure (BLM) days were followed by 2—3 shock (SH) days. Food was placed in the apparatus on the SH days for a group of conflict (CON) Ss in both the low—deprivation/low- shock (LL) and the high—deprivation/high-shock (HH) condi- tions, and the Ss were free to eat at will. They were, how- ever, shocked each time they did so to create a conflict sit- uation analogous to Masserman's. The time intervals separ— ating successive shocks were recorded for each CON S. A non-conflict (NC) littermate of each CON S was shocked Wtothe WtOfOOd' conflict, A non also shocked acCO late, again in th able" for these S 10 sec buzzer CS. simply spent an e her, being neithe It was hypoth in terms of exist and non—cont ingen shock should have punished (i.e., t sulting in the su behaviors relativ aversive stimulat have resulted in tivity. The groups we considered to be +‘ . ~1§ators, includ: Ptoms " were obse: Victor Matthew Dmitruk according to the same schedule as its CON mate, but was not exposed to food in the shock—chamber. Hence, there was no conflict. A non—conflict predictable littermate (NCP) was also shocked according to the pattern established by its CON mate, again in the absence of food. Shock was made ”predict— able” for these Ss, however, by preceding its onset with a 10 sec buzzer CS. Finally, a confinement (CNF) littermate simply spent an equivalent amount of time in the shock—cham— ber, being neither shocked nor fed. It was hypothesized that the results would be explicable in terms of existing knowledge of the effects of punishment and non-contingent aversive stimulation. This meant that shock should have acted "selectively” on the response being punished (i.e., the consummatory reSponse) in the CON 55, re— sulting in the suppression of feeding, while leaving other behaviors relatively unaffected. Exposure to non—contingent aversive stimulation in the case of the NC and NCP 83 should have resulted in a more general decrease in all ongoing act- tivity. The groups were then compared on a number of measures considered to be indications of ”neurosis" by previous inves— tigators, including those specified by Masserman. These "sym— ptoms" were observed from the first day of the BLM period and their incidem all to the 8!! day: ing to Hasseman. from the cur $3 01 The only sign ties of the group dance of the "5 Thus, neurotic be 0f punishing the consistent with forwarded above. for all groups f 00H Ss and feedin 6091115 of wet mas The CON Ss re in? than the rem; fer- This was nc Otic.“ First, t1 this avoidance p4 amy 10119 perim “my. feeding feat " The CON 0:: each of the s Victor Matthew Dmitruk and their incidence did not change in the CON $5 from the BLM to the SH days. In addition, the CON Ss which, accord— ing to Masserman, should have been ”neurotic" did not differ from the CNF $5 on any of the measures taken. The only significant differences observed in the activi- ties of the groups were the result of decreases in the inci— dence of the ”symptoms" in the NC and NCP SS, as predicted. Thus, neurotic behaviors were not observed, and the effects of punishing the consummatory behavior of the CON Ss were consistent with the punishment literature and the hypotheses forwarded above. Food was introduced into the shock-chamber for all groups following the suppression of eating in the CON Ss and feeding latencies and the time required to ingest 60 gms of wet mash were recorded. The CON Ss required significantly more time to begin eat- ing than the remaining groups (p. <.OOl), which did not dif— fer. This was not surprising, and is not necessarily ”neur— otic." First, the CON Ss learned to avoid food and, at most, this avoidance persisted for 3 days. This is not an inordin— ately long period for the retention of such a response. Se— COndly, feeding inhibitions were assumed to be an index of "fear." The CON 85 were exposed to food in the shock-chamber on each of the SH days, and introduction of a second container of food did not a] these 33. The 83 need food in the stituted a signif ulus generalizati. and shorter feedi It was conclu suggested that ha tifacts of the p first trained to ing required mor inforcement of t? of behaviors unre “all have been sul duced to create . Since Masser had learned to o identifiEd these tions 0f ”neuros Sennan may have baseline measure tal maniPul at io Victor Matthew Dmitruk of food did not alter the stimulus situation appreciably for these Ss. The Ss in the remaining groups had never experi— enced food in the shock—chamber and introduction of food con- stituted a significant stimulus change. Hence, greater stim— ulus generalization decrement would result in reduced fear and shorter feeding latencies in the NC, NCP, and CNF Ss. It was concluded that cats do not become ”neurotic" and suggested that Masserman's results could be explained as ar— tifacts of the procedures he employed. Masserman's cats were first trained to operate a lever to obtain food. This train— ing required more than 100 trials for some Ss. Selective re— inforcement of this operant would result in the inhibition of behaviors unrelated to obtaining food, and these responses may have been subsequently disinhibited when shock was intro— duced to create a ”motivational conflict." Since Masserman took his baseline measures aft§£_his Ss had learned to Operate the lever, he could have mistakenly identified these disinhibited ”normal“ reactions as indica~ tions of ”neurosis." The present findings suggest that Mas— serman may have drawn different conclusions had he taken his baseline measures prior to the introduction of any experimen— tal manipulations. in parti CONFLICT AND THE "EXPERIMENTAL NEUROSES" OF CATS BY Victor Matthew Dmitruk A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Psychology 1972 The author w' Ray Denny, Chai guidance and ass' Convey thanks to s: C. Ratner for l l I“ ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author wishes to express his appreciation to Dr. M. Ray Denny, Chairman of his Dissertation Committee, for his guidance and assistance in this research. Also, he wishes to convey thanks to Drs. M. Balaban, L. Hyman, R. Levine, and S. C. Ratner for their helpful criticism and advice. ii INTRODUCTION . . . . . METHOD RESULTS . DISCUSSION. . . . . . . LIST OF REFERENCE APPENHX A: Sumn APPENDIX B: The for APPENDIX C: Sumn Indi TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION.............................................l METHOD..................................................25 RESULTS.................................. ......... ......36 DISCUSSION..............................................59 LIST OF REFERENCES APPENDIX A: Summary Tables of the Statistical Analyses. APPENDIX B: The ”Behavior Checklist" and Checklist Data for Individual 85. APPENDIX C: Summary of Shock—chamber Activity Data for Individual Ss. Table 1. Means a Vocaliz Table 2. Means a Frequen Awe 3. Means a Activit Table 4. Means a Activit Table 5. Means 8 Scores; Table 6. Means a ResPons Table 7. Means a Respons T513198. Means E ShOCk~C Table 9. Means E ShOCk~c ' Sumner} ACtivit 0 Means E Feeding ' Means E Shock 5 p \ an .e 13 , Rank ‘0] Table 1. Table 2. Table 3. Table 4. Table 5. Table 6. Table 7. Table 8. Table 9. Table 10. Table ll. Table 12. Table 13. LIST OF TABLES Means and Standard Deviations of Vocalization Scores.......... .......... ........38 Means and Standard Deviations of Frequency Scores .................... ... ........ 40 Means and Standard Deviations of Total Activity Scores: Days BLM l—S ............ . ..... 44 Means and Standard Deviations of General Activity Scores: Days BLM 1—5 .................. 45 Means and Standard Deviations of Escape Scores: Days BLM l—5 ........................... 46 Means and Standard Deviations of Regressive ReSponses Scores ....... ...... ........... . ...... 47 Means and Standard Deviations of Bizarre ReSponses Scores ...... ... ...................... 48 Means and Standard Deviations of LL Shock-chamber Activity Scores ................. .51 Means and Standard Deviations of HE Shock—chamber Activity Scores .................. 52 Summary of Analyses of Shock-chamber Activity Scores: Days BLM—M and SH—C ..... ......55 Means and Standard Deviations of LL and HH Feeding Time and Feeding Latency Scores ..... ...57 Means and Standard Deviations of 58 Shock Scores... ........ . ....................... Rank—order of Incidence of ”Neurosis” .......... 67 iv INTRODUCTION past two decades. era are little u learned about ’ch Although the in animals were the bulk of the ed by American p obtained in the (Anderson, 1939; 1939c), Dimmick, Treat increase i vestigation of a under the rubric This intereS‘ to wane consider; is currently bei: taining to the ", 1T in the profes The disturba imentiil neuroses Variety Of organ ed in cats (Dimm 2 The amount of interest displayed in the experimentally— induced "animal neuroses” has declined significantly in the past two decades. It appears, however, that these phenom— ena are little understood, and a great deal remains to be learned about the various "pathologies" of animals. Although the initial observations of "abnormal” behavior in animals were reported by students in Pavlov's laboratory, the bulk of the experimental work in this area was conduct— ed by American psychologists and physiologists. The results obtained in the early studies of Anderson and his associates (Anderson, 1939; Anderson and Liddell, 1935), Cook (1938, 1939c), Dimmick, 23 al. (1938), and Dworkin (1938) led to a great increase in the amount of research devoted to the in- vestigation of a variety of phenomena conveniently subsumed under the rubric of ”experimental neurosis." This interest persisted throughout the 19405, but began to wane considerably during the 19505. Very little research is currently being conducted in this area, and papers per— taining to the ”experimental neuroses” appear but infrequent- ly in the professional literature. The disturbances referred to collectively as the ”exper— imental neuroses” are purportedly quite easily produced in a variety of organisms. "Neurotic" reactions have been report- Ed in cats (Dimmick, §E_al., 1938; Dworkin, 1938; Karn, 1943; -;:;‘ilasseman, 1943; pe.19SZ), dogs ( 1938; Gantt, 194 derson and Pame (Liddell, 1942), Pechtel, 1953a, parently analogo otic" reactions flu“Threy and Mar aPpears, hOWever rat (6-9., audi qualitatively frr cies. The behavior 56d by Gantt (19. bin (1943) . Gan °f dogs in situa PlaCed into four tions were consi categories Speci 1- 52m "neurot i experime 3 Masserman, 1943; Masserman and YUm, 1946; Smart, 1965; wol— pe, 1952), dogs (Anderson and Parmenter, 1941; Dworkin, 1938; Gantt, 1944; James, 1943), sheep (Anderson, 1939; An— derson and Parmenter, 1941; Liddell, g3 21., 1936), goats (Liddell, 1942), pigs (Curtis, 1937), monkeys (Masserman and Pechtel, 1953a, 1953b), and in children (Darrow, 1953). Ap— parently analogous behaviors have even been attributed to the ant by Hoagland (1953). A substantial number of reports also suggest that ”neur— otic" reactions are common in rats (Gentry and Dunlap, 1942; Humphrey and Marcuse, 1939; Maier, 1940, 1944, 1948). It appears, however, that the abnormalities manifested by the rat (e.g., audiogenic seizures, position fixations) differ qualitatively from those considered ”neurotic" in other spe— cies. The behaviors identified as "neurotic” have been discus— Sed by Gantt (1944), Cook (1939a), Masserman (1943), and Lu— bin (1943). Gantt (1944) suggested that all of the reactions Of dogs in situations designed to produce "neurosis" can be Placed into four broad categories. Certain of these reac— tions were considered ”normal,” while others were not. The categories Specified by Gantt were 1. Active-defensive reactions. These reactions are not "neurotic” and involve attempts to escape from the experimental situation. 2. Passive-c Ialadapti riety of 3. "Neurotic Gantt of gory were they cone syrptoms ponses it or passn 4. I'Occult“ autonomit able.“ ( also vag Masserman (l to his experimen man reported l. Characte Normal 1y normally 2. "Phobic " behavior 3. "Bizarre in confl. of respo; serman C1 OlOgical adaptati. 4-m were cha cies to ; serman w were som tioned a rendered P- 69) . C°°k's (1939 4 Passive-defensive reactions. These responses are maladaptive, involving chronic immobility and a va— riety of motor disturbances. "Neurotic" reactions. The descriptions provided by Gantt of the behaviors to be included in this cate— gory were vague, at best. He simply stated that they consist of ”entirely unrelated and extraneous symptoms." They do not resemble appropriate res— ponses in any way, nor do they possess any active or passive defensive value. ”Occult" physiological reactions. These consist of autonomic reactions which ”are not directly observ— able." Gantt's description of these reactions was also vague, and they are difficult to Specify. Masserman (1943) also identified four types of reaction to his experimental procedures. WOrking with cats, Masser— man reported 1. Characteristic changes in spontaneous activity. Normally active subjects became hypoactive, while normally inactive subjects became hyperactive. ”Phobic" reactions. Certain stimuli came to elicit behavior "suggestive of extreme anxiety.” "Bizarre counterphobic“ reactions. Subjects placed in conflictual situations developed stereotyped modes of reSponding (e.g., pacing, rubbing, pawing). Mas— serman concluded that these_behaviors4_f...while bi— ologically frustraneous...zgonstitutgd/...defensive adaptations to contrary motivations” (1943, p. 69). ”Regressive substitutive” behaviors. These behaviors were characterized by "...fairly well—marked tenden— cies to preoccupation and autistic indulgence." Mas— serman was apparently suggesting that these behaviors were some sort of ”diSplacement" activity which func- tioned as "...substitutive satisfaction for drives rendered impossible of direct consummation" (1943, P- 69). Cook's (1939a) description of "symptomatology” followed areuev' of the 1 several Species. 1. Loss of viously Lubin (1943) the characterist tied were 1. Hyperirr: stimulat: ing expeu 2. Inhibitou some for: 3. Transfer havior w. ject 's h analogou. humans. It is interest ishment situatio SuPpression is, reSpouse (Church 5 a review of the literature dealing with the "neuroses" of several species. The ”symptoms" mentioned were 1. Loss of a previously acquired habit. CSs which pre— viously elicited a response lost their effectiveness. The magnitude of this effect was reported to be a function of the initial strength of the response. 2. Disinhibition. Negative stimuli which were previous— ly highly effective in inhibiting a response lost their effectiveness. 3. Impairment of learning ability, Many subjects were reported to lose the ability to reacquire the respon— ses in 1 and 2 above. The learning ability of the subjects was somehow impaired by the experimental procedures to which they were exposed. 4. Changes in general activity. This category included such things as “tension," restlessness, hypoactivity and hyperactivity. Lubin (1943) provided the most comprehensive summary of the characteristics of "neurotic" animals. Those he identi— fied were 1. Hyperirritability. This included over—reaction to stimulation and restlessness of a'chronic nature dur— ing experimentation. 2. Inhibitory reactions. These were characterized as some form of "catatonia." 3. Transfer of motor reactions. Patterns of motor be- havior were ”transferred” from one part of the sub— ject's body to another. This was suggested to be analogous to the ”transfer of neurotic pains” in humans. I—-T-‘C—_:'L_s_i_nteresting to note that this is what occurs in pun- iShment situations. Reactions to the C8 are suppressed and Suppression is, in part, a function of the strength of the resPonse (Church, 1963, 1969; Estes, 1944, 1969). aw am This was 6. peggflzhhl retained uation wa um um vior. Thus, a Wide arra validity of refer questionable . Animals are ' GCLIVG. They are They are "neurot: They are also ”116 experimental set‘ below, but first their developmen‘ Summaries of renavior have be 4. Disturbances in respiratory rhythms. 5. Disturbances in diurnal neuromyscular activity. This was characterized primarily by insomnia. 6. ggtention of urine and feces. Urine and feces were retained for the duration of the experiment and evac— uation was frequent and uneven thereafter. 7. Disturbances of cardiac rate and rhythm. 8. Inappropriate and erratic social and emotional beha— vior. Thus, a wide array of "symptoms" has been reported, and the validity of referring to these behaviors as "neurotic" seems questionable. Animals are ”neurotic," for example, if they are hyper— active. They are also “neurotic" if they are hypoactive. They are “neurotic“ if they retain their urine and feces. They are also ”neurotic" if they urinate and defecate in the experimental setting. More will be said of these "symptoms" below, but first an analysis of the conditions leading to their development appears to be in order. Summaries of the procedures reported to lead to "neurotic" behavior have been provided by Pavlov (reported in Gantt, 1944), Gantt (1944), and Cook (1939a). Only the latter will be discussed, however, as Cook incorporated many of the views of Pavlov and Gantt into his summary. The experimental con— ditions Specified by Cook included: 1. Situations demanding new learning. ”Neurotic” behavior ing which innate re situation cedures, N Presentat exclusive ally foll jects we: tive CS+ directior reported longer di im in ”neurc emit ant; words, "‘ viously 1 neurosis 4' w of reinf< both Cla: Pre ...EEEEjy Pres . w 7 behavior resulted in situations demanding new learn- ing which inhibited, or was incompatible with, strong innate reactions. This is essentially a "conflict" situation best exemplified by Masserman's (1943) pro— cedures, to be discussed in detail below. 2. Presentation of similar CSs which elicit mutually— exclusive responses. This was the procedure typic— ally followed in Pavlov's laboratory. Pavlov's sub- jects were differentially conditioned to a distinc— tive CS+ and CS—. The CS- was then changed in the direction of the CS+ and his subjects (dogs) were reported to become "neurotic“ when they could no longer discriminate between the two stimuli. 3. gapid transition from one CS to another. This results in "neurosis” if the organism.has been trained to emit antagonistic responses to the two CSs. words, In Cook's "...the reinforcement of a stimulus which pre— viously had an inhibitory effect..." will result in neurosis. 4. Delay of reinforcement. It was suggested that delay of reinforcement results in "neurotic" behavior in both classical and instrumental learning situations.3 5. Presentation of highly aversive stimuli. 6. Presentation of “novel" stimuli.4 Clearly, a variety of procedures have been employed in 2 This appears to be a simple discrimination—reversal proce— dure, and it is certain that many animals have managed such reversals without becoming "neurotic.” 3 There is a good deal of current interest in the effects of delay of reinforcement, but contemporary workers discuss re_ actions to delay in different terms. Amsel (1971) and Wag— ner (1969), for example, consider these responses “normal” reactions to “frustration" (i.e., frustrative nonreward). Cook was the only worker to suggest stimulus novelty as a cause of the “experimental neuroses," and the suggestion ap_ Pears to have been of a purely Speculative nature. No evi- dence was provided for this contention, and supporting stud— ies have yet to be conducted. attempts to devel tain of these pro which, in the maj to lead to "neuro reversal, delay 0 This makes th with the animal " makes it difficul on, AS the proce ll, caution must ing "Symptoms" he Kern (1943), Wang ‘ HS Th ' e the .. eurOtiCII l 8 attempts to develop "neurotic" behavior in animals. Cer— tain of these procedures involve common laboratory practices which, in the majority of instances, have not been reported to lead to "neurosis" (e.g., punishment, discrimination— reversal, delay of reinforcement). This makes the interpretation of the literature dealing with the animal "neuroses" a difficult task. This, in turn, makes it difficult to evaluate the validity of the phenomen— on. As the procedures used with a given species differ great- ly, caution must be exercised in concluding that the result— ing ”symptoms" have anything in common, other than the fact that they are all labelled ”neurotic." Karn (1943), for example, claimed that he made cats ”neurotic" by exposing them to a difficult alternation prob— lem. Masserman (1943) made his cats "neurotic" by training them to perform a simple Operant on signal to obtain food and then shocking them while eating. Dworkin (1939) report— ed that his cats were made "neurotic" by demanding they make a very fine pitch discrimination in a differential condition— ing situation. It is difficult to see how common mechanisms, leading to similar reactions, could be operating in these situations. The problem is compounded when comparisons of the ”neurotic“ behavior of different species are attempted. An additional difficulty is encountered in attempting to evaluate the vali iment places the 000k (1939c), for pieces of foam r1 weights to the fc behaviors of rats In order to 5 should first dete Species under im in the literature deriol- t0 traiv though anything , Produoe "Hem_.osi1 For these, a1 lineurosisn liter, Finger (1945), f, has Conducted by ”T”iHVesti ional teChn of animal be As a resuu’ Fin tobe ”seriOUSly MOW” (1950 ”it has aPpea the part Of the 9 evaluate the validity of the "neuroses." The typical exper— iment places the subject is a highly contrived situation. Cook (1939c), for example, compressed his rats between two pieces of foam rubber, and James (1943) attached heavy lead weights to the forelimbs of his dogs. What are the "normal" behaviors of rats and dogs in these situations? In order to specify what is "neurotic" in animals, one should first determine the characteristic activities of the species under investigation. Most of the studies reported in the literature do not provide useful baseline data gather— ed prior to training for purposes of comparison. It is as though anything the animal does in a situation designed to produce "neurosis” is, by definition, "neurotic.” For these, and perhaps for other reasons as well, the ”neurosis” literature has not been found wanting for critics. Finger (1945), for example, suggested that much of the work was conducted by ”...investigators...[whg7...simply applied the observa— tional techniques of the psychopathologist to the study of animal behavior” (p. 231). As a result, Finger found objectivity in this area of research to be "seriously lacking." Mowrer (1950) was even more critical in remarking that "...it has appeared that the capacity for self—mysticism on the part of the experimenter was the principle desideratum arre and the in our think vior that we 300). Thus, all are no behavior in anim The intent o the presence or . was also intende dures employed b} "neurosis" in tht lations forwarde Although Mas tion of that ava in Several reSpe data were not re 96.1952) even t cor“fly. this lir MTSSerman's stuz Grierl’ted in mus 10 for those working with the animal neuroses” (p. 510). Sim- ilarly, Waters, 22.2L- (1960) evaluated the work by suggest— ing that Our interest in the experimental neurosis has been derived in part from its relevance to an extremely ser— ious social problem, the problem of how to deal with the ineffective and socially harmful behavior of the human patient. But it seems also to be derived in part from a rather childish and irresponsible delight in the biz- arre and the mysterious. This delight may loom so large in our thinking as to convince us that any and all beha— vior that we do not understand is neurotic behavior (p. 300). Thus, all are not convinced of the existence of “neurotic” behavior in animals. The intent of the present investigation was to determine the presence or absence of "neurotic” behavior in cats. It was also intended to evaluate (l) the validity of the proce— dures employed by Masserman (1943) for the development of “neurosis“ in these animals, and (2) the theoretical formu— lations forwarded in explaining his results. Although Masserman's work represents but a small propor— tion of that available in the literature, it is significant in several reSpects. First, the work is limited in that data were not reported for the necessary control groups (wo1- Pa, 1952) even though they were run (Masserman, 1943). Se- condly, this limitation not—withstanding, the results of Masserman's studies are frequently quoted by the dynamically- oriented in mustering support for ”conflict” interpretations ofneurosis in ht lasseman (1! ant causal factor Similar interprel by a number of 01 and Bitterman (1‘ It is prc normal behav terpreted as required of 1 cession (p. lfine example 0 the “neuroses" i by T. M. French, Association: We now 5: pected; that of conflict , bank Memoria italics mine The widespre the animal "neur uting to the cur seal’CIh. This is the basis of mo: need 0f re—evah intErpretat ion ( day, however, i ll of neurosis in humans. Masserman (1943) specified conflict as the most import— ant causal factor in the development of animal "neurosis.” Similar interpretations of these phenomena have been made by a number of other workers (Dworkin, 1939; Russell, 1950), and Bitterman (1946) concluded that It is probably true that all situations in which ab- normal behavior has been observed in animals may be in— terpreted as conflictual...antagonistic adjustments are required of the animal simultaneously, or in rapid suc— cession (p. 116). A fine example of the reactions to such interpretations of the "neuroses" is provided in the following statement made by T. M. French, then President of the American Psychiatric Association: We now see a beautiful proof of what we already ex— pected; that these experimental neuroses are the result of conflict, just as our clinical neuroses are (The Mil— bank Memorial Fund, 27th Annual Conference, 1953, p. 515, italics mine). The widespread acceptance of conflict interpretations of the animal "neuroses" is probably one of the factors contrib— uting to the current lack of interest in this area of re— search. This is unfortunate, since Masserman's (1943) work, the basis of most such interpretations, appears to be in need of re—evaluation (Smart, 1965; wolpe, 1952). That his interpretation of the "experimental neuroses” is viable to— day, however, is evidenced by Masserman's (1967) recent to the contents training typical were trained to air-blast to the delivered while Masserman (1 these stimuli we ing reSponse an served (the "sym sed on p. 4) . 2 typically suffic Masserman (l Stimulation in 1 to precipitate : 0f Shocks while not become ”neu an approach-avo the development Wolpe (1952 12 contribution to the literature, and a number of current ref— erences to his work (Manning, 1970; Sarason, 1972). Masserman (1943) employed essentially the same technique in all of his work. His cats were food—deprived and trained to make a lever—pressing response on signal to gain access to the contents of a food box. The time required for this training typically ranged from 1—8 days. After the animals were trained to open the food box, electric foot-shock, an air—blast to the head, or a combination of these stimuli was delivered while they were eating. Masserman (1943; Masserman and Yum, 1946) reported that these stimuli were equally effective in inhibiting the feed— ing reSponse and precipitating the "neurotic” behaviors ob— served (the “symptoms” identified by Masserman were discus— sed on p. 4). 2—3 exposures to the aversive stimulus were typically sufficient to establish a ”neurosis.” Masserman (1943) reported that mere exposure to aversive Stimulation in the absence of ”conflict” was not sufficient to precipitate a ”neurosis.” Subjects given the same number of shocks while engaged in activities other than eating did not become ”neurotic.” Masserman concluded, therefore, that an approach—avoidance conflict situation is prerequisite to the development of "experimental neurosis” in cats. Wblpe (1952) challenged Masserman's interpretation of sive stimulation replicated Masse non-conflict (NC ing apparatus. shocks on a vari shocks was indep Wolpe then t those employed b and found the in in both groups . “neurotic" beha the exPerimental two groups did n P9 concluded the that conflict we °Pment 0f "neurc Unfortunate] here also Open t the relationshil and NC SUbjeCts The CON subject 13 his data, pointing out that Masserman did not present any evidence to support the statement that non—contingent aver— sive stimulation does not result in ”neurosis." wolpe (1952) replicated Masserman's conflict (CON) condition and added a non—conflict (NC) group which was never fed in the condition- ing apparatus. The NC animals were exposed to unsignalled shocks on a variable schedule, and the presentation of the shocks was independent of the behavior of these subjects. Wblpe then tested his subjects using measures similar to those employed by Masserman (1943; Masserman and Yum, 1946) and found the incidence of ”neurotic symptoms” to be the same in both groups. He also measured the extent to which the ”neurotic” behaviors generalized to situations outside of the experimental setting. Once again, wolpe found that the two groups did not differ. On the basis of these data, wol— pe concluded that Masserman's position was incorrect, and that conflict was not an essential condition for the devel— opment of "neurosis” in cats. Unfortunately, wolpe‘s (1952) procedures and conclusions were also Open to question (Smart, 1965), and the issue of the relationship of conflict to the development of ”neurosis" was not resolved. For a reason not specified, WClpe‘s CON and NC subjects were not given the same number of shocks. The CON subjects received 2-9 shocks (though typically 2—3), while the IC subj‘ and IC groups in as the result of It is also d with those of Ma Specified the ch ed. Masserman s his work was a “ 1y vague, statin age but low ampe hand, but not Wolpe's shock s The most re made by Smart (1 in the work of P ted the number a he administered matory (CON), c: flict (Nc) . Th. groups and all Obtain food fro \M. SSeward (1969) sive stimuli me differences whi NC Sllbjects wit 14 while the NC subjects were exposed to 5—20 shocks. The CON and NC groups in Wblpe's study cannot be readily compared as the result of this discrepancy. It is also difficult to compare Wblpe's (1952) results with those of Masserman (1943) as neither worker adequately specified the characteristics of the aversive stimuli employ— ed. Masserman simply indicated that the shock source for his work was a ”commercial fence-shocker.” wolpe was equal— ly vague, stating that ”...the current, being of high volt- age but low amperage, was very uncomfortable to the human hand, but not conducive of tissue damage” (1952, p. 121). Wblpe's shock source was an induction coil.5 The most recent attempt to settle the conflict issue was made by Smart (1965). Recognizing the difficulties inherent in the work of Masserman (1943) and wolpe (1952), Smart equa— ted the number and the temporal distribution of the shocks he administered to three groups of subject (conflict—consum— matory (CON), conflict—preconsummatory (CONP), and non—con— flict (NC). Thirty subjects were randomly assigned to these groups and all were trained to Operate a lever on signal to obtain food from a food box. 5 Seward (1969) suggested that the use of very intense aver- sive stimuli may result in a ceiling effect, disguising any differences which might otherwise be found between CON and NC subjects with lower sh0ck intensities. Following 1e! sessions on coast shock day, and 3 me subjects wer 32 trials. The animals each. A replica ed from each of Which shock was day, and the sub same number of s The CONP sub number of shocks the remaining 511 The number of sh received ranged tensity specific The CONP sut 500(1. but prior Were Shocked 1 : jects were not : trial , Smart (1965 \IDEUroticn beha 15 Following lever—training, the subjects were given 4 shock sessions on consecutive days. 40 trials were run on each shock day, and shock was administered on 8 of the trials. The subjects were allowed to eat unmolested on the remaining 32 trials. The animals were run in 10 ”replications” of 3 subjects each. A replication consisted of 1 subject randomly select- ed from each of the 3 experimental groups. The trials on which shock was delivered were chosen randomly on each shock day, and the subjects in a given replication received the same number of shocks each day, on the same trials. The CONP subject in a replication was run first and the number of shocks it received determined the number to which the remaining subjects in that replication would be exposed. The number of shocks the subjects in the various replications received ranged from 3—7, with a mean of 5.2. The shock in— tensity specified was 3.5 mA. The CONP subjects were shocked as they approached the food, but prior to eating. The subjects in the CON group were shocked 1 sec after they began eating, and the NC sub— jects were not shocked within 30 sec of eating on a given trial. Smart (1965) hypothesized that the major determinants of "neurotic" behavior were the conditioned aversive stimuli sive properties 0f 48 interg jects were found feeding signal," salts were consi did not differ o eluded that the and that conflic ”neurosis" in ca Smart's (196 resPects. First phenomenon that workers had (Fin 1960). An equal conclusion deriv Of his subjects find 2 differenc EXpect to find 1 making 48 compai Smart's worl Cellent support 16 developing in the training situation. If this was true, the 3 groups of subjects would be expected to exhibit different "neurotic" behaviors as different stimuli would acquire aver— sive properties under the 3 experimental conditions. 0f 48 intergroup comparisons made, the 3 groups of sub— jects were found to differ on only 2 measures ("Reaction to feeding signal," and "Attraction to caged mice“). These re- sults were consistent with Smart’s hypothesis. As the groups did not differ on any of the remaining measures, Smart con— cluded that the 3 groups of subjects became equally neurotic, and that conflict was not necessary for the development of ”neurosis” in cats. Smart's (1965) conclusions are interesting in several respects. First, he did not question the validity of the phenomenon that he was investigating, though several previous workers had (Finger, 1945; Mowrer, 1950; waters, et al., 1960). An equally valid (and certainly more parsimonious) conclusion derived on the basis of Smart‘s data is that 2932 of his subjects became ”neurotico" Also, although he did find 2 differences consistent with his hypothesis, one might expect to find 1-2 differences on the basis of chance when making 48 comparisons. Smart's work is also of interest in that it provides ex— cellent support for the position he was attacking. Bittmtllan (1946) ‘behavior reportec of a oonflictual tic adjustments 2 or in rapid succ< It is diffic1 in any essential tions which are feeding trials d part of the NC 8 tion that shock certainly did n situation. For example, shocks, and one development of a situational cues present when f0( sulting in confi Successfully de groups of subje the basis of hi \—__,——_—— 6 . McAlister and of situational arecent reviev l7 Bitterman (1946) concluded that all instances of "neurotic" ‘behavior reported in the literature developed in situations of a conflictual nature; situations in which ”...antagonis— tic adjustments are required of the animal simultaneously, or in rapid succession" (p. 116). It is difficult to see how Smart's NC condition differs in any essential way from Bitterman's description of situa- tions which are conflictual. The intermingling of shock and feeding trials demanded "antagonistic adjustments” on the part of the NC subjects ”in rapid succession." The restric— tion that shock not be administered within 30 sec of feeding certainly did not remove the element of conflict from the situation. For example, the NC subjects were given unsignalled shocks, and one would expect this procedure to lead to the development of a conditioned emotional response (CER) to the Situational cues.6 The CER elicited by these cues would be present when food was made available to the NC subjects, re— sulting in conflict. At any rate, the position could be successfully defended that Smart actually ran 3 conflict groups of subjects, and one might be forced to conclude on the basis of his data that conflict is the critical factor 6 McAlister and McAlister (1971) emphasized the importance Of situational cues as CSs for this type of conditioning in a recent review of the CER literature. firm-{IE1 3:918 “n :‘5-' r’ua'r ., q es \ inrthe developme: Clearly, the the development ved. Doubt also of the phenomeno to both of theSe It seems tha fluence of conf aversive events havior in both dition, a truly by the removal cies" referred plished by obsex Subjects that a1 a1 situation . To evaluate necessary to her 0f the subjects al manipulation pe (1952), for of comparison f is Possible tha in which they a 18 in the development of "experimental neurosis” in cats. Clearly, the question of the relationship of conflict to the development of the animal "neuroses" has not been resol— ved. Doubt also remains with respect to the very existence of the phenomenon. The present investigation was directed to both of these questions. It seems that the only logical way to seperate the in— fluence of conflict from the influence of mere exposure to aversive events is to assess the incidence of "neurotic" be— havior in both conflict and non-conflict situations. In ad- dition, a truly "non-conflict" situation can only be created by the removal of one of the ”antagonistic response tenden— cies” referred to by Bitterman (1946). This can be accom— plished by observing the incidence of "neurotic“ behavior in subjects that are shocked, but never fed, in the experiment— al situation. To evaluate the validity of the phenomenon itself, it is necessary to have some conception of the "normal” activities Of the subjects prior to the introduction of any eXperiment~ a1 manipulations. Masserman (1943), Smart (1965), and W01— pe (1952), for example, took certain measures for purposes 0f comparison following lever—training for food reward. It i U) possible that the responses emitted by cats in situations i :3 which they are being rewarded for a single Operant are not represent ati‘ that is, non-rei in the course of increased in fre of feeding, and (1952) could hav I‘neurosis." Both of the the present inv moved by exposi they had never t vity in these st 0f "neurosis" ir distribution of Two groups flict (CON) and found that the “ntmllable . In the pre 19 not representative of their customary behavioral repertoire. That is, non-reinforced responses would tend to be inhibited in the course of lever training. These reSponses may have increased in frequency once again following the suppression of feeding, and Masserman (1943), Smart (1965) and Wblpe (1952) could have mistaken these ”normal" reactions for "neurosis." Both of these considerations entered into the design of the present investigation. The element of conflict was re— moved by exposing animals to shock in a situation in which they had never been fed. The incidence of ”neurotic" acti— vity in these subjects was then compared with the incidence of ”neurosis" in subjects given the same number and temporal distribution of shocks while eating. Two groups of subjects were run in addition to the con— flict (CON) and non—conflict (NC) groups. Seligman (1968) found that the "predictability" and "control” of shock were important determinants of the reactions of rats and dogs to aversive stimulation. Animals exposed to unpredictable and uncontrollable shocks became chronically emotional and, in the case of rats, developed gastric lesions. These reactions Were not observed if the shock was made predictable and/or Controllable. In the present study, shocks were both predictable and mntmllable for upon eating . Th tmllable for th were not depende The third 9 as they were ne ation. However, subjects by pre Thus, the CON 9 shock, the NC 9 and the non—coni predictable/uncc The fourth c_ trol suggested 1 finement observ aWears to be h included as a c sllrprising as i haVe in common , 20 controllable for the CON subjects as they were contingent upon eating. The shocks were both unpredictable and uncon— trollable for the NC subjects as they were not signalled and were not dependent upon the behavior of the animals. The third group of subjects was also a non—conflict group as they were never exposed to food in the experimental situ— ation. However, the shock was made "predictable" for these subjects by preceding its onset with a 10 sec buzzer CS. Thus, the CON group was exposed to predictable/controllable shock, the NC group to unpredictable/uncontrollable shock, and the non—conflict predictable (NCP) group was exposed to predictable/uncontrollable shock.7 The fourth group of subjects was a confinement (CNF) con— trol suggested by the intensely negative reactions to con— finement observed in the course of pilot work. Confinement appears to be highly aversive to cats, but it has not been included as a control in previous investigations. This is surprising as it appears to be the only factor most studies have in common, and several investigators have suggested that confinement and restriction of motor activity might be rela— ted to the develOpment of ”neurotic” behavior (Karn, 1940; 7 It is interesting to note that, on the basis of Seligman's (1968) work, the CON subjects would be expected to become the least ”neurotic” of these 3 groups of animals. WI, 1942; In order to ate occasions p noted following Ibase-rate" of isting "neuroti Finally, in jects were run tion conditions ferences betweei "ceiling effect In addition, th. evaluating the An attempt was f0Od-deprivatio ofConflict in low-intensity/l 0f "Neurotic" the“ haVe been 011 the other h ‘he Primary de 21 Liddell, 1942; Liddell, 33 al., 1936). In order to reach a conclusion concerning the validity of the phenomenon itself, the subjects in the present inves— tigation were observed in the training situation on 5 seper— ate occasions prior to the start of training. The behaviors noted following shock—training were then compared with this ”base—rate” of responding to determine the extent of any ex- isting "neurotic" tendencies. Finally, independent groups of CON, NC, NCP, and CNF sub— jects were run under one of two shock-intensity/food—depriva— tion conditions to test Seward's (1969) contention that dif— ferences between CON and NC subjects might be masked by a "ceiling effect" when high shock—intensities are employed. In addition, this procedure provided another test useful in evaluating the significance of conflict to the ”neuroses." An attempt was made to select values of shock—intensity and food—deprivation which would result in an equivalent degree of conflict in high—intensity/high-deprivation (HH), and low-intensity/low—deprivation (LL) subjects. If conflict was the critical factor in the development Of ”neurotic" behavior, the incidence of "neurosis” should then have been the same in the HH and LL CON subjects. If, on the other hand, mere exposure to aversive stimulation was the primary determinant of ”neurotic“ behavior, the HE subjects should ? subjects. To summarize ist with respect behavior in cats development of " serman (1943), S laboratory proce have not been re significant of t the CON subjects baseline measure the incidence o: In light of tion, The assui that the proced (1965), and W01, the Changes in terms of the ex and eXposure to the EXperimenta The fOllowi healing with pt EV; . ersrve St imu] 22 subjects should have become more ”neurotic" than the LL subjects. To summarize briefly, conclusive evidence does not ex— ist with respect to either (1) the presence of ”neurotic" behavior in cats, or (2) the significance of conflict in the development of "neurosis.” The procedures employed by Mas— serman (1943), Smart (1965), and Wblpe (1952) were common laboratory procedures which, in the majority of instances, have not been reported to result in ”neurosis." The most significant of these is the punishment paradigm used with the CON subjects in these studies. In addition, adequate baseline measures were not taken for purposes of assessing the incidence of "neurotic” behavior. In light of this, it is apprOpriate to proceed with cau— tion. The assumption was made in the present investigation that the procedures employed by Masserman (1943), Smart (1965), and wolpe (1952) d9_gg§ lead to "neurosis," and that the changes in behavior observed can be explained (l) in terms of the existing knowledge of the effects of punishment and exposure to aversive stimulation, or (2) as artifacts of the experimental procedures employed. The following conclusions derived from the literature dealing with punishment and the effects of non—contingent aversive stimulation appear to be relevant to the question a hand: 1. Punishme the resp it acts ganism b ulus emp Estes, l 2. Intense sive eff of the p w o Non-cont punishme a1 supp: and Brad 4- A direct 0f non-c Of supp] 1969; M3 Given that these “eSappear to } l- The CON will apI JeCtS ufl (9.9., 1 and ”bi. The NC pear mo Osisu a tatonia The LL the HE sis” ar The HH than th ”neuros The inc 23 at hand: 1. Punishment generally has the effect of suppressing the response upon which it is contingent. That is, it acts "selectively" upon the behavior of the or— ganism being punished, given that the aversive stim— ulus employed is not too intense (Church, 1963, 1969; Estes, 1944, 1969; Hunt and Brady, 1955; Myers, 1971). 2. Intense punishing stimuli have more general suppres— sive effects, affecting much of the ongoing behavior of the punished subject (Estes, 1944, 1969). 3. Non—contingent aversive stimulation, in contrast with punishment of the same intensity, has a quite gener— al suppressive effect on behavior (Church, 1969; Hunt and Brady, 1955; Myers, 1971). 4. A direct relationship exists between the intensity of non—contingent aversive stimulation and the degree of suppression of ongoing activity observed (Church, 1969; Myers, 1971). Given that these conclusions are valid, the following hypoth— eses appear to be in order: 1. The CON subjects in both the HE and LL conditions will appear more "neurotic” than the NC and NCP sub— jects when "active“ measures of ”neurosis" are taken (e.g., Masserman's ”changes in activity,” ”regressive“ and "bizarre" responses). 2. The NC and NCP subjects in both conditions should ap— pear more "neurotic” when inactive measures of “neur— osis“ are taken (e.g., decreases in activity and "ca— tatonia“). 3. The LL CON subjects will appear more "neurotic" than the HH CON subjects when active measures of ”neuro— sis” are taken. 4. The HH CON subjects will appear to be more "neurotic“ than the LL CON subjects when inactive measures of "neurosis" are taken. 5. The incidence of ”neurotic" behavior in both the HE and the I of the Cl ken, wit‘: the LL 0 6. Both the pear to ‘ when mea \l The LL N “neuroti ures of 8. The HH N "neuroti In general, When ed. the CNF subj f01lotvedl in 0rd the CON, NCP, ar is eXPECted whey ered, 24 and the LL CON subjects will be very similar to that of the CNF subjects irrespective of the measures ta— ken, with the greatest similarity observed between the LL CON and the CNF subjects. 6. Both the HH and the LL NC and NCP subjects will ap— pear to be more ”neurotic” than the CNF subjects when measures of inactivity are taken. 7. The LL NC and NCP subjects will appear to be more ”neurotic” than the HH NC and NCP subjects when meas— ures of activity are taken. 8. The HH NC and NCP subjects will appear to be most "neurotic“ when measures of inactivity are taken. In general, when active measures of "neurosis” are consider— ed, the CNF subjects are expected to appear most ”neurotic” followed, in order of decreasing incidence of ”neurosis," by the CON, NCP, and NC subjects. Exactly the opposite result is expected when inactive measures of ”neurosis" are consid— ered. ... .. . .If... u? I... .T. f r, METHOD oes in the Gran of at least 4 a as they were ob oedure employed The Ss were Purina Cat Chow a 30 min "exerc of allowing the animal colony r out the course . dpparatus Weight meas 350 hanging sca calibrated in 1 2Panasonic Aut ning on house c A 29 gal at was used as an reactions to ca 91338 aquarium 26 Subjects The Ss were 56 cats, unselected for strain and sex, ranging in age from 11—28 weeks at the time of their arrival to the animal colony. The Ss were obtained from random sour— ces in the Grand Rapids, Michigan Metropolitan Area in litters of at least 4 animals. All of the Ss were ”wormed” as soon as they were obtained, which was the only conditioning pro— cedure employed. The 85 were maintained in cages in pairs on a diet of Purina Cat Chow and EQ lib water. All of the 85 were given a 30 min ”exercise" period each day, which simply consisted of allowing them to roam freely within the confines of the animal colony room. Each of the Ss was weighed daily through— out the course of the experiment. Apparatus weight measures were determined with a Chatillon Model 350 hanging scale. The capacity of the scale was 30 lbs, calibrated in 1/4 oz units. Vocalizations were recorded with 2 Panasonic Auto—stop portable cassette tape recorders, run— ning on house current. A 29 gal aquarium fitted with a 1/4 in glass plate top was used as an observation chamber in determining the 55' reactions to caged mice. The mice were contained in a 1 gal glass aquarium, which was also fitted with a 1/4 in glass plate cover. A large "cri ulus egloyed in ity.‘ The obje ulandum was a st The shock—c of the chamber and the t0p, fr in hardware clo lined with 1/8 cup was attache t0p of the cup v buzzer used as 2 Chamber in the I t0p of the cham‘ db. The UCS was 0f either 2 .5 o Sisting of 1/2 Source was an P ”a5 scrambled v 9rid~shock de 83' 27 plate cover. A large "cricket" toy was used to produce the novel stim— ulus employed in testing the $8 for ”neurotic hypersensitiv— ity." The object used to test the Ss' reactions to a manip— ulandum was a styrofoam ball, 2 in in diameter, and attached to a 17 in nylon cord. When lowered into the apparatus, the ball was 2 in above the floor of the shock—chamber. The shock—chamber measured 20 in on each side. The sides of the chamber were constructed of 3/8 in unfinished plywood, and the top, front, and back of the chamber consisted of 1/2 in hardware cloth. The inside walls of the chamber were lined with 1/8 in clear plexiglas. A detachable 8 oz metal cup was attached to one corner of the shock—chamber, and the tOp of the cup was 4 in above the floor of the chamber. The buzzer used as a CS was attached to the wall of the shock— chamber in the corner opposite the food cup, 2 in below the top of the chamber. The intensity of the buzzer CS was 96 db. The UCS was scrambled electric shock with an intensity of either 2.5 or 4.0 mA, delivered through a grid floor con- SiSting Of 1/2 in steel tubes, placed 1/2 in apart. The shock SOurce was an Applegate Model 250 DC stimulator, and the shock was Scrambled with a relay—sequencing device for scrambling grid—shock designed by Hoffman and Fleshler (1962). me duration led by 2 Industr named with a An Esterline was used to race chamber. A keyh of the shock—cha activity, and de pens on the reco ced at a speed were; 14 litters deprivation/low high—deprivatior condition. The) The HR Ss were 4 hrs every 2 day; the same period Proximately 42 ‘ and the LL Ss w ing Schedule wa Petiment. Following t litter was redu 28 The duration of the CS and UCS presentations was control— led by 2 Industrial Timers. All other time intervals were measured with a stopwatch. An Esterline—Angus Model AW multiple—channel recorder was used to record the activities of the Ss in the shock— chamber. A keyboard containing 8 keys was mounted in front of the shock—chamber. Each key correSponded to a particular activity, and depression of a given key deflected one of the pens on the recorder. The paper tape on the recorder advan- ced at a speed of 1.5 in per min. Procedure 14 litters of 83 were randomly assigned to either a low— deprivation/low—intensity shock (LL, 7 litters, N=32), or a high—deprivation/high—intensity shock (HH, 7 litters, N=34) condition. They were then placed on a 6 day feeding regimen. The HH Ss were given free access to food for 6 consecutive hrs every 2 days. The LL 85 were given access to food for the same period of time each day. Thus, the HH 55 were ap- proximately 42 hrs deprived at the start of each session, and the LL Ss were approximately 18 hrs deprived. This feed— ing Schedule was maintained throughout the course of the ex— Periment. Following the 6 day feeding regimen, the size Of each litter was reduced to 4 55 by randomly discarding the excess mimls. The SS in? 'replicatio tion consisted o signed to the 4 non-conflict pre The experime measure (13114) pe ment of the Ss ' mental groups, training, the 5 determine the be viors that were is." The baseli for 5 consecuth run every 2 days The measure: ified version o: Torted by Massei the checklist u él'he Ss were r in Order to con 1ence, which we fleaSures taken 29 animals. The Ss in both the HH and LL conditions were run in 7 "replications” (Smart, 1965) of 4 85 each. A replica— tion consisted of the 4 $5 from a given litter, randomly as— signed to the 4 experimental groups (conflict, non—conflict, non—conflict predictable, and confinement).8 The experiment was conducted in 3 phases: (1) a baseline measure (BLM) period, (2) shock (SH) training, and (3) a test period. Baselinguprocedures and measures taken: Following the assign— ment of the Ss in the HE and LL conditions to the 4 experi— mental groups, and prior to the start of shock (”neurosis") training, the 85 were observed on 5 seperate occasions to determine the base—rates of occurrence of the various beha— viors that were subsequently employed as indices of "neuros- is." The baseline measures for the LL Ss were taken each day for 5 consecutive days, while the Ss in the HH groups were run every 2 days. The measures taken during the BLM period included a mod- ified version of a ”behavior check—list” developed and re— ported by Masserman and Yum (1946). The items included in the checklist used in the present study were 8 The Ss were run in replications consisting of littermates in order to control for the possible effects of early exper_ ience, which would be expected to influence certain of the measures taken (e.g., "Attraction to caged mice”)o All of these (1943) and all measures as ent study becau to feeding sign The attract measure taken e ium for a perio< common house-wit oomer of the l.‘ were observed a: iOd, following ‘ The reactio Ilined while the 1051 colony to t mately 60 ft . 30 Attraction to caged mice, Reaction to the experimenter, Attraction to the apparatus, Escape behavior, "Neurotic" hypersensitivity, "Neurotic” motor disturbance, Autonomic changes, Regressive substitutive behavior, and Reaction to manipulandum. - ..Pese H m Q m m D All of these measures, except "I", were taken by Masserman (1943) and Smart (1965). These workers took several addition— al measures as well, but these were not possible in the pres- ent study because of procedural differences (e.g., ”Reaction to feeding signal").9 The attraction of the Ss to caged mice (A) was the first Heasure taken each day. The S was placed in the large aquar— ium for a period of 2 min. The small aquarium containing 2 common house—mice (Mus) had previously been placed in one corner of the large aquarium. The S's reactions to the mice were observed and recorded during the 2 min confinement per— iod, following which the S was released. The reaction of each S to the experimenter (B) was deter- mined while the S was being carried (by hand) from the ani— mal colony to the experimental room, a distance of approxi— mately 60 ft. Attraction to the apparatus (C) was determined as the S was being placed into the shock-chamber. 9 The checklist items, scoring criteria, and checklist data for the individual 85 are provided in Appendix B. Escape beha waive opportu to the chamber on each occasio had been in the lugs occurring "Neurotic" cing a novel st The novel stimu "cricket" toy. the 7th min of sive clicks wer 2sec. Evaluation Changes (G), an based upon obse Confinement in ation of escape The S's rea lust before his the 10 min con ed into the ch ‘35 then remov home cage . 3l Escape behavior (D) was measured by giving each S 3 suc— cessive opportunities to leave the shock—chamber. The door to the chamber was opened and it remained open for 15 sec. on each occasion. The initial opening occurred after the S had been in the chamber for 30 sec, with the succeeding open— ings occurring at 45 sec intervals. ”Neurotic” hypersensitivity (E) was measured by introdu— cing a novel stimulus while the S was in the shock—chamber. The novel stimulus consisted of 3 ”clicks” produced by the ”cricket” toy. The clicks were presented at the begining of the 7th min of confinement in the shock—chamber, and succes— sive clicks were seperated by an interval of approximately 2 sec. Evaluation of ”neurotic" motor activity (F), autonomic changes (G), and regressive substitutive behavior (H) was based upon observation of the S during the 10 min period of confinement in the shock—chamber which followed the determin— ation of escape behavior (D). The S's reaction to the manipulandum (I) was recorded just before his removal from the shock—chamber at the end of the 10 min confinement period. The styrofoam ball was lower— ed into the chamber and left in position for l min. The S was then removed from the shock-chamber and returned to its home cage. the BLM days. recorded using channel record were a o . mummpwmw o Pacing, Rubbin Trembl' Piloer "Novel' Channel #8 was be included un activities was The "novel " be} (I) a b. C. d e Groomi Knead: Playin Quive: Appro; Finally, 1:: during the 10 1 Panasonic t ape All of the BLM period, an “‘9 Sessions . S -"-°Ck trainin \J 32 Each S remained in the shock—chamber for 10 min follow— ing the determination of its escape behavior (D) on each of the BLM days. The activities of the S during this time were recorded using 8 channels of the Esterline—Angus multiple— channel recorder. The behaviors recorded on the 8 channels were Inactivity, General activity and exploration, Escape, Pacing, Rubbing, Trembling, Piloerection, and "Novel” reactions. 0 m u m m A m N H 0 Channel #8 was used to record any behaviors that could not be included under the other 7 channels. The nature of these activities was noted on the paper tape as they occurred. The ”novel” behaviors observed were 8a. Grooming, b. Kneading and pawing, c. Playing, d. Quivering, and e. Approach to the food cup (CON Ss, SH days only). Finally, the number of vocalizations emitted by the 85 during the 10 min confinement period were recorded using the Panasonic tape recorders. All of the measures above were taken on each day of the BLM period, and they were also noted during the shock train— ing sessions. Shock training: Shock training was begun either 1 (LL Ss) finement period 53 in the LL Co 2.5 ma shocks, the EH Conditio shocks, also wi The number oeived by the S the conflict ( for the various ME: The The S was remov nination of its containing 4 oz ed to the wall chilmber once ag free to approac a shock each tj between the inl the receipt 0 f R 10 The shock—i selected, in p °f Pilot work in the 1.5—2 .0 33 or 2 (HH Ss) days after the determination of the baseline rates of responding. The length of the shock-chamber con— finement period during shock training was also 10 min. The Ss in the LL Condition were exposed to a varying number of 2.5 mA shocks, each with a duration of 2.0 sec. The Ss in the HE Condition were exposed to a varying number of 4.0 mA shocks, also with a duration of 2.0 sec.10 The number and temporal distribution of the shocks re— ceived by the Ss in a given replication were determined by the conflict (CON) S in that replication. The procedures for the various groups were as follows. Conflict: The CON member of a replication was run first. The S was removed from the shock—chamber following the deter— mination of its escape behavior (D), and the metal food cup containing 4 oz of Tabby—Treat Mackeral Cat Dinner was attach— ed to the wall of the chamber. The S was then placed in the chamber once again and the stopwatch was started. The S was free to approach the food and to eat at will, but was given a shock each time it did so. The amount of time elapsing between the introduction of the S into the shock—chamber and the receipt of each shock was recorded. The S was removed 10 The shock—intensity of 2.5 mA used with the LL 85 was Selected, in part, because of the observation in the course Of pilot work that cats readily adapt to shock—intensities in the 1.5-2.0 mA range. from the shock period and retu Hon-conflict: received the 5 distribution, a shocks were del by the CON S. Ss in the shock ed with a deodo of each S. Pre in the chamber. Non-conflict the pattern est occurrence of t however, by pre The CS was tern Confinement: 5 was treated ids training sessit shoCk~chamber . The Ss in , Cohditions unt 5“ for an ent 34 from the shock—chamber at the end of the 10 min confinement period and returned to its home cage. Non—conflict: The non—conflict (NC) member of a replication received the same number of shocks, with the same temporal distribution, as its CON replication—mate. That is, the shocks were delivered according to the pattern established by the CON S. However, food was never available to the NC Ss in the shock—chamber. The chamber was thoroughly scrub— ed with a deodorant and a disinfectant prior to the running of each S. Presumably, little or no trace of food remained in the chamber. Non—conflict predictable: The non-conflict predictable (NCP) member of a replication was also shocked in accordance with the pattern established by its CON replication—mate. The occurrence of the shock was made ”predictable" for these Ss, however, by preceding its onset with a 10 sec buzzer CS. The CS was terminated with the onset of shock. Confinement: The confinement (CNF) member of a replication was treated identically in both the baseline and the shock training sessions. The S was never exposed to food in the shock—chamber and was not shocked. The Ss in each replication were run under shock training conditions until the CON member of the replication failed to - - ' e session eat for an entire 10 min shock training seSSlon- Th METHOD to the animal C see in the Gran of at least 4 a as they were ob cedure employed The Ss were Purina Cat Chow 330 min "exerc of allowing the animal colony r out the course , Qparatus Weight meas 350 hanging Sca calibrated in 1 2Panasonic Aut “ing on house c A 29 gal a( was used as an rEalctions to c 91355 aquarium 26 Subjects The Ss were 56 cats, unselected for strain and sex, ranging in age from ll—28 weeks at the time of their arrival to the animal colony. The 85 were obtained from random sour— ces in the Grand Rapids, Michigan Metropolitan Area in litters of at least 4 animals. All of the 85 were "wormed“ as soon as they were obtained, which was the only conditioning pro— cedure employed. The Ss were maintained in cages in pairs on a diet of Purina Cat Chow and EQ lib water. All of the Ss were given a 30 min "exercise" period each day, which simply consisted of allowing them to roam freely within the confines of the animal colony room. Each of the Ss was weighed daily through— out the course of the experiment. Apparatus weight measures were determined with a Chatillon Model 350 hanging scale. The capacity of the scale was 30 lbs, calibrated in 1/4 oz units. Vocalizations were recorded with 2 Panasonic Auto—stop portable cassette tape recorders, run- ning on house current. A 29 gal aquarium fitted with a l/4 in glass plate tOP was used as an observation chamber in determining the SS. - ' ' a 1 al reactions to caged mice. The mice were contained in 9 glass aquarium, which was also fitted with a 1/4 in glass plate cove . . ..J - ~.. ‘.- ' Marge "cri ulus employed in ity.‘ The objec ulandum was a st to a 17 in nylo ball was 2 in a The shock—c of the chamber and the top, fr in hardware clo lined with 1/8 cup was attache top of the cup v buzzer used as . Chamber in the top of the charm db. The UCS was of either 2.5 c Sisting of l/2 Source was an 1 was scrambled ‘ grid—shock de 8 27 plate cover. A large "cricket" toy was used to produce the novel stim— ulus employed in testing the Ss for ”neurotic hypersensitiv— ity." The object used to test the 85' reactions to a manip— ulandum was a styrofoam ball, 2 in in diameter, and attached to a 17 in nylon cord. When lowered into the apparatus, the ball was 2 in above the floor of the shock-chamber. The shock—chamber measured 20 in on each side. The sides of the chamber were constructed of 3/8 in unfinished plywood, and the top, front, and back of the chamber consisted of l/2 in hardware cloth. The inside walls of the chamber were lined with l/8 in clear plexiglas. A detachable 8 oz metal cup was attached to one corner of the shock—chamber, and the tOp of the cup was 4 in above the floor of the chamber. The buzzer used as a CS was attached to the wall of the shock— chamber in the corner Opposite the food cup, 2 in below the t0p Of the chamber. The intensity of the buzzer CS was 96 db. The UCS was scrambled electric shock with an intensity of either 2.5 or 4.0 mA, delivered through a grid floor con— sisting of l/2 in steel tubes, placed 1/2 in apart. The Shook Source was an Applegate Model 250 DC stimulator, and the ShOCk was Scrambled with a relay—sequenCing device for scrambling grid—shock designed by Hoffman and Fleshler (1962). ;..'_, ' file duration led by 2 Industr mred with a An Esterline was used to race chamber. A keyb of the shock—cha activity, and de pens on the recc ced at a speed c Prom: 14 litters deprivation/low high-deprivatim condition. The] The HH 83 were 1 hrs every 2 day the same period Proximately 42 311d the LL 85 v m; schedule we Periment . Following 1 litter was red A 28 The duration of the CS and UCS presentations was control— led by 2 Industrial Timers. All other time intervals were measured with a stopwatch. An Esterline—Angus Model AW multiple-channel recorder was used to record the activities of the Ss in the shock— chamber. A keyboard containing 8 keys was mounted in front of the shock—chamber. Each key corresponded to a particular activity, and depression of a given key deflected one of the pens on the recorder. The paper tape on the recorder advan— ced at a speed of 1.5 in per min. Procedure 14 litters of Ss were randomly assigned to either a low— deprivation/low—intensity shock (LL, 7 litters, N=32), or a high—deprivation/high—intensity shock (HH, 7 litters, N=34) condition. They were then placed on a 6 day feeding regimen. The HH Ss were given free access to food for 6 consecutive hrs every 2 days, The LL 85 were given access to food for the same period of time each day. Thus, the HH SS were ap— PrOXimately 42 hrs deprived at the start of each session, and the LL Ss were approximately 18 hrs deprived. This feed- ing SChedule was maintained throughout the course of the ex— periment. Following the 6 day feeding regimen, the size of each litter was reduced to 4 85 by randomly discarding the excess animals. The $5 in? ”replicatio tion consisted o signed to the 4 non-conflict pre The experime measure (BLM) pe ment of the Ss mental groups, training, the S determine the b viors that were 18.“ The basel for 5 consecuti run every 2 day The measure ified version o Ported by Masse the checklist L' E“he 85 were 1 in order to cor ience, which w< measures taken 29 animals. The Ss in both the HE and LL conditions were run in 7 "replications" (Smart, 1965) of 4 Ss each. A replica— tion consisted of the 4 Ss from a given litter, randomly as— signed to the 4 experimental groups (conflict, non—conflict, non-conflict predictable, and confinement).8 The experiment was conducted in 3 phases: (1) a baseline measure (BLM) period, (2) shock (SH) training, and (3) a test period. Baseline procedures and measures taken: Following the assign— ment of the Ss in the HH and LL conditions to the 4 experi— mental groups, and prior to the start of shock ("neurosis") training, the 85 were observed on 5 seperate occasions to determine the base—rates of occurrence of the various beha— viors that were subsequently employed as indices of "neuros— iS." The baseline measures for the LL Ss were taken each day for 5 consecutive days, while the Ss in the HH groups were run every 2 days. The measures taken during the BLM period included a mod— ified version of a ”behavior check—list” developed and re— ported by Masserman and Yum (1946). The items included in the checklist used in the present study were 8 The Ss were run in replications consisting of littermates in order to control for the possible effects of early exper— ience, which would be expected to influence certain of the measures taken (e.g., "Attraction to caged mice")° All of these mea (1943) and Smart almeasures as v ent study becau to feeding sign The attract measure taken e ium for a perio common house—mi comer of the l were observed 5 10d, following The reactic I(lined while the mal colony to l Nataly 60 ft . as the S was b M— 0 ’ The checklis for the indivi 30 Attraction to caged mice, Reaction to the experimenter, Attraction to the apparatus, Escape behavior, "Neurotic" hypersensitivity, "Neurotic" motor disturbance, Autonomic changes, Regressive substitutive behavior, and Reaction to manipulandum. . . . E’f‘?’? H m o w m All of these measures, except "I“, were taken by Masserman (1943) and Smart (1965). These workers took several addition— al measures as well, but these were not possible in the pres— ent study because of procedural differences (e.g., ”Reaction to feeding signal”).9 The attraction of the $5 to caged mice (A) was the first measure taken each day. The S was placed in the large aquar— ium for a period of 2 min. The small aquarium containing 2 common house—mice (Mug) had previously been placed in one corner of the large aquarium. The S's reactions to the mice were observed and recorded during the 2 min confinement per— iod, following which the S was released. The reaction of each S to the experimenter (B) was deter- mined while the S was being carried (by hand) from the ani— mal colony to the experimental room, a distance of approxi_ mately 60 ft. Attraction to the apparatus (C) was determined as the S was being placed into the shock—chamber. 9 The checklist items, scoring criteria, and checklist data for the individual 85 are provided in Appendix B. Escape behav waive apportun \‘ I . tothechamberw . on each occasion had been in the ings occurring 3 llNeurotic“ } cing a novel stJ The novel stimu "cricket" toy. the 7th min of sive clicks wer 2 sec. Evaluation I changes (G), an based upon obse confinement in ation of escape The S's rea just before his the 10 min coni all into the ch: was then remom h°me cage . 3l Escape behavior (D) was measured by giving each S 3 suc— cessive Opportunities to leave the shock—chamber. The door to the chamber was opened and it remained open for 15 sec. on each occasion. The initial opening occurred after the S had been in the chamber for 30 sec, with the succeeding open- ings occurring at 45 sec intervals. "Neurotic” hypersensitivity (E) was measured by introdu— cing a novel stimulus while the S was in the shock—chamber. The novel stimulus consisted of 3 ”clicks" produced by the ”cricket” toy. The clicks were presented at the begining of the 7th min of confinement in the shock—chamber, and succes— sive clicks were seperated by an interval of approximately 2 sec. Evaluation of "neurotic“ motor activity (F), autonomic changes (G), and regressive substitutive behavior (H) was based upon observation of the S during the 10 min period of confinement in the shock—chamber which followed the determin- ation of escape behavior (D). The S‘s reaction to the manipulandum (I) was recorded just before his removal from the shock—chamber at the end of the 10 min confinement period. The styrofoam ball was lower— ed into the chamber and left in position for l min. The S was then removed from the shock—chamber and returned to its home cage. the am days. recorded using channel recorde E {D Inactiv General Escape , Pacing , Rubbing Trembli Piloere "Novel " mNONU'IABwNH . a Channel #8 was be included un activities was The "novel" bet 8a. Groomi b. Kneadi c. Playir d. Quivei e Appro: Finally, t? during the 10 1 Panasonic tape All of the ELl’lperiod, at 1119 sessions . .Shock traininc 32 Each S remained in the shock—chamber for 10 min follow- ing the determination of its escape behavior (D) on each of the BLM days. The activities of the S during this time were recorded using 8 channels of the Esterline—Angus multiple— channel recorder. The behaviors recorded on the 8 channels were 1. Inactivity, 2. General activity and exploration, 3. Escape, 4. Pacing, 5. Rubbing, 6. Trembling, 7. Piloerection, and 8. "Novel” reactions. Channel #8 was used to record any behaviors that could not be included under the other 7 channels. The nature of these activities was noted on the paper tape as they occurred. The "novel" behaviors observed were 8a. Grooming, b. Kneading and pawing, c. Playing, d. Quivering, and e. Approach to the food cup (CON Ss, SH days only). Finally, the number of vocalizations emitted by the Ss during the 10 min confinement period were recorded using the Panasonic tape recorders. All of the measures above were taken on each day of the BLM period, and they were also noted during the shock train— ing sessions. Shock training: Shock training was begun either 1 (LL Ss) finement period Se in the LI. Co 2.5 ms shocks, the HE Conditio shocks, also wi The number ceived by the S the conflict ( for the various @1352: The The S was remo mination of its containing 4 02 ed to the wall chamber once ag free to approac ashock each t: between the in' the receipt of M 10 The shock—i SElected, in p of pilot work in the 1.5-2n 33 or 2 (HH 35) days after the determination of the baseline rates of responding. The length of the shock—chamber con— finement period during shock training was also 10 min. The Ss in the LL Condition were exposed to a varying number of 2.5 mA shocks, each with a duration of 2.0 sec. The Ss in the HH Condition were exposed to a varying number of 4.0 mA shocks, also with a duration of 2.0 sec.10 The number and temporal distribution of the shocks re— ceived by the SS in a given replication were determined by the conflict (CON) S in that replication. The procedures for the various groups were as follows. Conflict: The CON member of a replication was run first. The S was removed from the shock—chamber following the deter— mination of its escape behavior (D), and the metal food cup containing 4 oz of Tabby—Treat Mackeral Cat Dinner was attach- ed to the wall of the chamber. The S was then placed in the chamber once again and the stopwatch was started. The S was free to approach the food and to eat at will, but was given a shock each time it did so. The amount of time elapsing between the introduction of the S into the shock—chamber and the receipt of each shock was recorded. The S was removed 10 The shock-intensity of 2.5 mA used with the LL 85 was selected, in part, because of the observation in the course 0f pilot work that cats readily adapt to shock—intensities in the 1.5—2.0 mA range. lion-conflict : received the s distribution, a shocks were del by the CON 8. Se in the shock ed with a deodo of each S. Pre in the chamber . Non-conflict the pattern est Occurrence of t however, by pre The CS was ten W: I was treated id: training Sessi Shock‘chamber The Ss in Qonditions unt eat for an ent 34 from the shock—chamber at the end of the 10 min confinement period and returned to its home cage. Non—conflict: The non—conflict (NC) member of a replication received the same number of shocks, with the same temporal distribution, as its CON replication-mate. That is, the shocks were delivered according to the pattern established by the CON S. However, food was never available to the NC Ss in the shock—chamber. The chamber was thoroughly scrub— ed with a deodorant and a disinfectant prior to the running of each S. Presumably, little or no trace of food remained in the chamber. Non—conflict predictable: The non—conflict predictable (NCP) member of a replication was also shocked in accordance with the pattern established by its CON replication-mate. The occurrence of the shock was made ”predictable" for these Ss, however, by preceding its onset with a 10 sec buzzer CS. The CS was terminated with the onset of Shock. Confinement: The confinement (CNF) member of a replication was treated identically in both the baseline and the shock training sessions. The S was never exposed to food in the Shock—chamber and was not shocked. The Ss in each replication were run under shock training conditions until the CON member of the replication failed to - - ' e session eat for an entire 10 min shock training 5e5510n' Th Ss, in all gro period. Test period: P shock~chamber, into the chambe mash consisting The origina were tested, bu were run, Two Of the S into t feeding was rec food mash was d The test se Successive days Given 5 was con 55 were placed the criterion : 31his to them 0: 35 following that on which this criterion was satisfied was a test session to determine the extent to which feeding inhib— itions had developed in the Ss in the various groups. All Ss, in all groups, were treated identically during the test period. Test period: Prior to the introduction of the S into the shock—chamber, a small glass bowl 4 in in diameter was placed into the chamber. The bowl contained 60 gms of a wet food mash consisting of Purina Cat Chow and water. The original metal food cup was in place when the CON Ss were tested, but was absent when the Ss in the remaining groups were run. Two measures were taken following the introduction of the S into the shock—chamber. First, the 8's latency to feeding was recorded. Then the time required to ingest the food mash was determined. The test sessions were 10 min long and were CODdUCted on Successive days for both the HH and the LL Ss. Testing Of a given S was complete once it had ingested the food mash. The SS were placed on a total food-deprivation schedule following the criterion shock training day (SH-C), and fOOd was avail— able to them only in the shock—chamber. RESULTS The reliabi determined by a by 2 observers 48 ratings made ted to oontinge changed reliabl RIM-5) to the c the LL and the more substanti Only 1 of difference bet list item "I“, ginally SignifJ be noted, howex in the same diJ °” Day BLM—5 £2 The ratings of Otherwise qultt afld SH days . The vocali Kruskal-Wallis 11 This is si Smart (1965) Checklist ‘ analyzed as a 37 The reliability of the "Behavior Checklist" data was determined by a comparison of the independent ratings made by 2 observers for 6 SS. The observers agreed on 44 of the 48 ratings made.11 The data from the checklist were submit— ted to contingency analyses to determine if the 85' ratings changed reliably from the final baseline measure day (Day BLM—5) to the criterion shock day (Day SH—C). The data for the LL and the HH Ss were pooled for these analyses to obtain more substantial cell frequencies. Only 1 of 8 analyses conducted resulted in a significant difference between the groups. This was obtained for check— list item ”I", ”Reaction to manipulandum," and was only mar— ginally significant (X2=8.23, df=3, p.< .05).12 It should be noted, however, that all of the changes observed were not in the same direction. Several 85 that manipulated the ball on Day BLM—5 failed to do so on Day SH—C, and yigg yersa, The ratings of the Ss in the various groups (Appendix B) were otherwise quite similar and consistent throughout the BLM and SH days. The vocalization data (Table l) were analyzed using the Kruskal—Wallis one—way analysis of variance by ranks. The 11 This is similar to the extent of agreement reported by Smart (1965) for essentially the same items. Checklist item ”F”, ”Neurotic motor disturbance," was not analyzed as activity is treated extensively below. 1| O'Hmm mlzqm. uMONOUW COanMNHHMUnvxr "HO manOfluv—mflxvmn UHMUGMDM muCM mfimms H OHQmB 38 mw.Nv m®.m Vm.mv Nv.mv Ho.m@ mv.mv mm.mn vm.om .Qom mmsonw Ad mv.ov mm.m mm.wm ow.om ooovm ow.wm VH.@HH wa.mn smmz mm.mm om.mm mo.mm mm.wN mm.mv ov.mm Wm.mm HH.HN .Qom mmsomo mm va.mm wm.wH ¢H.hm mN.NN va.om mw.HN mm.vm ah.ma Qmwz hzo moz oz 200 mZU mUZ 02 200 01mm mlzqm .mwuoom COHpmNHHmoo> mo mQOHu0fl>wm Uhmpamum Usm mama: H magma data fior the LL Iere the data ft vocalizations at for on Day Em- able difference 11.87, df=3, p. Table 1 suggest 1y to decreases The vocalizati (H=6.41 and 6. The freque the shock-ch 0f the Ss in t aIlalysis as the the median fret Y"‘Gre used inst: Day BLM—5.13 . (Table 2) of tj “:3: p. >.70) Day SH~C (H=l4 the a}; 9r0ups 3.15, resPthi The fr The fre equer (Nancy 39 data for the LL and the HH Ss were treated separately, as were the data for Days BLM—5 and SH—C. The total number of vocalizations emitted by the 4 groups of LL Ss did not dif- fer on Day BLM-5 (H=4.48, df=3, p. >.20), but a highly reli— able difference was found between the groups on Day SH-C (H= 11.87, df=3, p. <.Ol). A look at the vocalization data in Table 1 suggests that this difference can be attributed large— ly to decreases in the vocalizations of the NC and NCP Ss. The vocalizations of the HH Ss did not differ on either day (H=6.41 and 6.31, respectively, df=3, p. >.lO). The frequency of occurrence of each behavior measured in the shock—chamber was noted and the total frequency scores of the Ss in the various groups were submitted to the same analysis as the vocalization data. In this case, however, the median frequency scores of the SS on the BLM days (BLM—M) were used instead of the total number of responses made on Day BLM-5.l3 The results indicated that the frequency scores (Table 2) of the LL Ss did not differ on Day BLM—M (H=l.36, df=3, p. >.70), but a significant difference was found on Day SH—C (H=l4.59, df=3, p. <.Ol). The frequency scores of the HE groups of 85 did not differ on either day (H=6.78 and 5.15, reSpectively, df=3, p.> .10). 13 The frequency data for each S can be found in Appendix C, The frequency scores are those enclosed in parentheses. E, 2 LP‘ ...: (t 2| Em vmflhoum \AUCNDNVWHh W0 QEOHHMerQQ UHNUCNDM HUS—m WEN”: N QHQMH 4O om.@ hm.h hN.HN ©V.Hm H©.HN mm.mm Nw.mm vw.wH omom wmsonw HA om.mm hm.b mm.mm oo.Nm va.mm Nv.vv hm.Nm oo.©¢ com: ow.m No.mH mm.vN OH.ON ww.ma Hm.mm mn.HH NN.mH .Qom mmsoso mm hm.mw mm.mm mv.mm hm.hm mm.wm mv.wm hm.mv mm.om moms mzo moz OZ Zoo mzo mUZ OZ ZOO 01mm Srzqm .monoom mucosvwhm mo mQOHuMH>wD CHMUnMDm paw msooz N magma Allof the were analyzed 1: Algorithm (desc factorial analy in the treatmer. second dimensio groups and cros The use of differences, c x days interac in groups resu term was not a 58 x days inte Only the d: finement were E various activi1 (Nancy of cow] Masserman inhis eats, a: the ShOCk~cham ed by Mass erma bizarre Connt e 14Th Sho - ablzhe in App e:n 41 All of the activity measures taken in the shock—chamber were analyzed using the augmented form of the Cornfield—Tukey Algorithm (described by Dayton, 1970). The Algorithm is a factorial analysis of variance in which 85 are ”nested” with— in the treatment levels of one dimension, and crossed on the second dimension. In this case, the 85 were nested within groups and crossed with reSpect to days. The use of the Algorithm permitted the testing of group differences, changes in behavior over days, and the groups x days interactions. However, since the nesting of 85 with- in groups resulted in an n=l per cell, the appropriate error term was not available for testing the effects of Ss and the 85 x days interactions. Only the data for the first 540 sec of shock—chamber con— finement were analyzed. The total time spent engaged in the various activities of interest was recorded, as was the fre— quency of occurrence of the behaviors.14 Masserman (1943) identified several ”neurotic symptoms" in his cats, and these formed the bases for the analyses of the shock—chamber activity data. Among the symptoms mention- ed by Masserman were (1) changes in spontaneous activity, (2) bizarre counterphobic responses, and (3) regressive substit— 14 The shock—chamber activity data for each S is also avail— able in Appendix C. utive behaviors were considered playing and gro‘ ufivebehaviors ms"led to the ivities: 1 Total a ting th the act ure . 2. General of time corpora 3‘ Ere time t} ber Rem based ( aDd/or m on pac Subtra giVen bEhavi ition in val Sh0ck- The data C analyzed seper VetiOII/shock c 5°: erich of ti ea . 42 utive behaviors. Pacing, rubbing, and kneading of the paws mere considered to be bizarre counterphobic reSponses, and playing and grooming were identified as regressive substit- utive behaviors. Masserman's specification of these "sympt— oms" led to the analysis of the following shock-chamber act— ivities: 1. Total activity. This measure was obtained by subtrac— ting the S's inactivity score from 540 sec. All of the activities listed below are included in this meas— ure. 2. General activity. This measure indicates the amount of time Spent in activities which could not be in— corporated into any other category. 3. Escape behavior. This was simply the total amount of time the S spent trying to get out of the shock—cham— ber. 4. Regressive substitutive behaviors. This measure was based on the amount of time a given S spent grooming and/or playing. 5. Bizarre counterphobic reSponses. This score was based on pacing, rubbing, and kneading and was obtained by subtracting all of the other activity scores for a given S from 540 sec. This was necessary because the behaviors are not mutually exclusive and simple add— ition of the individual scores would have resulted in values which exceeded the total time Spent in the shock—chamber for some Ss. The data obtained from the LL and the HH groups of Ss were analyzed seperately. The analogous groups under the 2 depri- vation/Shock conditions were then compared as well. The data for eadh of the measures described above were analyzed under each deprivation/shock condition for Days BLM—l through BLM-5 to determine if any finement or habitua'c baseline Performance compared with their The 85' median score the baseline period their baseline perf< compared with the SE The LL groups 0: the BLM days (F=.l7' level remained fairi iOd (F=.910, df=4,9l differ in general a cape (F=l.l9, df=3, haviors (F=2.033, d bizarre responses ( Significant cha Chaim as a funct 43 to determine if any changes in behavior resulted from con— finement or habituation to the apparatus (Tables 3—7). The baseline performance of the Ss in the various groups was then compared with their behavior on Day SH-C (Tables 8 and 9). The 85' median scores for each of the measures taken during the baseline period were assumed to be representative of their baseline performance, and these were the scores (BLM—M) compared with the Ss' post—shock behavior. The LL groups of Ss did not differ in total activity on the BLM days (F=.l77, df=3,24, p. >.75) and their activity level remained fairly constant throughout the baseline per— iod (F=.910, df=4,96, p. >.75).15 The LL groups also did not differ in general activity (F=2.063, df=3,24, p.> .10), es- cape (F=1.19, df=3,24, p. >.25), regressive substitutive be— haviors (F=2.033, df=3,24, p.> .10), or in the incidence of bizarre reSponses (F=.174, df=3,24, p.> .75). Significant changes in the behavior of the LL groups were obtained as a function of days, however, for escape (F=3.89, 15 Homogeneity of variance and homogeneity of covariance re— quirements must be satisfied in using the Algorithm. Where heterogeneity pertains, a ”conservative” testing procedure involving an adjustment in degrees of freedom is used (Day— ton, 1970). The F—ratios obtained in the analyses to be re— Ported were evaluated using both the customary and the con- servative df. All but 3 of these ratios were significant by both standards. Analysis of the variance-covariance ma— trices in these 3 instances indicated that the homogeneity requirements were fulfilled. ON.h©H Nm.OOH Omon hmiGV OH.MOH cQoW ZOO PMaQOM VH.FN.~V 00.5mv 00.0%.? MV~VNW 96.9: mIZJHm. .Vlzqmm Mule/THE leqm leqm. DNSOHU \AHMQ «Minn 21km Thnwfln «mmhnoum \flu...r.>a.uan/N HNUOLfl “AU Tn~0t~uutneth>th abh1t~v.:ut+yfi. 3:7. “:13: »l .Jix‘: 44 om.eea Hm.wHH mm.mma so.sma mH.mmH .o.m mzo oo.mnm ea.eae as.esm me.mmm sm.mae sees oH.wH mm.moa mm.oma mm.HmH eH.oom .m.m moz hm.wam ea.mme as.omm me.mae He.mmm cams masons as mm.meH mm.msa mo.sma mm.omH mm.mmH om.m oz mm.aee om.omv oo.eme va.eae He.moe gems mm.emH oa.mma ew.HmH mm.mm mm.me Doom zoo me.mme ea.mae om.oee ea.eoe ow.mme gems ms.oe mm.ms sm.me oa.mw mm.osa .o.m mzu nm.mae ea.eme me.Hmv oo.smm oo.mmm cams om.oma os.HeH Hm.aoa mm.mm mm.aoa .o.m moz om.moe mm.mme em.mee om.ame om.sae sews mesons mm nm.mHH Ho.meH mm.soa we.mm mm.He .o.m 02 ea 5mm me.wme as.eoe sm.eme ow.ome new: om.seH mm.ooa om.mm sm.me oa.moa on.m 200 pm mom ea.sme oo.sme oo.ose me.eme saws mesam eusqm musnm musqm Huzqm dsouo IIrJIItJIIIIII hon .mta Sam when “wwnoum muflxfiupod HMHOE mo mCOHpmflwa Uhmwsmum can mass: m magmas —\ F 0U F KC C fr» r. 1 l( r vmomw mmon mmoOm thmwmw V®.mwm oQom. ZOU hW-mww mNommH VH.OVH hmofimH OO-®NH 260: Mlzqm Vlzqm .mlzqmm leqm leqm QSOMU \AQQ I mil” zqm mama " mhIUlu-uoum. \WtU.tmu\/1mu ”YUAN IHFMMHOFHUHU T450 muaLAIVImw U,~WI.H.\/MVQ HULHueHVFH~kyum WU utufu~w.vz \\ \\ 45 om.mm ma.moa Hm.mmH mm.om Ho.mm .oom mzo mm.maa eH.smH mm.moa om.mm an.oma new: mo.aoa em.ms mo.ms mm.mm se.oaa no.m moz eH.NwH me.meH sm.moa asooma as.sne gees mmsosw HQ ea.on mm.mm em.mo oe.mm me.nma om.m oz me.me eH.HmH me.mmH ea.ema me.eoa new: os.oma om.mOH ee.HHH so.mm He.nea .oom zoo ea.nam sm.oma oo.mam me.mom om.omm new: ma.om em.os mm.me oo.eo mm.eo .o.m mZo He.oma em.moH mv.meH ow.ama ea.mm gees mn.Hm mm.ms me.me om.mHH mm.ms .o.m moz oo.HeH sm.wsa ea.mma eH.mmH eH.HNH gems mmsouw mm os.Hw oe.mm em.em Hm.me me.ee .n.m oz ea.mma om.mam me.mmH oo.oma mm.mmH saws em.mo mm.mm mm.om em.mo em.mm .m.m zoo sm.mo mm.mmH ea.oea sm.HmH oo.ome new: mnsqm euzqm musqm musqm Husqm msono mom uttttlltllrltlly .th 24m whoa "wwHOUm hufl>flpom Hohmcwo mo mQOHDMH>®Q pumeMpm was QOmE w mHQMB omoOO moavm 0V.MOH owamm WW-WOH o n : ZOU HP 0? M? HV 00 mm Hhcmh ©®qfl® Gmmz mlzqm VIZHQ mlzqm leqm HIEQQ QSOHU N50,. tmllfi Eli-um mxmo "mmgoom OOHAUHVMWHN MO ”PaavWH—FJHWKVOQ NULHVeNUF.uQQn Us. t Tn-ntmdg A» .tvtxth‘... 46 mm.m mm.mv mm.®H vm.Hm nv.mv snow mzo hm.m hm.wH hm.oa oo.vm oo.mm sow: mH.vN Hm.©m Hm.mv av.mm w¢.HNH om.m mUz ww.mm mm.hw va.mv H>.ma wa.mm sows mmsouw qq mm.mm on.Hm mw.mv Hm.mMH om.h®H on.m OZ va.nm mm.mm om.v> oo.om va.mHH smoz mm.om um.mv Hm.mm on.wma vh.moa .mom ZOO mv.mH mw.om mv.mv mv.mm oo.wm sows mo.mm mm.wm om.mm mm.vv mw.ow .Q.m mzo va.mm mm.mm ow.o> Hh.Hm Hh.nn sows VN.HB Hm.m® vH.¢HH om.mw mm.mna .Q.m moz VH.H> an.vm mv.HHH mv.mm HS.H©H smog mmsono mm om.vm vv.Hm mm.mHH Nv.vva mo.®mH .Q.m oz mv.m© nm.mm oo.mNH va.vm ww.mma sow: om.om mm.wm mu.moa ©©.mw vv.moa .m.m ZOO Hh.ov mv.Hw oo.mm ah.mm ww.mm coo: mlzqm Vlzqm Mlzqm leqm leqm msouw hon .mIH qu whom «mosoum masowm m0 wQOflDMH>wQ DHMUQMDm DEM wflmmz m OHQMB \c (Fr mMaQMH 05.00..” mwmewaH 0m.WNH ®V-N©H oQ.m ZOO HD.MMH mNoHVH mvommfi VH.VWH OO.®HH EGG: mlzqmm Vlzqmn Mlstmm leqm. leqm QSOHU >.an I mlun 21.5mm mafia H mmhfioum nonfiommom Gkr‘mummvhnmmvu m0 makeuflfl FT tr>flvQ Uh! ..de rant. 3m five. -. ewnafhvz by 47 mm.HsH mm.eoa mm.mma mo.eHH ea.moa .m.m mm.soa . . . . mzo mm sea em was mm Hma ea mma cams oe.ee oo.om ms.moa oo.msa Hm.ea ooom He.moa oo.mm oo.em om.oma oo.wa gees moz mmsonw Ag Hm.Hm mm.mm eo.em oa.es mo.am ooom oz em.me sm.mo sm.oo om.on mv.ma gems oe.me mm.Hm mm.Hm mm.mo om.me .nom zoo ea.mm mm.Hv oo.He eH.mo om.ae gems em.sma mm.mea em.mHH as.mma ew.os .n.m mzo ea.smm me.soa om.msH oo.mma me.oaa gems oo.eea mn.mn He.em mH.mHH mH.Hoa .mom moz sm.sma me.wm ea.soa «H.0m ea.om cams mQSOHU mm ma.mm ma.ms oo.om mm.mma me.NOH .n.m oz om.mHH oo.es sm.ooa as.mma oo.mm saws mm.mmH oe.ooa mm.NmH om.emH me.NoH .o.m zoo as.mma mm.aea me.mmH ea.eea oo.mHH new: musqm eusqm musam Nisan Husqm msono mom cMIH Eqm whwfl ”WOHOUW MGWQOnwam wxrflwwwnnmwm WHO WQOHU.MH>@Q muHmeQmpm mufimw WENT: w QHQMB I ~-~~ ‘ wmaanH mm.mwmw H®s®OH 0N.©VH hN-Nm._.. .Qom. ZOO FW..VNH HF..V® MV.Omw hmoHOH 00.0% Emmz Mlszm «Vlzqm Mlzqm leqm leqm. ONSOHO \anmo. I miln gun—um! mafia n Nah-”00m mmmcommmvm Mvhen‘NaNNHMN m0 MF~0HU,FJV.1>0Q MJYN~M~VP~CUM 3:: Russia: \t MVHNQT: 48 emuoea oe.voH me.veH so.msa me.eme .m.m mzo om mm om.om mm.oe mm.mma omowoe gems He.mHH Hm.mea mw.ema mm.ooH mm.mma oo.m moz ow.ome me.eeH oo.omH ea.wma as.om gees mmsouo .Hu. ms.mwa Hm.ona nm.Hm mm.mma eo.mmH ooom oz mw.msa om.msa an.oma ea.oma mm.eoa new: mm.moa mw.mma mH.omH em.eoH mm.mOH Odom zoo an.eOH me.oea me.meH om.ooa as.me cams ee.em no.5e mm.mm mo.wm om.om .o.m mZo ea.em ea.em mm.mm me.mm om.mH sews me.ww oa.eoa mm.am mm.mea eo.oaa .oom moz eH.om Hp.moa om.Hs oo.eHH eH.mm gems masonw mm me.eoa He.moa mo.mm Hm.mo sm.eo .o.m oz sm.om mm.as sm.He He.mm He.me new: om.emn mm.mm Ho.moa mm.oea sm.mmfi .o.m zoo em.ema as.em me.om em.Hoa oo.om sews mnsqm ensam musqm misqm Hussm msono won .mIH Sam whoa uwmhoum wwmfiommmm wMHMNHm mo mGOHHMwan Unmvflmum Dam mfimwz h QHQMB df=4,96/ p. < .05) I P-<-05)° These di however, and indivi Sheffe technique di No differences tal activity (F=.9] (H.270, df=4,96, viors (F=l.327, df= days interactions 2 The Eli groups < taken over BLM day: these comparisons v viors (df=3,24, p. found over days f0 general activity ( enarginally Signi Tiiv (F=2.63, df: Further analys that the NC 85 en 9 0“ Days BLM~4 and and 8.295, rESpect at ‘30 less prone tc EL Uh]. (F:9'776 d h Sthfe I S metho 49 df=4,96, p. <.05), and bizarre responses (F=3.446, df=4,96, p. <.05)o These differences were of marginal significance, however, and individual comparisons using the conservative Sheffe technique did not yield any significant contrasts.l6 No differences were found over days for the LL SS in to— tal activity (F=.910, df=4,96, p. >.75), general activity (F=l.270, df=4,96, p. >.25), or regressive substitutive beha— viors (F=1.327, df=4,96, p. >.25), and none of the groups x days interactions approached significance. The HH groups of SS did not differ on any of the measures taken over BLM days 1-5. The largest F—ratio obtained for these comparisons was 2.033 for regressive substitutive beha— viors (df=3,24, p.> .10). Highly reliable differences were found over days for escape (F=7.374, df=4,96, p.< .001) and general activity (F=6.240, df=4,96, p. <.001), however, and a marginally significant result was obtained for total act— ivity (F=2.63, df=4,96, p. <.05) . Further analysis of the baseline escape data indicated that the NC Ss engaged in significantly less escape behavior on Days BLM—4 and BLM—5 than they did on Day BLM-1 (F=8.873 and 8.295, respectively, df=4,34, p. <.05). The NCP SS were also less prone to escape On Day BLM—5 than they were on Day BLM—l (F=9.776, df=4,34, p. <.025). None of the individual l6 Sheffe's method was used for all individual comparisons. comparisons 0f the cant result, and no were found for the Analyses of the BLM-M and SH-C indi activity (F=4.73, c changes in activit: <.001), These wa: action on this mea: It was subsequi be attributed to s NCP 85 on Day SH-C than both the CON TNT 38 (F=19.092, the remaining cont The days effec 05 the NC and Ncp cantly from their OfSS were less a< Pectivelyl df=l,l The effect of on the measure of .01). (Nice again r _ .tildble differep 50 comparisons of the general activity data yielded a signifi— cant result, and no significant groups x days interactions were found for the HH SS on any of the measures. Analyses of the behaviors of the LL groups of $5 on Days BLM—M and SH—C indicated that the groups differed in total activity (F=4.73, df=3,24, p. <.Ol), and that significant changes in activity occurred over days (F=36.27, df=l,24, p. <.OOl)o These was also a Significant groups x days inter- action on this measure (F=1l.36, df=3,24, p. <.001), It was subsequently found that the effects of groups could be attributed to significant decreases in the activity of the NCP SS on Day SH—C. This group was Significantly less active than both the CON SS (F=19.003, df=3,27, p. <.OOl) and the CNF Ss (F=19.092, df=3,27, p.< .001) on Day SH—C. None of the remaining contrasts were Significant. The days effect observed was a function of the activity of the NC and NCP Ss on Day SH—C, which differed signifi- cantly from their activity on Day BLM—M. Both of these groups of Ss were less active on Day SH-C (F=20.068 and 42.409, res— pectively, df=l,l3, p. <.001). The effect of groups was also significant for the LL Ss On the measure of general activity (F=5.49l, df=3,24, p, < .01). Once again, the effect was attributable to a highly reliable difference between the NCP Ss and the CON and CNF t .. 11 - >0H>H¥CQ pTiCLt wmofiflfi. Hhohd. hm.OON OO-VHV HP-VOV ®®.@HV Emimmv ©V.®~VV 200: rmHZnU 82 OZ. ZOO @7an 82 Oz 200 “VIEW SIS—Jam. I mmhfioum \flHd.l.H->I.HU.U< [MEGAUHFPMHHMHIHUIVHUOFHm 44 m0 mfltnflVfln WVHTM INH>UQ ULHHQHVHH~VMNW finish.» ytt-~wmmvz MN \ nV,‘ 51 [Iii Hm.hv mH.H mm.Ho om.mn mm.HvH mm.vma mH.mNH Hm.©NH 9Q.m mm onummflm mv.NN mv.o hm.mm ow.Ho om.wo hm.oma HS.HMH hm.mHH sow: mm.HmH om.hH mm.ov mm.mm Nh.mma ow.mm om.hv Hw.am omom mm w>HmmoMmmm hm.oma oo.NH hm.wa m¢.hn va.©va ah.wo ow.mv nm.mv Soc: mn.am mo.m mm.wm oo.om mm.» sH.Ha om.ma mo.om .o.m ammomm mm.wm oo.H HS.HN mm.©m va.m mv.wv mv.vo mm.mv sows mN.mm mm.mm hm.HmH ha.hoa mm.am mo.mw mH.o© ow.mm .Q.m hpfl>flpom kuosow mm.mmm hm.mm om.maa mm.amm oo.oNH mm.mma mv.mma ow.HmH sow: 0H.mm mm.mo om.wma mm.mm ww.NHH mm.me mm.moa mm.HNH .n.m mpfl>flpow HMDOB mw.vav ah.nv hm.oom oo.vav ah.vov om.ma¢ hm.mmv ov.mvv sow: MZU mUZ UZ ZOO hZU mUZ OZ ZOO 01mm Erzqm .wwMOUm muH>HuU¢ HMQEMSUIXUOSm HQ mo wfloflhMH>®Q Unstamwm Una mflmwz w QHQMB ”\u CO a0 ”PF. C—n Hr—whas fit—\ enom Hooch om.oom oo.HhH om.moa mu.nom om.oos ms.mvv oo-nuu mv.emv coo: .mZU AHUZ UZ ZOO .HHZU QUZ .02 200 Ulmm EIZJHQ awn~nltfl~w ,tu. pt. H-t\/.lvfi1~ ~wvt~ . .~ws. ~ ~YW 5b H E x w x x \ I mmhfloum \«nnu.t.fl>vmuU.HV/N MHAVOHFQFUEUIVHUhUFHm HRH“ WHO gm.mm v5.0m mm.0m hm.oma hw.am Wm.moa ah.mo m0.hma snow mm oHnMNHm mm.0© 00.0w HS.HH hm.hm mv.hm Hw.om Hh.mm mm.©oa sows . . Ha.hm h0.mh mm.naa 00.00 vm.0o mm.v0H .Q.m Va NHH mm 0m mm w>flmmonmom om.mmH mw.mm Hr.0® an.mm 00.©©H mv.om mv.mw ab.mma smog ma.n mo.m 00.0 HN.0H mm.mv mH.©w no.0HH 0m.m© .Qom ommomm HS.N mm.m 00.0 om.m mw.av va.mw va.om 00.mo now: 2 O O l 0 O S mm.m¢ mm.hHH mm.HMH mv.bm mm.v0 mm m0 mm mm mm mv Q m hufl>fluom Hmnwsmw hm.mva mv.mm HS.HS mv.mm 00.mmH 00.0va mv.mma 0m.wMH soc: m®.00 mm.mna 0H.mam mv.vom nm.>v Nv.mm hm.wm om.0v snow hufl>flpom Hopoa 00.00m 00.H>H mm.NoH m¢.hmm 90.000 mv.mvv 00.nfifl m¢.Hmv sows mzo muz OZ ZOO mzo moz oz Zoo Ulmm SIZAm .moeoow mnn>euos nonsmsUIMUOSm mm no mcoflnma>oo osmoumnm one name: m OHQQB ‘I group5. The NCP 5: groups on DaY SH‘C 13, p. < .001) . The LL groups < escape and regress, effect was also un groups x days inte ure, however (F=7. The LL groups arre responses (F: Chinge in the beha to Day SH—C (F=13. Uction in the inci for bOth the NC ar PM .025, and F=7, A Significant was observed from p.< .001) t I althOUC. PM“ df=3,24, ta . s also Signific, all effect of day Creases in the t 0 1a vi, p. < .05), the ”NCP 35 (He 53 groups. The NCP 83 were significantly less active than these groups on Day SH-C (F=21.855 and 21.415, respectively, df=l, 13, p. <.OOl). The LL groups of 85 did not differ on the measures of escape and regressive substitutive behaviors, and the days effect was also unreliable for these measures. A significant groups x days interaction was obtained for the latter meas- ure, however (F=7.642, df=3,24, p. <.OOl). The LL groups also did not differ on the measure of biz— arre responses (F=.186, df=3,24, p. >.75), but a significant change in the behavior of the 88 was observed from Day BLM—M to Day SH-C (F=l3.599, df=l,24, p. <.Ol)o A significant re— uction in the incidence of bizarre reSponses was observed for both the NC and the NCP 85 on Day SH—C (F=3.281, df=l,l3, p.< .025, and F=7.460, df=l,13, p. <.OOl, reSpectively). A significant change in the total activity of the HH Ss was observed from Day BLM—M to Day SH—C (F=27.96, df=l,24, p.< .001), although the groups did not differ on either day (F=l.37, df=3,24, p. >.75). The groups x days interaction was also significant (F=3.530, df=3,24, p.< .05). The over— all effect of days in this instance was the result of de— creases in the total activity of the CON Ss (F=5.073, df=l, 13, p. <.05), the NC SS (F=l7.338, df=l,l3, p. <.001), and the NCP 5s (F=l6.108, df=l,l3, p.< .005) on Day SH-C. A significant for the HE Ss on t df=l,24, p. <.05). approached an acce also differed in e and the extent of BLM-M to Day SH—C Although the i ed to yield a reli activity of the df=l,13, p. <.OOl) decreased signifi ficant groups x d escape measure (F: The HH SS did ponses (F=1.158, < ficant result was viors (F=3.33l, d Couparisons faile the groups on eit Comparisons o Sulted in only or f011ml to differ c df=l'12’ P- < .00] 54 A significant overall effect of days was also observed for the HH Ss on the measure of general activity (F=4.487, df=l,24, p. <.05), but none of the individual comparisons approached an acceptable level of significance. The HH groups also differed in escape behavior (F=7.189, df=3,24, p. <.05), and the extent of their escape activity decreased from Day BLM~M to Day SH—C (F=28.73, df=l,24, p. <.001), Although the individual comparisons between groups fail— ed to yield a reliable difference on either day, the escape activity of the CON (F=5.503, df=l,l3, p.< .05), NC (F=ll.647, df=l,l3, p. <.001), and NCP (F=ll.597, df=l,l3, p.< .001) 5s decreased significantly from Day BLM—M to Day SH—C° A signi— ficant groups X days interaction was also obtained for the escape measure (F=10.208, df=3,24, p. <.OOl). The HH Ss did not differ on the measure of bizarre res— ponses (F=1.158, df=3,24, p. >.25), but a marginally signi— ficant result was obtained for regressive substitutive beha— viors (F=3,33l, df=3,24, p. <.05). Subsequent individual comparisons failed to yield a significant difference between the groups on either day. Comparisons of the analogous LL and HH groups of Ss re~ Sulted in only one difference. The LL and HH CON 85 were found to differ on the measure of general activity (F=l4.093, df=l,12, p.< .001). The HH CON Ss were significantly less mQDOHU G x w mama museum whom ,, , .H.H HE noduaocoo alum. Urn.” Harlan—«Hm mxnflnn amen-“00m \Hnuwflxrfinvnvd‘ HmfiflfiUIMUOSW M0 MOmKAHMCHN "HO NHNEESW 04.. @Hnnflfin 55 Illlllillllllllllllllllll IiIllilllllllllllllllllllll! ma Ho. ms mm mm mm mmmflomwmn OHHMNHm H00. ma ma mm mm mo. mHOH>m£®Q o>flmmmnmmm mg mg mg H00. .80. mo. ommomm ms ma Ho. ms mo. ms mba>fluom Hohocoo H00. H00. Ho. mo. Hoo. ms wbfl>flpum Hopoa Q on w whom masonw G x o whom masono HQ mm COHpHUQOU .Olmm Usm Erzflm whom umeOUm mDH>HuU¢ HGQEMSUIMUOSm mo wmwhamq< mo hnmfifism OH mHQMB active than the LL p.<.005). None 0 x days interaction A two-way anal ing latency and fe the HR 33, and dif ures. Differences the LL and EH depr p.<.05), and as a .05). The deprive was also signific Subsequent in Ss required signi of the other grou} comparisons were : dence. The indiv did not result in groups of Ss, alt Significant for d 4B. p. < .05) . The final ans 0f Shocks rece ive M 17 Several compa: 0i course, but i‘ as they Were dea 56 active than the LL CON $5 on Day SH-C (F=l4.022, df=l,13, p.< .005). None of the remaining groups effects or groups x days interactions approached significance.l7 A two—way analysis of variance was applied to the feed— ing latency and feeding time scores (Table 11) of the LL and the HE Ss, and differences were found on both of these meas— ures. Differences in feeding latencies were obtained between the LL and HH deprivation/shock conditions (F=5.513, df=l,48, p.< .05), and as a function of groups (F=3.695, df=3,48, p. < .05). The deprivation/shock condition x groups interaction was also significant (F=3.715, df=3,48, p.< .05). Subsequent individual comparisons showed that the LL CON Ss required significantly more time to begin eating than all of the other groups of Ss, which did not differ. All of the comparisons were significant beyond the .01 level of confi— dence. The individual comparisons of the feeding time data did not result in any significant differences between the groups of 88, although the overall analysis of variance was- significant for deprivation/shock condition (F=3.004, df=l, 48, p. <.05). The final analysis to be reported contrasted the number of shocks received by the LL CON and the HH CON Ss (Table 12). 17 Several comparisons yielded significant effects of days, Of course, but it would be redundant to mention them here as they were dealt with previously. nHUZ CZ. 200 hoflwvmfl .WOHOUW “"290le WGHUWOW “we.“ Wade... madnoflh Eh “you.” .H.H N0 MROHUMerwQ UHNUCMDM “3.5m mEMOE HH. GHQGH 57 IIIllillllllllllllllltllllw mv.maa mm.mmH ms.awa sm.mm oo.o smm.a sm.mm Ho.mmm .o.m mm qq Hp.mom mm.mmm aa.smm He.omm oo.m ma.e sm.mmm Hm.ame new: mm.moa mm.HaH oa.ama mm.msa oo.o om.m HH.HH mm.a .o.m mm mm em.mom as.mmm oo.em~ em.mmm oo.m em.» ea.oa am.e gems mzo moz oz 200 mzo moz oz zoo wEHE mocmpmq . WMHOUW monopoq maflvmwm van oEflB mnflpwom mm can AH mo wQOHQMH>wQ venomoum on 0 name: HH magma the too groups of m (t=1.27 , df=12 Table 12 Means ar The weight me experiment were d reliable to warre 18 A summary of t shock-chamber act summary tables fc 58 The two groups of 85 were not found to differ on this meas— ure (t=l.27, df=12, p. >.90).l8 Table 12 Means and Standard Deviations of Shock Scores. LL CON HH CON Mean 10.00 7.43 S.D. 3.11 4.65 The weight measures taken throughout the course of the experiment were discarded, as they were not sufficiently reliable to warrent analysis. 18 A summary of the results of the major analyses of the shock—chamber activity data can be found in Table 10, and summary tables for all analyses appear in Appendix A. DISCUSSION Masserman (194 toms" which were c' sequently noted, a and Wolpe (1952). develOpment of the The "symptoms" not ges in spontaneous haviors, such as p phobic responses, (4) ”neurotic" mot tics. All of these 1 were observed in 1 However, they were “re (BLM) day, E which Masserman p ”HQUIQSes. II s LL‘CON‘l, f BluNi‘l, and totall 6d for 471 sec of io d0“ Day BLM~2. 19 The - or LL) ,deSlgnat ic grOUP I a1“ 60 Masserman (1943) identified a number of "neurotic symp— toms" which were characteristic of his cats. These were sub— sequently noted, and apparently confirmed, by Smart (1965) and Wblpe (1952), although the explanations offered for the development of the "neuroses" differed among these workers. The "symptoms” noted by Masserman (1943) included (1) chan- ges in spontaneous activity, (2) regressive substitutive be— haviors, such as playing and grooming, (3) bizarre counter— phobic re5ponses, including pacing, rubbing and pawing, and (4) ”neurotic" motor disturbances, such as convulsions and tics. All of these behaviors, with the exception of convulsions, were observed in the course of the present investigation. However, they were observed from the very first baseline meas- ure (BLM) day, REESE to the introduction of the treatment which Masserman (1943) claimed was necessary to produce the ”neuroses." S LL-CON—l, for example, was active for 415 sec on Day BLM—l, and totally inactive on Day BLM—5.19 S LL—NCP—6 play- ed for 471 sec of the 540 sec shock—chamber confinement per— iod on Day BLM—2. S HH—CNF-7 groomed for 510 sec on Day BLM—2, and S LL—NCP—2 paced for 297 sec on Day BLM—3. S 19 The designation used for the Ss Specifies condition (HH Or LL), group, and litter, respectively. ,- 3 WW HH-CON-l kneaded 1 sec on DaY BLM-3. which could possit on DaY BLM-4 in S some of hiS "neurc sive loud vocalizj 10min PeriOd on t At any rate' 1 "neurotic symf’tom confined in a com above are the exti but they 511011” I“ was typically 0105' the individual SS It was sugges may simply have b he employed, and was the case. Ma on signal to obta his baseline obse 30h with the beha Clithe "motivatic isVElopment of tt ram ' K\1\l ired l~8 da\'< 61 HH—CON—l kneaded for 390 sec on Day BLM—2 and rubbed for 412 sec on Day BLM-3. A curious ”jerking" of the rear limbs, which could possibly be called a ”tic" was observed 55 times on Day BLM-4 in S HH—NC—Z. Masserman (1943) also noted that some of his "neurotic" animals were characterized by ”exces— sive loud vocalizing.” S LL—CON—6 vocalized 375 times in a 10 min period on the first day of the BLM period. At any rate, the behaviors Specified by Masserman as ”neurotic symptoms” are representative of "normal" animals confined in a conditioning apparatus. The examples given above are the extreme scores obtained for these measures, but they should not be considered negative instances of what was typically observed. A glance at the activity data for the individual SS in Appendix C will verify this. It was suggested earlier that Masserman's (1943) results may simply have been artifacts of the experimental procedures he employed, and the findings in this study suggest that this was the case. Masserman trained his Ss to manipulate a lever on signal to obtain the contents of a food box. He then made his baseline observations to be used for purposes of compari— son with the behaviors observed following the introduction of the ”motivational conflict” presumed necessary for the develOpment of the ”neuroses.” This preliminary training required 1-8 days and, in the case of some SS, more than 100 trials. One possible e ition of responses haviors compatible on the other hand, extinguished many cats by selectivel lever-pressing. N his Ss seems to 81: Cats which ed into the ex 50011 as they y ed being remox ed the feedinc \ their behavior \\ W 11% (1943. Se anticipating f‘ in activities 11an ing, kneading and Introduction < flict could then 1 Went extinction e1 HChange in sponta: Quiet anticipatio Of the behaviors The qUOtat iOn 62 trials. One possible effect of this training would be the inhib— ition of responses unrelated to the procurement of food. Be— haviors compatible with those necessary to obtain reward would, on the other hand, be strengthened. Masserman may have thus extinguished many of the responses customarily exhibited by cats by selectively reinforcing only those compatible with lever-pressing. Masserman's description of the behavior of his Ss seems to support this inference. Cats which developed normal feeding responses jump— ed into the experimental cage with apparent eagerness as soon as they were permitted to do so and strongly resist— ed being removed from it. Such animals apparently await— ed the feeding Signals with equal avidity and showed in their behavior a definite capacity to anticipate accur— ately signals given at regular intervals of one or two minutes (1943, p. 59, italics mine). SS anticipating feeding Signals probably would not be engaged in activities unrelated to feeding, such as playing, groom— ing, kneading and rubbing. Introduction of aversive stimulation to establish a con— flict could then have disinhibited the responses which under— went extinction earlier in training. The result would be a "change in spontaneous activity" when contrasted with the quiet anticipation of the feeding signal, and the emergence 0f the behaviors inhibited previously. The quotation above also provides an explanation for the failure to obtain on the checklist . and Yum, 1946) . 1 ing apparatus, anw secondary reinfori "with apparent eaw moved from it. " never fed in the measures, the app both the BLM and were observed on It was hypoth wed would be expl of the effects of well—documented t fects upon the be 1969; Estes, 1944 situation involve One might expect, be Suppressed whi tiwely unaffecte< The results ( 63 failure to obtain significant differences between the groups on the checklist items devised by Masserman (1943; Masserman and Yum, 1946). Masserman's cats were fed in his condition— ing apparatus, and the situational cues probably acquired secondary reinforcing properties. His SS jumped into it "with apparent eagerness...and strongly resisted being re— nwved from it.” As the SS in the present investigation were never fed in the apparatus prior to the recording of baseline measures, the apparatus was probably aversive to the cats on both the BLM and the shock (SH) days. Hence, no differences were observed on the checklist items?0 It was hypothesized that the changes in behavior obser— ved would be explicable on the basis of existing knowledge of the effects of exposure to aversive stimulation. It is well-documented that punishment has relatively specific ef— fects upon the behavior of punished animals (Church, 1963, 1969; Estes, 1944, 1969), and Masserman's (1943) "conflict” situation involved the punishment of consummatory responses. One might expect, then, that consummatory responses would be suppressed while other ongoing activities would be rela— tively unaffected. The results obtained supported this hypothesis. The 2 . . . O The only significant difference obtained was for item "I”, ”Reaction to manipulandum,“ which was not taken by Masser~ man . conflict (CON) SS controls on any 0: the HE deprivatior statistically rel: the CON Ss from Dr of the In con, HH on Day SH-C, but tion to the appar escape scores of those of the othe mance of the CON measures, The Punishmer Greater response LT con ss, as a C tween the intensf ality of resp0n8( This hypothesis \ Se and the LL C 0] taken. The HH 0 were Significant Both of the Shoe aher . SlvEI hOWEVe in . and if a wider 4 64 conflict (CON) SS did not differ from the confinement (CNF) controls on any of the measures taken in either the LL or the HH deprivation/shock conditions. Furthermore, only one statistically reliable change in behavior was obtained for the CON $3 from Day BLM—M to Day SH-C. The escape activity of the HH CON, HH NC, and HH NCP SS decreased significantly on Day SH—C, but this may have been the result of habitua— tion to the apparatus rather than the effects of shock. The escape scores of the HH CNF SS were also low and Similar to those of the other groups. The pre— and post—Shock perfor— mance of the CON SS did not differ on any of the remaining measures. The punishment literature also led to the hypothesis of greater response suppression in the HH CON SS than in the LL CON 85, as a direct relationship is reported to exist be— tween the intensity of punishment and the degree and gener— ality of response suppression (Church, 1969; Estes, 1944)o This hypothesis was only partially supported, as the HH CON Ss and the LL CON SS differed on only 1 of the 5 measures taken. The HH CON SS exhibited general activity scores that were significantly lower than the scores of the LL CON SS. Both of the shock—intensities employed appeared to be quite aversive, however, and more differences might have been found if a wider range of intensity values had been employed, The results 0 aversive stimulat pression of behav Brady, 1955; Myer the behavior of t' agreater extent The results p The LL NCP Ss exh and general activ aIld the LL CNF SS in the total acti LL NC and the LL decrease was Obse Ss, The tOtal act decreased from Da and unreliable de reductiOH in the served in the LL A significant face .2 LS 0L non‘COnt t‘ : cror the LL voc I; NCON SS did not 81:. _ 1C,wh11e a la: 65 The results of other work suggest that non—contingent aversive stimulation leads to greater and more general sup- pression of behavior than punishment (Church, 1969; Hunt and Brady, 1955; Myers, 1971). It was thus hypothesized that the behavior of the NC and the NCP Ss would be suppressed to a greater extent than the behavior of the CON Ss. The results provided some support for this hypothesis. The LL NCP Ss exhibited significantly lower total activity and general activity scores on Day SH—C than both the LL CON and the LL CNF Ss. There was also a significant decrease in the total activity and the general activity scores of the LL NC and the LL NCP Ss from Day BLM-M to Day SH—C. No such decrease was observed in the activity scores of the LL CON Ss. The total activity of the HH NC and the HH NCP 85 also decreased from Day BLM—M to Day SH—C, while only a slight and unreliable decrease was observed in the HH CON Ss. A reduction in the incidence of bizarre responses was also ob— served in the LL NC and the LL NCP 55 on Day SH—C. A significant difference supporting the hypothesized ef— fects of non-contingent aversive stimulation was also obtain— ed for the LL vocalization scores. The vocalizations of the LL CON Ss did not change appreciably from Day BLM—5 to Day SH—C, while a large decrease in vocalizations was observed in the LL NC and 1 Masserman (19‘ adopt "steI‘eOtYPe‘ ationS. If this ' of responses made ure to conflict. .Vsis of the frequ' total number 0f 33‘ but the LL NC and scores. This fin pothesized effect More generall of "neuroticn beh The CON Ss were e behavior, followe actually obtained taken are present Table, the observ Were expected. The CNF 85 we CON SS Were most sh001d be emphas: the CON and the ( o= « K k n he Comparisov 66 in the LL NC and and the LL NCP Ss. Masserman (1943) also suggested that ”neurotic” animals adopt "stereotyped" modes of responding in conflictual situ— ations. If this is true, one might expect the total frequency of responses made by the CON Ss to decrease following expos- ure to conflict. This was not found to be the case. Anal— ysis of the frequency data did indicate a difference in the total number of responses made by the LL groups on Day SH—C, but the LL NC and the LL NCP Ss exhibited the lowest frequency scores. This finding is, of course, consistent with the hy— pothesized effects of non—contingent aversive stimulation. More generally, it was hypothesized that the incidence of ”neurotic" behavior would be the greatest in the CNF 85. The CON 88 were expected to exhibit somewhat less "neurotic" behavior, followed by the NCP and the NC Ss. The rankings actually obtained for the LL and the HH Ss on the 5 measures taken are presented in Table 13. As can be seen from the Table, the observed rankings are quite similar to those that were expected. The CNF Ss were most "neurotic” in 6 instances, and the CON Ss were most neurotic on the remaining 4 measures. It should be emphasized, however, that the differences between the CON and the CNF Ss did not approach significance on any of the comparisons made. The NC and the NCP Ss occupy most of the lower rank Table 13 Rank—or T. activity a, activity Escape Substitutive RS Bizarre RS \ Thus, the behavi< more than the be} The differen‘ did not material in the oppOsite ‘ the NC 85 on all of the 5 measure that the NC 88 W than the NCP SS of Seligman and Meyer, 1970; 891 Signalled shock unSignalled shOC 67 of the lower ranks, as predicted. Table 13 Rank—order of Incidence of ”Neurosis." T. activity CNF, CON, NCP, NC CNF, CON, NC, NCP G. activity CNF, NCP, CON, NC CNF, CON, NC, NCP Escape CON, NCP, CNF, NC CON, CNF, NC, NCP Substitutive Rs CNF, NC, CON, NCP CNF, CON, NC, NCP Bizarre Rs CON, CNF, NCP, NC CON, NC, CNF, NCP Thus, the behavior of the NC and the NCP 85 was suppressed more than the behavior of the CON 88. The difference expected between the NC and the NCP Ss did not materialize. In fact, there appeared to be a trend in the Opposite direction. The NCP 85 were less active than the NC Ss on all of the measures in the LL groups, and on 3 of the 5 measures in the HH groups. It was hypothesized that the NC Ss would exhibit greater reSponse suppression than the NCP Ss. This prediction was based upon the work of Seligman and his associates (Seligman, 1968; Seligman and Meyer, 1970; Seligman, et al., 1969, 1971) who found that Signalled shock had a less disruptive effect on behavior than unsignalled shock. Seligman (196 to explain this e exposed to signal nal and are able dition, the abser "safety-signal . “ be less emotionai they are in the 1 hand, Ss exposed a safety-signal We of a warnin emotional, and 1 emotionality is McAlister, 1971] A number of failvre to Obta; the Small numbe sufficient to e the bUZZer CS ( Seligman (1968) Secondly, t PresentatioHs ( Short” The ter MP Ss WEre ex] 68 Seligman (1968) postulated a ”safety—signal” hypothesis to explain this effect. According to this hypothesis, Ss exposed to signalled shock are provided with a ”warning" sig— nal and are able to predict the occurrence of shock. In ad— dition, the absense of the warning signal functions as a ”safety—signal.” Ss given signalled shock are reported to be less emotional in the presence of the safety—signal than they are in the presence of the warning signal. On the other hand, Ss exposed to unsignalled shock are not provided with a safety-signal and are, in effect, constantly in the pres— ence of a warning signal. They should, therefore, be more emotional, and less active than ”predictably” shocked 85 as emotionality is assumed to suppress behavior (McAlister and McAlister, 1971). A number of explanations can be forwarded to explain the failure to obtain this effect in the present study. First, the small number of learning trials (3—17) was probably not sufficient to enable the NCP $5 to learn that the absence of the buzzer CS (CE) indicated ”safety.” In his work with rats Seligman (1968) exposed his 83 to 210 CS-US pairings. Secondly, the inter—trial-intervals seperating successive presentations of the CS and US in the present study were quite short. The temporal distribution of the shock to which the NCP Ss were exposed was determined by the eating behavior of their CON replica eating Within the ment on Day SH-l' only 10 56‘“ Thi poral contiQUity "warning" signal. Third, the bt probably aversive “compound" aversi been more unpleaf sulted in more f6 NCP 35 relative 1 Finally, the sponses elicited Fowler (1971) su< visual and audit ing responses, w? Shock typically , ed activity of t' frQGZihg respons Greater activitv the NCP 85 as th ited by Shock a1 is s ' ~llght or esc 69 their CON replication—mates, and the CON 85 did most of their eating within the first few minutes of shock—chamber confine— ment on Day SH—l. In addition, the duration of the CS was only 10 sec. This meant that the ES occurred in close tem- poral contiguity with the US and may itself have become a ”warning" signal. Third, the buzzer CS employed was fairly intense and was probably aversive. The NCP Ss were, in effect, exposed to a "compound" aversive stimulus (i.e., CS and US) which may have been more unpleasant than shock alone. This could have re— sulted in more fear and greater response suppression in the NCP 85 relative to the NC Ss. Finally, the results may have been a function of the re- sponses elicited by the buzzer CS and the Us (Bolles, 1969). Fowler (1971) suggested that ”distal” aversive stimuli (e.g., visual and auditory inputs) characteristically elicit freez— ing responses, while ”proximal” aversive stimulation such as shock typically elicits flight. If this is true, the decreas— ed activity of the NCP 85 could be a function of persistent freezing reSponses originally elicited by the buzzer CSo Greater activity would be expected in the NC SS relative to the NCP Ss as the ”species—Specific defensive reaction” elic— ited by shock alone (i.e., by proximal aversive stimulation) is flight or escape (i.e., heightened activity), ”In" The differenc latency measure w "neurotic" behaVi LL con SS requirE groups of Ss to 5 ever, and is not The CON Ss learns of being punishe< ately long time : 1971). In addition, the shock-chambe groups of 35 had to the test sess Second container as drastically f Other groups. 2 ved WEre the res ing latencies i1 teSt days resu1~ ment in the NC, fear, and Short tained in the f 70 The difference obtained between the groups on the feeding latency measure was the only one supporting the existence of "neurotic” behavior and Masserman's (1943) contentions. The LL CON Ss required significantly more time than the other LL groups of $5 to start eating. This is not surprising, how— ever, and is not necessarily an indication of “neurosis.” The CON Ss learned a passive—avoidance response as the result Of being punished for eating, and 3 days is not an inordin— ately long time for such a response to be retained (Brush, 1971). In addition, the CON Ss were exposed to food while in the shock-chamber on each of the SH days. The remaining groups of 85 had never encountered food in the Chamber prior to the test session. Consequently, the introduction of a second container of food did not alter the stimulus situation as drastically for the CON Ss as it did for the Ss in the other groups. Assuming that the feeding inhibitions obser— ved were the result of fear, one would expect longer feed~ ing latencies in the CON Ss. Introduction of food on the test days resulted in greater stimulus generalization decre— ment in the NC, NCP, and CNF 85 relative to the CON 88, less fear, and shorter feeding latencies. Thus, the results ob— tained in the feeding test are also quite easily explained in terms of known learning principles. It is interel some of his cats 8-22 days follow preaching this p‘ ved in the presel lasted only 3 da: ficient ’50 overC‘ 35, and all Of t] on the firSt teS‘ A final 90in cats do, in faCt behaviors are re tion. These Var employing Masser including the Pr investigation we prior to the sta cone ”neurotic" ever, as the beh days. If someth RUN, the ”syrup d‘v “is as a functi veerivation and lay Bins. This 71 It is interesting to note that Masserman (1943) reported some of his cats starved themselves for periods ranging from 8-22 days following exposure to his treatment. Nothing ap— proaching this period of self-imposed deprivation was obser— ved in the present study. At most, the length of “starvation" lasted only 3 days. In fact, 2 days of deprivation were suf— ficient to overcome the effects of "conflict” in the HH CON Ss, and all of the Ss in this group ate almost immediately on the first test day (Table ll)° A final point worthy of mention is the possibility that cats do, in fact, become ”neurotic“ and that the "neurotic” behaviors are responses to confinement and/or food—depriva— tion. These variables have confounded all of the studies employing Masserman's techniques (Smart, 1965; WOlpe, 1952), including the present effort. The animals in the present investigation were placed on a feeding regimen for 6 days prior to the start of the BLM period, and they may have be— come "neurotic” during this time. This seems unlikely, how— ever, as the behavior of the Ss did not Change over the BLM days. If something akin to "neurosis“ was present on Day BLM—l, the ”symptoms” should have intensified over the BLM days as a function of increased exposure to confinement and deprivation and the Ss should have been more ”neurotic" on Day BLM—5. This obviously was not the Case. Generally spe gation provide nc behavior in cats (1943) findings 2 cedures he emple 1965; Wolpe, 195, the same "neurot There is current tioning acceptan osis" in cats ev (Manning , 1970 ; 72 Generally speaking, the results of the present investi— gation provide no evidence for the existence of ”neurotic" behavior in cats following exposure to conflict. Masserman's (1943) findings are best explained as artifacts of the pro- cedures he employed, and those following his lead (Smart, 1965; wolpe, 1952) committed the same errors and observed the same "neurotic" changes in the behavior of their 85. There is currently no basis in the literature for the unques— tioning acceptance of the phenomenon of "experimental neur- osis” in cats evident in certain current psychological works (Manning, 1970; Sarason, 1972). LIST OF REFERENCES Amsel, A. Positi‘ alization of H. Kendler a: New York: Apj Anderson, 0. Som imental neur 100. Anderson, 0,, an neuroses in 350-354. Anderson, 0-. an perimental n T£92£., 194 Bitterman, M. A ii. ll6~118. Bolles, R. Speci (EST: M emlc Press, Brush, pc RGtent Brush (Ed) I York; Acader Church, R0 The i W I Puni, Mammy“, Geek, 8' A Surv heurOSiS. wok‘ S, Produc rat EM LIST OF REFERENCES Amsel, A. Positive induction, behavioral contrast, and gener— alization of inhibition in discrimination learning. In H. Kendler and J. Spence (Eds), Essays in Neobehaviorigm, New YOrk: Appleton-Century—Crofts, 1971, 217—236. Anderson, 0. Some cardiovascular manifestations of the exper— imental neuroses in sheep. Psychosom. Med., 1939, 1, 93— 100. Anderson, 0., and H. Liddell. Observations of experimental neuroses in sheep. Arch. Neur. Psychiat., Chicago, 1935, 350—354. Anderson, 0., and R. Parmenter. A long—term study of the ex— perimental neuroses in sheep and dog. Psychosom. Med. Monogr., 1941, g, 150-198. Bitterman, M. A reply to Dr. Finger. Psychol. Rev., 1946, 53, 116—118. Bolles, R. Species—specific defensive reactions. In F° Brush (Ed), Aversive Conditioning and Learning. New York: Acad— emic Press, 1971, 65—93. Brush, F° Retention of aversively motivated behavior. In F. Brush (Ed), Aversive Conditioning and Learning. New York: Academic Press, 1971, 402—461. Church, R. The varied effects of punishment on behavior. Psychol. Rev., 1963, ZQJ 369—402. Church, R. Response suppression. In B. Campbell and R. Church (Eds), Punishment and Aversive Behavior. New York: Ap— pleton—Century-Crofts, 1969, 111—156. COOk, S. A survey of the methods used to produce experimental neurosis. J. Psychiat., 1939a, 95, 1259—1276. Cook, S. Production of experimental neurosis in the white rat. Psychosom. Med., 1939b, 1, 293—308. Curtis, Q. Experl' 1937, g, 72.- Darrow, C. There the conditior N.Y. Acad. S< Dimmick, F., fig J. Comar. P: Dvorkin, S. Cond: M” 1939, ; ESteS, W. An expi 993., 1944, . Estes! W. Outlin‘ and R. Churc' New York: Ap: Finger . F. Abnor Rev., 1945, Fowler, H. SUppr geht Sh0ck' WEN Gantt: H. EX eri HOeber Press Gentry! Em and haViOI‘ in IE Hoagland, H. Con 1954' 56, ls Humphrey, G.’ ar Otic behavic 616~619 . Hunt, H., and J, SESSion a ,. P\SVCh\Ol‘I l( lines, W' Fermai energy requ: W‘l ll Curtis, Q. Experimental neurosis in the pig. Psychol. Bull., 1937, 34, 723 (abstract). Darrow, C. The relation of cerebral to autonomic activity in the conditioned emotional reactions of children. Annals N.Y. Acad. Sci., 1954, 56, 298—306. Dimmick, F., gt al. A study of experimental neurosis in cats. J. Compar. Psychol., 1939, gs, 39-43. Dworkin, S. Conditioning neurosis in dog and cat. Psychosom. Med., 1939, 1, 388—396. Estes, W. An experimental study of punishment. Psychol. Mon— ogr., 1944, §Z_(whole no. 263). Estes, W. Outline of a theory of punishment. In B. Campbell and R. Church (Eds), Punishment and Aversive Behavior. New YOrk: Appleton—Century—Crofts, 1969, 57-82. Finger, F. Abnormal animal behavior and conflict. Psychol. Rev., 1945, 52, 230-233. Fowler, H. Suppression and facilitation by response—contin— gent shock. In F. Brush (Ed), Aversive Conditioning and Learning. New York: Academic Press, 1971, 537—598. Gantt, H. Experimental basis for neurotic behavior. New York: Hoeber Press, 1944. Gentry, E., and K. Dunlap. An attempt to produce neurotic be— havior in rats. J. Compar. Psychol., 1942, 33, 107—112. Hoagland, H. Comments on papers. Annals N.Y. Acad. Sci., 1954, spy 194—196. Humphrey, G., and F. Marcuse, New methods of obtaining neur— otic behavior in rats. Amer. J. Psychol., 1939, 52, 616-619. Hunt, H., and J. Brady. Some effects of punishment and inter— session anxiety on a simple operant. J. Compar. Physiol. Psychol., 1955, ggy 305—310. James, W. Formation of neurosis in dogs by increasing the energy requirement of a conditioned reSponse. J. Compar° Psychol., 1943, 3§J 109—124. Karn, H. Experime animals. §_._ Karn, H. A case c the cat. J_. Liddell, H. Alte: influence of 1942, g, 390‘ Liddell, H. Expe. J. Ment. Sci Liddell, H., a . for producinl 1936, ll_6, 9 Maier, N. Studie Psychol., 19 Maier, No, and R the rat. J. Maier' N'I and R the rat. J. 363. ~ Manning. A. An 1 14685.: Am Masserman, J. Be ago PresSl‘] Masserman, J 1967, 36. MESSemanl J behaVior 4084111. I E in Hangman J . Wlnary repofl ‘ 4: 5i, 2‘ MCAlister W . I ' I ‘ $011st 1011 e d 13% Karn, H. Experimental study of neurotic behavior in infrahuman animals. J. General Psychol., 1940, gg, 231—236. Karn, H. A case of experimentally—induced animal neurosis in the cat. J. Compar. Psychol., 1943, 231 589-593. Liddell, H. Alteration of instinctual processes through the influence of conditioned reflexes. Psychosom. Med., 1942, 3, 390—395. Liddell, H. Experimental neurosis in animal and man. Amer. J. Ment. Sci., 1943, 205, 269—277. Liddell, H., 22.3;- A study of the conditioned reflex method for producing experimental neurosis. Amer. J. Physiol., 1936, 116, 95—96. Maier, N. Studies of abnormal behavior in the rat. J. Expe . Psychol., 1940, gZJ 369—393. Maier, N., and R. Feldman. Studies of abnormal behavior in the rat. J. Compar. Psychol., 1944, 31, 151—158. Maier, N., and R. Feldman. Studies of abnormal behavior in the rat. J. Compar. Physiol. Psychol., 1948, 41, 348— 363. Manning, A. An introduction to animal behavior. Reading, Mass.: Addison—wesley, 1967. Masserman, J. Behavior and Neurosis. Chicago: Univ. of Chic— ago Press, 1943. Masserman, J. The neurotic cat. Psychol. Today, 1, October, 1967, 36. Masserman, J., and C. Pechtel. Conflict engendered neurotic behavior in monkeys. J. Ment. Ner. Disord., 1953a, 118, 408—411. Masserman, J., and C. Pechtel. Neurosis in monkeys: A prelim— inary report of observations. Annals N.Y. Acad. Sci., 1954, £6, 253—265. McAlister, W., and D. McAlister. Behavioral measurement of conditioned fear. In F. Brush (Ed), Aversive Condition— ing and Learning. New York: Academic Press, 1971, 105—179. Tne Milbank Memo? Conference, . Mowrer, 0. Learn York: Ronald Myers, J. Some e tion. In F. i_ng_. New Yo Russell, R. A. A neurosis. g Seligman, M. Chr shock. J. C Seligman, M., S. uncontrollah 1971, 347-39 Seligman, M., ar as a functic W Seward, J_ The I In B. Campbg Siva BGhaVi( W Smart, R. COnfl; development 965' L9, 2( Wagner, A. Frug- In B. Campb‘ Siv e Behavi. W Wolpe, J. EXper J The Milbank Memorial Fund. Comments on papers. 27th Annual Conference, 1953, 515. Mowrer, 0. Learning Theory and Personality Dynamics. New Ybrk: Ronald Press, 1950. Myers, J. Some effects of non—contingent aversive stimula- tion. In F. Brush (Ed), Aversive Conditioning and Learn- ing. New York: Academic Press, 1971, 469-536. Russell, R. A. A comparative study of conflict and experimental neurosis. Brit. J. Psychol., 1950, 41, 85—108. Seligman, M. Chronic fear produced by unpredictable electric shock. J. Compar. Physiol. Psychol., 1968, 66, 402-411. Seligman, M., S. Maier, and R. Solomon. Unpredictable and uncontrollable aversive events. In F. Brush (Ed), Aver— sive Conditioning and Learning. New York: Academic Press, 1971, 347—395. Seligman, M., and M. Meyer. Chronic fear and ulcers in rats as a function of the unpredictability of safety. J. Com— par. Physiol. Psychol., 1970, 16, 202—207. Seward, J. The role of conflict in the experimental neuroses. In B. Campbell and R. Church (Eds), Punishment and Aver— sive Behavior. New York: Appleton—Century—Crofts, 1969, 421—447. Smart, R. Conflict and conditioned aversive stimuli in the development of experimental neurosis. Canad. J. Psychol., 1965, 12” 208—223. Wagner, A. Frustrative non—reward: A variety of punishment. In B. Campbell and R. Church (Eds), Punishment and Aver— sive Behavior. New York: Appleton—Century—Crofts, 1969, 157—181. WOlpe, J. Experimental neurosis as learned behavior. Brit. J. Psychol., 1952, 66, 243—268. APPENDICES Summary '1 APPENDIX A Summary Tables of the Statistical Analyses Table A1 LL Act ____'————— Source Among 35 Groups 35 Within 35 Days Days x groups Days x Ss Total \ Table A2 HH AC‘ \ Source “0m; 85 Groups Ss Within Ss DayS Due X 9rOUps Days X 85 Total \ Table A1 LL Activity, All Groups, BLM Days 1—5. Source df SS MS F Among Ss Groups 3 46810.69 15603.56 .177 Ss 24 2110644.05 87943.50 Within Ss Days 4 21671.54 5417.89 .910 Days x groups 12 111506.74 9292.23 1.560 Days x 55 _26 571198.52 5949.98 Total 139 286183l.54 Table A2 HH Activity, All Groups, BLM Days 1—5. ___§ource df SS MS F Among Ss Groups 3 43793.57 14597.86 .470 SS 24 746402.93 31100.12 Within Ss Days 4 75863.48 18890.87 2.633 Days x groups 12 89009.03 7417.42 1.031 Days x 85 __gg 689803.93 7185-46 Total 139 l644572.94 \— Table A3 LL ACt .. :_J:,:_ Source Tum Among 88 Groups —. ; Ss “ ‘ ' T _' Within SS Days Days x groups (\T Days x Ss Total \ _' g- :.:. .:- " - Table A4 HH AC1 \ v Source — I ' g . Among 85 Groups 33 Within SS Days Days X groups Total \ Table A3 LL Activity, All Groups, Days BLM—M And SD—C. Source df SS MS F Among Ss Groups 3 350422.90 116807.63 4.733 Ss 24 593071.78 24711.32 Within Ss Days 1 351553.02 351553.02 36.270 Days x groups 3 330163.20 110054.40 11.366 Days x SS _26 232609.80 9692.08 Total 55 1857819.98 Table A4 HH Activity, All Groups, Days BLM—M And SD—C. Source df SS MS F Among Ss Groups 3 103515.22 34505.07 1.373 55 24 604665.71 25194.40 Within Ss Days 1 457568.64 457568.64 27.966 Days x groups 3 173093.07 57697.69 3.533 Days x SS .23 392728.51 16363.69 Total 55 1628055.93 Table A5 LL And Source Among 85 Groups 85 Within 85 Days Dal/S x groups Days x 85 Total \ Table A6 LL An \ SOWrCe Among ss Groups Ss Withir1 Ss Doys Days X grOUps Days X 88 Total \ Table A5 LL And HH Activity, CON Ss, Days BLM—M And SD—C. Source df SS MS F Among Ss Groups 1 18054.31 18054.31 .850 Ss 12 269124.15 22427.01 Within Ss Days 1 72318.88 72318.88 8.011 Days x groups 1 30294.34 30294.34 3.355 Days x Ss _1g 108325.28 9027.10 Total 27 498116.96 Table A6 LL And HH Activity, NC SS, Days BLM—M And SD—C. Source df SS MS F Among Ss Groups 1 1068.90 1068.90 .023 SS 12 537617.71 44801.48 Within Ss Days 1 468790.32 468790.32 29.911 Days x groups 1 4706.03 4706.03 .300 Days x SS _13_ 188075.15 15672.93 Total 27 1200258.11 Table A7 LL Am Source Among Ss Groups Ss Within 85 Days Days X groups Days x Ss Total \ Table A8 LL Am \ Source Among SS Groups SS Within Ss Days Days x grOUps Days X SS TDtal \ Table A7 LL And HH Activity, NCP Ss, Days BLM—M And SD-C. Source df SS MS F Among Ss Groups 1 40356.03 40356.03 1.475 85 12 328113.72 27342.81 Within Ss Days 1 724822.33 724822.33 58.907 Days x groups 1 15698.89 15698.89 1.275 Days x Ss _12_ 147652.28 12304.36 Total 27 1256643.25 Table A8 LL And HH Activity, CNF Ss, Days BLM—M And SD—C. Source df SS MS F Among Ss Groups 1 2214.33 2214.33 .429 Ss 12 61833.42 5152.79 Within Ss Days 1 1170.03 1170.03 .153 Days x groups 1 3680.03 3680.03 .481 Days x SS __1_2 91655.44 7637.95 Total 27 160553.25 Table A9 LL Ger Source Among 65 Groups Ss Within 85 Days DAYS X groups Days X 85 Total \ TAble A10 HH GT \ Source [Doug SS Groups SS WiL Lhin 85 Days DN Days X 88 \ Table A9 LL General Activity, All Groups, BLM Days 1-5. Source df SS Ms F Among Ss Groups 3 154605.16 51535.06 2.063 Ss 24 599456.17 24977.34 Within Ss Days 4 36392.40 9098.10 1.270 Days x groups 12 45430.66 3785.89 .529 Days x Ss _26 687662.54 7163.15 Total 139 1523546.94 Table A10 HH General Activity, All Groups, BLM Days 1—5. Source df SS MS F Among Ss Groups 3 53275.49 17758.50 1.007 SS 24 423420.52 17642.52 Within Ss Days 4 69388.64 17347.16 6.240 Days x groups 12 24950.44 2079.20 -748 Days x Ss 96 266876.91 2779.97 Total 139 837913.00 Table A11 LL GE SD-Ct __——.————— Source Among Ss Groups Ss Within 35 Days Days x groups Days x 85 Total \ SD-C \ SourCe Among 85 GrOLlps Ss "Within Ss DayS DEyS X group: Days X 83 \ Table All LL General Activity, All Groups, Days BLM—M And SD—C. Source df SS MS F Among Ss Groups 3 157389.91 52463.30 5.491 Ss 24 229301.71 9554.24 Within Ss Days 1 637.88 637.88 .094 Days x groups 3 76184.34 25394.78 3.714 Days x SS _24' 162928.29 6788.68 Total 55 626442.13 Table A12 HH General Activity, All Groups, Days BLM—M And SD—C. Source df SS MS F Among Ss Groups 3 4458.48 1486.16 .237 Ss 24 150246.86 6260.29 Within Ss Days 1 30039.45 30039.45 4.487 Days x groups 3 21176.91 7058.97 1.139 Days x SS _24_ 148737.14 6197.38 Total 55 354658.84 A______________________.__ Table A13 LL AI An ( __—_——-—- Source Among 85 Groups 83 Within 85 Days Days x groups Days x 83 Total \ Table A14 LL 1 And \ Source Among Ss Groups Ss Within 3. DayS DAYS X g roup Days X SS Total \ Table A13 LL And HH General Activity, CON Ss, Days BLM-M And SD—C. Source df SS MS F Among Ss Groups 1 94129.25 94129.25 14.093 Ss 12 80148.71 6679.06 Within Ss Days 1 2290.39 2290.39 .420 Days x groups 1 8358.89 8358.89 1.532 Days x Ss _12_ 65481.72 5456.81 Total 27 250408.96 Table A14 LL And HH General Activity, NC Ss, Days BLM—M And SD—C. Source df SS MS F Among Ss Groups 1 2962.28 2962.28 .222 SS 12 159865.14 13322.10 Within Ss Days 1 30624.14 30624.14 4.647 Days x groups 1 5321.29 5321.29 .808 Days x 85 _12_ 79072.57 79072.57 Total 27 277845.43 1M” Table A15 LL A‘ Alld : ______———— Source Among 85 Groups 85 Within 35 Days Dal/S X groups Days x 85 Total \ Table A16 LL a And \ Source Among 83 Groups Ss within ss DayS Days x group5 Days x Ss Total \ Table A15 LL And HH General Activity, NCP Ss, Days BLM—M And SD—C. Source df SS MS F Among Ss Groups 1 11890.32 11890.32 1.841 Ss 12 77507.14 6458.93 Within Ss Days 1 39450.04 39450.04 4.929 Days x groups 1 3912.89 3912.89 .489 Days x Ss ‘_12 96050.57 8004.21 Total 27 228810.96 Table A16 LL And HH General Activity, CNF 85, Days BLM—M And SD—C. Source df SS MS F Among Ss Groups 1 12558.89 12558.89 ' 2.058 SS 12 73227.97 6102.30 Within 83 Days 1 24308.04 24308.04 4.734 Days x groups 1 13772.89 13772.89 2.682 Days x SS _1g 61615.57 5134.63 Total 27 185482.96 M-MJE eyed V (\V ‘ZUM '; '..(ll\' 1 .l'»/'\ 1111:211'31‘ NH :3: C:‘l.[ l \ 1 Q T'Y (MIA 112'. lull/'1 g, .- If, . .,—I -..:r Table A17 LL 1 Source Among Ss Groups Ss Within 85 Days Dal/S X group Days x SS Total \ Table A18 HH \ Source Among 85 Groups 85 Within Ss DayS Days )1 gr 011; Days X SS \ Table A17 LL Escape, All Groups, BLM Days 1-5. Source df SS MS F Among Ss Groups 3 64582.37 21527.46 1.196 85 24 435191.77 18132.99 Within Ss Days 4 58986.82 14746.71 3.890 Days x groups 12 22402.38 1866.87 .491 Days x Ss 96 363774.80 3789.32 Total 139 944938.14 Table A18 HH Escape, All Groups, BLM Days 1—5. Source df SS MS F Among Ss Groups 3 58053.67 19351.22 .527 SS 24 881261.72 36719.24 Within Ss Days 4 86632.34 21658.06 7.374 Days x groups 12 17691.37 1474.28 .501 Days x 35 96 281947.99 2936.96 Total 139 1325586.99 Table A19 LL 1 Source Among Ss Groups Ss Within 85 Days Dal/S x group Days x Ss Total \ Table A20 my \ Source Among 85 Groups SS Within SS DayS Days X grou Days X SS \ Table A19 LL Escape, All Groups, Days BLM—M And SD—C. Source df SS MS F Among Ss Groups 3 10020.70 3340.23 1.647 Ss 24 48688.01 2028.67 Within Ss Days 1 2551.49 2551.49 .999 Days x groups 3 14173.52 4724.51 1.851 Days x Ss _26 61247.99 2552.00 Total 55 136681.71 Table A20 HH Escape, All Groups, Days BLM—M And SD—C. Source df SS MS F Among Ss Groups 3 78470.42 26156.81 7.189 SS 24 87320.58 3638.36 Within 83 Days 1 63922.58 63922.58 28.730 Days x groups 3 68132.79 22710.93 10.208 Days x $5 _24_ 53391.87 2224.66 Total 55 244454.50 Table A21 LL 1' Source Among 85 Groups 85 Within Ss Days DaYS x group Days x SS Total \ Table A22 LL \ SourCe Groups Within Ss Days Day/s X groug Day's X SS Table A21 LL And HH Escape, CON Ss, Days BLM-M And SD—C. Source df SS MS F Among Ss Groups 1 1872.89 1872.89 .612 Ss 12 36682.29 3056.86 Within Ss Days 1 514.67 514.67 .106 Days x groups 1 12319.41 12319.41 2.544 Days x Ss _12_ 58105.42 4842.12 Total 27 109494.68 Table A22 LL And HH Escape, NC Ss, Days BLM—M And SD—C. Source df SS MS F Among Ss Groups 1 0.00 0.00 0.000 SS 12 29566.86 2463.91 Within Ss Days 1 29057.29 29057.29 4.464 Days X groups 1 3300.57 3300.57 .507 Days x s5 g 78109.14 6509.10 Total 27 140033.86 Table A23 LL 1 Source Among 85 Groups Ss Within 85 Days Dal/S X group DAYS x 85 Table A24 LL \ Source Among 85 Groups Ss Within ss buys Days x group Days X Ss \ Table A23 LL And HH Escape, NCP 85, Days BLM—M And SD-C. Source df SS MS F Among Ss Groups 1 3235.74 3235.74 1.264 Ss 12 30730.72 2560.89 Within Ss Days 1 31088.89 31088.89 15.258 Days x groups 1 2584.33 2584.33 1.268 Days x SS _12_ 24449.28 2037.44 Total 27 92088.96 Table A24 LL And HH Escape, CNF 83, Days BLM—M And SD—C. Source df SS MS F Among Ss Groups 1 217.28 217.28 .217 SS 12 11984.72 998.73 Within Ss Days 1 448.00 448.00 .499 Days X groups 1 6798.15 6798.15 7.579 Days x Ss _1; 10762.85 896.90 Total 27 30211.00 Table A25 LL 3 1-5 Source Among Ss Groups 83 Within 85 Days Days x group Days x 35 Total K Table A26 HIT 1-5 \ SourCe Wong SS Groups Within 88 DayS DAYS X SrOup Days X SS Table A25 LL Substitutive Behaviors, All Groups, BLM Days 1-5. Source df SS MS F Among Ss Groups 3 187152.83 62384.28 2.033 Ss 24 736401.31 30683.39 Within Ss Days 4 28898.90 7224.73 1.327 Days x groups 12 75322.81 6276.90 1.153 Days x Ss 96 522328.69 5440.92 Total 139 1550104.54 Table A26 HH Substitutive Behaviors, All Groups, BLM Days 1—5. Source df SS MS F Among 35 Groups 3 143522.38 47840.79 1.194 Ss 24 960868.62 40036.19 Within Ss Days 4 50557.10 12639.28 1.671 Days x groups 12 47590.55 3965.88 .518 DayS x SS .28. 725883.95 7561.29 Total 139 1928422.60 Wr' Table A27 LL 5 BLM- Source Among 85 Groups 83 Within 38 Days Dal/S X group: Days x $5 Total \ Table A28 HH BLM \ SOUICe Among Ss Groups Ss Wit Lhim Ss DAYS DAYS X group Day's X SS \ Table A27 LL Substitutive Behaviors, All Groups, Days BLM—M And SD—C. Source df SS MS F Among Ss Groups 3 31800.57 10600.19 .831 Ss 24 305991.29 12749.64 Within Ss Days 1 994.57 994.57 .194 Days x groups 3 117241.72 39080.57 7.164 Days x Ss _24_ 122732.71 5113.86 Total 55 578760.86 Table A28 HH Substitutive Behaviors, All Groups, Days BLM—M And SD—C. Source df SS MS F Among Ss Groups 3 112520.19 37506.73 3.331 SS 24 270219.85 11259.16 Within Ss Days 1 19950.87 19950.87 2.106 Days x groups 3 18601.87 6200.36 1.092 Days X Ss _24- 136181.86 5674.24 Total 55 557473.84 I w=—~—' Table A29 LL A BLM- Source Among 55 Groups 33 Within 85 Days Days x group: Days x 88 Total \ Table A30 LL . BLM \ Source \— About; SS Groups Within 3. Days Days X 9150111: Days X Ss 13151 Table A29 LL And HH Substitutive Behaviors, CON Ss, Days BLM—M And SD—C. Source df SS MS F Among Ss Groups 1 7990.32 7990.32 1.355 Ss 12 70755.86 5896.32 Within Ss Days 1 2982.89 2982.89 .356 Days x groups 1 20791.76 20791.76 2.479 Days x Ss _12 100627.85 8385.65 Total 27 203148.68 Table A30 LL And HH Substitutive Behaviors, NC Ss, Days BLM—M And SD—C. Source df 55 Ms F Among 83 Groups 1 13464.14 13464.14 1.993 SS 12 81076.29 6756.36 Within 85 Days 1 5103.01 5103.01 2.842 Days x groups 1 20.57 20.57 .011 Days x SS _1g_ 21543.42 1795.29 Total 27 121207.43 Table A31 LL Ar ISIld-b Source Among 85 Groups 38 Within 85 Days DAYS X groups Days x 85 Total \ Table A32 LL A BITT- \ Source Tong SS Groups Ss Within ss Day 3 Days X Ss Total \ Table A31 LL And HH Substitutive Behaviors, NCP Ss, Days BLM—M And SD—C. Source df SS MS F Among Ss Groups 1 2161.29 2161.29 .420 Ss 12 61794.14 5149.51 Within Ss Days 1 25925.14 25925.14 5.077 Days x groups 1 120.14 120.14 .024 Days x Ss _12 61270.72 5105.89 Total 27 151271.43 Table A32 LL And HH Substitutive Behaviors, CNF Ss, Days BLM—M And SD-C. __§66rce df SS MS F Among Ss Groups 1 3257.29 3257.29 .108 Ss 12 362585.14 30215.43 Within 85 Days 1 1824.14 1824.14 .290 Days X groups 1 20.57 20.57 .003 Days X SS _2 75472.29 6289.36 Total 27 443159.43 x '7 «stat ' Table A33 LL P BLM ___———— Source Among 85 Groups 55 Within Ss Days Days X groups Days x 85 Total \ Table A34 HH E BLM \ Source Among SS Groups Within Ss Days Days X group; DEYS X SS Table A33 LL Persistent Bizarre Responses, BLM Days 1—5. All Groups, Source df SS MS F Among Ss Groups 3 49668.14 16556.05 .174 Ss 24 2278014.68 94917.28 Within Ss Days 4 50764.89 12691.22 3.446 Days x groups 12 68301.33 5691.78 1.545 Days x _96 353590.18 3683.23 Total 139 2800339.22 Table A34 HH Persistent Bizarre Responses, All Groups, BLM Days 1—5. Source df SS MS F Among SS Groups 3 88482.70 29494.23 1.143 SS 24 619417.72 25809.07 Within Ss Days 4 7579.55 1894.89 .380 Days x groups 12 30646.40 2553.87 .513 Days x SS 96 478368.85 4983.01 Total 139 1224495.22 If ewes Table A35 LL P Days Source Among Ss Groups 85 Within 85 Days Dal/S X groups Days x 35 Total \ Table A36 HH 1 Day. \ SOUICe Among 83 Groups SS Within 85 Days Days X grouyg \ Table A35 LL Persistent Bizarre Responses, All Groups, Days BLM—M And SD-C. Source df SS MS F Among Ss Groups 3 7849.22 2616.41 .186 Ss 24 336714.28 14029.76 Within Ss Days 1 108064.28 108064.28 13.599 Days x groups 3 11385.29 3795.10 .478 Days x Ss _24 190711.43 7946.31 Total 55 654724.50 Table A36 HH Persistent Bizarre Responses, All Groups, Days BLM—M And SD—C. Source df SS MS F Among Ss Groups 3 39216.34 13072.11 1.158 SS 24 271006.71 11291.95 Within Ss Days 1 6710.16 6710.16 1.800 Days x groups 3 20719.48 6906.49 1.852 Days x Ss __2_4 89487.86 3728.66 Total 55 427140.55 Table A37 LL 2 Days Source Among 53 Groups 35 Within Ss Days Dal/S X groups DaYS x Ss Total \ Tab1e A38 LL 2 Day: \ SOUrce Among 85 Groups SS Within Ss Days Days X grOup DEYS X SS \ Table A37 LL And HH Persistent Bizarre Responses, Con Ss, Days BLM-M And SD—C. Source df SS MS F Among Ss Groups 1 1414.32 1414.32 .060 Ss 12 282388.99 23532.42 Within Ss Days 1 6390.32 6390.32 1.275 Days x groups 1 3235.75 3235.75 .646 Days x SS _66 60132.72 5011.06 Total 27 353562.11 Table A38 LL And HH Persistent Bizarre Responses, NC Ss, Days BLM—M And SD—Co Source df SS MS F Among Ss Groups 1 30426.04 30426.04 3.516 SS 12 103854.57 8654.55 Within Ss Days 1 20466.04 20466.04 10.171 Days x groups 1 10686.04 10686.04 5.310 Days x SS _;3_ 24147.43 2012.29 Total 27 189580.11 Table A39 LL A] Days _______—————- Source Among 55 Groups 83 Within 35 Days DaYS x group Days x Ss Total \ Table A40 LL A Days \ Source Among 85 Groups Ss ’hthin 85 DAYS D77 x grou DAYS X SS lDtal Table A39 LL And HH Persistent Bizarre Responses, NCP Ss, Days BLM—M And SD—C. Source df SS MS F Among Ss Groups 1 720.43 720.43 .071 Ss 12 122337.71 10194.81 Within Ss Days 1 70601.29 70601.29 7.906 Days x groups 1 6180.57 6180.57 .692 Days x 83 _lg 107159.14 8929.93 Total 27 306998.86 Table A40 LL And HH Persistent Bizarre Responses, CNF 83, Days BLM—M And SD—C. ___6purce df SS MS F Among ss GrOUPs 1 1972.32 1972.32 .251 SS 12 54455.45 7871.29 Within Ss Days 1 3322.32 3322.32 .536 Days x groups 1 20900.89 20900.89 3.370 Days x SS _1g 74412.29 6201.02 Total 27 195063.25 1Y0. .-.I ..«-.:w:1un'.za-..G r) =.<:::.-‘. 51:33:32.1.“ 11 on ... SEA 9.115. on ....-.1; met; ..-‘ 'g. ’ ,. .. ') CM (1?. ll) ’2 11.x”. :31 '.-.’.".mlf 7 " ' 11'. . tli.().. cl-J 1111051717 \_';;-' , :W . 1w ‘ . f,.1(> . ’ M, ,1, l; ‘7" - i .r r I: l (I ( S‘ c C]: IT" 1 : “1 '.V.‘ 'J ,; 1 a :fi y ...‘l - 1 1, g. '-11 1.: _‘ -..- —| . 8.1—C- ax: _~\~: _ .3‘. CULTE‘T - s 3 p: ,; .W '3 YES 5”. .r- '3 (t 7., "\ ‘7 “U7 5 \ “7‘ Cl" i :\w . 1 l O Q .3 .7134. . 3 p a _\(ll \ \77. [[1 1 Table A41 1 Source Condition Groups Condition x 9 Error Total \ Table A42 F. \ Sour \ce\ C0Ddition Groups Cumition x g: Error Total \ Table A41 Feeding Latencies, LL And HH Groups. Source df SS MS F Condition 1 344929.018 344929.018 5.313 Groups 3 719692.053 239897.351 3.695 Condition x groups 3 723519.625 241173.208 3.715 Error 48 3116004.286 64916.756 Total 55 4904144.982 Table A42 Feeding Time, LL And HH Groups. Source df SS MS F Condition 1 73153.143 73153.143 3.004 Groups 3 11067.000 11067.000 .454 Condition x groups 3 10445.286 3481.762 .143 Error 48 1169034.286 24354.881 Total 55 1285833.710 APPENDIX B The ”Behavior Checklist" and Checklist Data for Individual Ss A. ATTRACTION O o (:7 m Avoids Indiff Occasi approa Intere observ Watche Active REACTION T O l 2 3 5 Active Select Indiff No res Active ATTRACTION 0 l 2 3 4 5 Violen Agitat Restle Immobi Indiff Readil pwml—‘O Emerge Invari May 1e Indiff ActivE UIWMHO ResPOr Alert, OVepyE OCCasi Marker THE "BEHAVIOR CHECKLIST" ATTRACTION TO CAGED MICE. 0 Avoids or phobic to mice (retreats, moves away). 1 Indifferent to mice (no approach or retreat). 2 Occasional desultory observation (few glances, no approach). 3 Interested but easily distracted (approach, sporadic observation). 4 Watches intently (attention, no attempt to capture). 5 Active attempts to capture (claws or bites). REACTION TO EXPERIMENTER. 7 Active resistance to handling (struggles, hisses). Selective hostilities. Indifferent, avoids handling. No resistance to handling, but not seeking petting. Actively seeks petting and handling. UleI—‘O ATTRACTION TO APPARATUS. Violently resists entry to cage. Agitated in cage, paces. Restless, paces or seeks release. Immobile. Indifferent to entry or confinement. Readily seeks to enter and remain. U'lrhOJNl-‘O ESCAPE BEHAVIOR. Energetically tries to force escape. . Invariably leaves cage when permitted (all 3 Openings). May leave or remain when door is Open (1—2 openings). Indifferent to escape (no escape on any open1ng). Actively resists removal from cage. tthI-‘O NEUROTIC HYPERSENSITIVITY. ReSponse focussed on situation. Alert, but not distractable. Over—alert, distractable. Occasional generalized startle. Marked phobias; crouching, panic, etc. U‘lLAJNl-‘O '1: G) 5—1 0 NEUROTIC P No mot Hypere day) . Hypoac day). Immobj Convul Catale . AUTONOMIC None g Horrn Trembl retch: Vomit; - SUBSTITUTI 0 l 3 5 None, Preen Devia Persi vocal REACTION AWNI—‘O Avoid Indif Occas Inter Watch Activ F. NEUROTIC MOTOR DISTURBANCE. No motor disturbance. Hyperactive (activity more than 25% above previous day). Hypoactive (activity more than 25% below previous day). Immobility (no movement for more than % of session). Convulsions. Catalepsy (waxy rigidity Of the limbs). AUTONOMIC CHANGES. O None grossly observed. Horripilation, mydriasis. Trembling, irregular breathing, excessive salivation, retching. Vomiting, urination, defecation. SUBSTITUTIVE BEHAVIORo Ulwl—‘O None. Preening, playing. Deviant reSponses (excessive clawing, pacing). Persistent bizarre responses (e.g., continuous loud vocalizing). REACTION TO MANIPULANDUM. Ulhbwwl—‘O Avoids or phobic to manipulandum. Indifferent to manipulandum. Occasional glances, no approach. Interested, but easily distracted. Watches intently. Active manipulation. Condition: LL Measure : Hmnwmcnwth' @mwmmthp—l ,_. Q Total: Number of Shm Fe h EOlng Latem Feed' . ing Time; Condition: LL Group: CON Litter: Behavior Checklist Data Day 1 2 3 4 5 Measure: A 1 1 1 1 1 B 2 2 3 2 3 c 2 2 2 2 2 D 2 1 1 1 1 E o 1 1 1 1 F _ 1 3 4 4 G o o o o o H o 3 1 1 1 I 5 5 1 1 1 Vocalization Data Day 1 2 3 4 5 Minute: 1 17 19 22 25 22 2 20 9 20 26 21 3 21 5 17 17 11 4 20 6 11 18 8 5 19 7 15 20 11 6 12 4 4 17 13 7 11 11 7 7 13 8 2 2 10 13 12 9 7 6 12 18 5 10 8 o 0 18 3 Total: 137 69 118 179 119 Number of Shocks: l4 Feeding Latency: 5 sec. Feeding Time: 250 sec. 1 SI l-'l-‘C)»bOl—‘l\)l\)I--l Sl WOOJ>\lwbeOO N |_| SZ l—‘l—‘Obl—‘NNNl—l 82 m A m s s O A m m w U1 0 S3 H H o N H H N N H S3 mmmmowmbmb (.0 (I) Condition: LL Measure: HZEQHJL‘FJUOUJD’ Minute; cooouoxmbwmpd ,_. O Total: Number of Sho Ffied‘ . UK; Time : Condition: LL Group: NC Litter: 1 Behavior Checklist Data Day 1 2 3 4 5 s1 Measure : A 1 1 1 1 1 1 B 2 2 2 3 2 2 c 2 2 2 2 1 2 D 2 1 1 1 2 1 E o o 1 1 1 1 F — 2 1 1 1 4 G o o o o o o H 1 1 1,3 1 1 o 1 3 5 1 5 1 5 Vocalization Data Day 1 2 3 4 5 81 Minute: 1 27 11 22 25 20 1o 2 27 9 24 27 26 13 3 26 9 23 20 24 o 4 19 16 24 20 18 o 5 21 19 13 18 22 14 6 11 16 18 26 17 13 7 14 5 15 22 3 19 8 15 o 21 7 18 18 9 12 o 27 7 11 o 10 15 o 15 14 18 4 Total: 187 85 202 186 177 91 Number of Shocks: 14 Feeding Latency: 5 sec. Feeding Time: 290 sec. I-‘OO-bl-‘I—‘NNH I-‘OOubl—‘l-‘NNH (D N N OOOOOOOOOO OOI—‘flNwNwU‘lO w p O Condition: LL Measure: HECWD’JUOWB’ Minute; \owwmmdbwmp—I ,_. Q Total: Number of Sho( ..EOing Latem seeding Time Condition: LL Measure: HEO'HL’JUOU’ID‘ Minute: OtOCOxIO‘LnbLuMb—I [—1 Total: Group: NCP Behavior Checklist Data Litter: Day 1 2 3 4 5 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 l 1 l l O 1 — 1 3 2 1 O O O O O 1 1 1 1 1,3 1 5 5 5 5 Vocalization Data Day 1 2 3 4 5 24 10 20 4 7 23 6 l4 9 13 23 O 8 15 5 26 3 13 12 3 18 0 6 12 5 24 O 4 7 1 20 O 5 9 2 17 O 3 4 2 23 8 3 15 0 23 O 4 9 5 221 27 80 96 43 Number of Shocks: 14 Feeding Latency: 7 sec. Feeding Time: 120 sec. 1 S1 l-‘OLAJIHWWNNH U) H 0000000000 0 82 U‘lOOMHI-‘NNNH U) N 0000000000 0 S3 H-0 0 A H w w MIA 0) LA) 0000000000 0 Condition: LL Measure: HIEQWWUGUFZV Minute; omNOLnJfi-Lymo—e ,_. Q Total: Number Of Sho 1 Feeding Laten F99 ‘ ding Time. Condition: LL Measure: H m 0 W m U 0 m ? Minute: 0 o m u m m A w M H H Total: Group: CNF Litter: Behavior Checklist Data m H O l H H N N H m H O H‘H N N N H Day m P‘O H H H N N N Vocalization Data l 2 13 7 12 9 7 8 O 11 O 9 0 12 5 10 4 7 8 7 6 12 55 92 Number of Shocks: O Feeding Latency: 5 sec. Feeding Time: 170 sec. Day 19 14 13 11 14 10 16 119 14 16 12 11 10 ll 14 12 118 1 SI UIP‘O H H w M N N 81 S2 UIF'O H H w M N H 52 18 13 15 12 11 ll 17 14 10 129 S3 m P'O H H N N N N S3 13 ll 11 12 10 12 118 Condition: LI Measure: HCEO'TJEPJUCWZP Minute: kOODNONLfi-DWNH ,_. 0 Total: Number of Sho .eeding Laten “ding Time: 2 Group: CON Litter: LL Condition Behavior Checklist Data Day S3 $2 $1 Measure 10 20 15 Vocalization Data Day S3 S2 S1 Minute 12 11 10 14 10 14 10 10 11 10 ll 12 13 10 11 11 3O 88 93 62 58 25 Total 12 Number of Shocks: 1225 sec. Feeding Latency: 365 sec. Feeding Time Condition: LL Measure: HZIO’TJL‘UUOWZD' Minute; \OmwONLfl-AWNH ,__. C Total: amber of Sh0< Seeding Time 2 Litter NC Group LL Condition Behavior Checklist Data Day 3 S 82 SI Measure Vocalization Data Day S3 SZ 81 Minute 13 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 22021132 52004330 10000000 3 8 51915657 34567890 1 13 34 77 Total Number of Shocks: 12 Feeding Latency: 5 sec. Feeding Time: 760 sec. Condition: L Measure: HZZOWL‘UUOWD’ Minute; uocowo‘mbwmp—l ,__. Q Total: Number of She A%dh@ Laten :eeding Time. Condition: LL Measure : H m G W m U O m b Minute: 0 o m u m m A w M H f—J Total: Group: NCP Litter: Behavior Checklist Data Day Vocalization Data 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 1 1 — 1 O O I3 1,3 5 l 2 10 5 7 4 9 7 17 3 11 8 10 8 22 5 6 6 15 2 6 11 U1 0 113 Number of Shocks: 12 Feeding Latency: 5 sec. Feeding Time: 700 sec. \Ioomo l—‘O‘O‘fiflfl [\J \l N Day q H H m 0 a \ll—‘WNGUJ m N 2 81 IPl—‘LAJNNH H‘O‘ 81 0000000000 0 1 2 3 3 1 4 3 O l 82 OOOOOOOOl—‘O H H O A H m N N H 0000000000 0 Condition: I Measure: HEDfiDfiUOU’D’ Minute: nomwo‘iwbwmp—l ,_, C) Total: Number Of Shc 2 Litter CNF Group: LL Condition: Behavior Checklist Data Day S3 $2 81 Measure Vocalization Data Day S3 82 81 Minute: 11 10 5 160488310 186231000 200000000 563100000 5 517110010 110020331 000011100 035022000 234567890 1 r0 5 23 22 4O 27 12 Total 0 Number of Shocks: 5 sec. Feeding Latency: 465 sec. Feeding Time Condition: L] Measure: HEC’TIL‘UUOWD’ xomwmmwap—n ,_: G Total: Number of Shc Fe - Edlng Later :eeding Time. Condition: LL Group: CON Litter: 3 Behavior Checklist Data Day 1 2 3 4 5 51 s2 s3 Measure: A 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 B 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 c 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 D 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 E 3 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 F — 1 1 1 1 3 2 1 G o o o 0 o 0 0 o H 1 1 1 1,3 1,3 1,3 1,3 1,3 I 5 5 5 3 Vocalization Data Day . 1 2 3 4 5 s1 52 s3 Minute: 1 14 16 14 11 16 o 6 11 2 21 9 12 18 17 o 6 11 3 18 12 18 15 12 6 10 9 4 16 14 14 14 17 7 9 11 5 16 14 12 15 16 1 7 11 6 13 o 10 12 13 10 11 9 7 13 9 15 13 16 7 6 6 8 7 10 15 18 11 o 10 9 9 11 15 12 16 14 o 15 11 10 17 8 16 12 11 o 9 0 Total: 146 107 138 144 143 31 89 88 Number of Shocks: 8 Feeding Latency: 1405 sec. Feeding Time: 340 sec. Condition: L' Measure: HZEOWWUOWIP Minute: LomwombthH ,._. C) Total: \. d umber of She Feed' . lng Time: Condition: LL Group: NC Litter: 3 Behavior Checklist Data Day 1 2 3 4 5 s1 Measure: A 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 B 2 2 o 2 2 2 2 2 c 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 D 3 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 E 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 p — 1 1 1 1 4 4 4 G o o 0 o o 1 o o H 1,3 1,3 1,3 1,3 1,3 0 0 1,3 I 5 5 1 1 1 Vocalization Data Day 1 2 3 4 5 51 S2 53 Minute: 1 5 9 14 14 12 1 1 2 2 7 9 10 4 9 1 o 1 3 7 12 13 20 11 2 4 o 4 10 8 12 10 9 o 1 2 5 10 9 11 11 12 o o 3 6 6 9 8 14 4 o 2 4 7 8 4 9 11 9 o o 4 8 11 9 11 14 4 0 3 10 9 9 8 7 7 9 o 2 9 10 11 8 6 14 10 o o 3 Total: 84 85 101 119 89 4 13 38 Number of Shocks: 8 Feeding Latency: 10 sec. Feeding Time: 370 seC. Condition: L] Measure: HIEQ'TJMUOCDID‘ Minute; \omummbwmr—d ,_1 O Total: Number of She :eeding Laten 3%" “Q . lng Time: Condition: LL Group: NCP Litter: 3 Behavior Checklist Data Day 1 2 3 4 5 $1 Measure: A 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 B 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 c 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 D 3 2 1 1 1 1 3 1 E 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 F - l l l l 4 4 4 G 0 0 0 o o 1 1,3 0 H 1 1,3 1,3,5 1,3 1,3 0 0 1 I 2 1 1 1 1 Vocalization Data Day 1 2 3 4 5 s1 82 53 Minute: 1 5 14 15 16 10 o 0 o 2 12 12 8 13 11 0 o 0 3 5 9 10 10 1 0 o 0 4 14 7 7 8 3 0 o o 5 8 10 15 12 5 0 o o 6 6 7 10 6 5 0 o 0 7 8 9 6 12 4 o o o 8 7 6 12 7 4 o o 0 9 10 6 10 0 7 0 0 o 10 9 11 11 4 3 0 0 0 Total: 84 91 104 88 53 0 0 0 Number of Shocks: 8 Feeding Latency: 5 sec. Feeding Time: 325 sec. Condition: LI Measure: HEOWMUOWD’ Minute; \omwoxmbwwr—d ,_. C) Total: Number of She :‘EEGing Time Condition: LL Group: CNF Litter: 3 Behavior Checklist Data Day 1 2 3 4 5 s1 Measure : A 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 B 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 c 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 3 3 2 2 1 3 3 3 E 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 F — 3 2 1 1 2 1 1 G 0 o o o 0 0 o o H 1 o 1 1 o 1 0 0 I 5 5 5 2 5 3 5 5 Vocalization Data Day 1 2 3 4 5 s1 s2 s3 Minute: 1 1 0 19 28 23 9 7 17 2 10 0 13 22 24 10 6 10 3 11 o 28 13 17 9 16 8 4 17 0 15 9 15 2 16 3 5 15 0 0 8 18 6 13 6 6 16 2 15 17 12 2 17 7 7 14 o 15 11 17 3 14 6 8 4 0 22 17 14 4 1o 1 9 3 3 18 20 14 20 10 2 10 3 6 29 24 12 16 10 6 Total: 94 11 174 169 166 81 119 66 Number of Shocks: O Feeding Latency: 5 sec. Feeding Time: 565 sec. Condition : Measure: D—IZIOHJLTJUOUDID' \OCIDNOWU'IblL-JMH ,_. Q Total: Xumb‘er of She Leeding Later] ‘eeding Time 4 Litter: CON LL Group: Condition: Behavior Checklist Data Day S3 $2 $1 Measure A 2 2 2 2 0 2 2 Vocalization Data Day S3 $2 81 Minute 10 14 10 12 10 14 257622 479566 350041 330023 004200 567890 l 10 26 26 62 7O 47 70 Total 6 Number of Shocks: 5 sec. Feeding Latency 260 sec. Feeding Time: Condition: 1 Measure: HESOHJDZUOUJID' Minute: comwombwmp—I ,__2 (D Total: Number of ShC :eeding Time. Condition: L Measure: H m 0 w m D O m 9 Minute: OkomflO‘mnD-MNH H Total: L NwNNH m H O l 87 Group: NC Litter: Behavior Checklist Data Day 2 3 4 5 l l 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 l l l l l 1 l l O O O 0 1 1,3 1 l 5 5 5 5 Vocalization Data Day 2 3 4 5 7 7 12 5 9 16 6 11 20 9 0 12 21 10 7 16 20 17 4 6 8 8 2 10 5 7 4 ll 5 17 6 6 4 8 6 13 6 9 2 13 105 108 49 103 Number of Shocks: 6 Feeding Latency: 15 sec. Feeding Time: 295 sec. 4 S1 UTOOwl-‘NNMH $1 $2 WHOHHWNNN 82 S3 U'IOOl—Jl-‘wNNH S3 l—‘wKJI—‘MOOU'lrbH U1 M U'l |—l T1""‘—.-/)7 7 Condition: L1 Measure: HZEO'TJL'UUOUDP Minute; \DCDNO‘UT-waH ,_4 Q Total: Number of Shc FE‘ed' . ing Tune: 4 Litter: Group: NCP LL Condition Behavior Checklist Data Day 3 S S2 81 Measure 40 4O 4O 20 Vocalization Data Day S3 82 SI Minute 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 2450581241 2432001000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 1234567890 1|. 32 12 Total 6 Number of Shocks: Feeding Latency: 5 sec. 320 sec. Feeding Time: my" ““— Condition : Measure: HZEOHJLTJCJOUJy omwombwmb‘ ,_‘ 0 Total: Number of Sh( Fee ' . dlng Time 1 Group: CNF Litter: 4 LL Condition Behavior Checklist Data Day 3 S 82. Sl Measure Vocalization Data Day S3 82 81 Minute: 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 1234567890 1 Total: 0 Number of Shocks 5 sec. Feeding Latency: 515 sec. Feeding Time Condition : Measure: HZECDWL‘UUOWD’ Minute; gowuoxmwaH ,_. Q Total: Number Of Sh Feeding Late Fee ‘ ding Time 5 Litter CON Group: LL Condition: Behavior Checklist Data Day 3 s SZ 81 Measure: Vocalization Data Day S3 82 SI 0 o Minute 15 010000000 900420000 724000001 1 661144057 552003641 1.. 961443320 3 134301500 234567890 1 38 50 34 59 22 88 17 o 0 Total 10 Number of Shocks 10 sec. Feeding Latency 270 sec. Feeding Time: Condition: Measure: HEOHZL‘UUOIIJID' Minute: \omwo’fiw-D-WMH ,_‘ (D TOtal; NUHlber Of Sh :eeding Time Condition: LL Group: NC Litter: 5 Behavior Checklist Data Day 1 2 3 4 5 $1 $2 Measure: A l 1 l l l l l B 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 C 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 D 1 l l l l l 2 E 1 l l l 1 l 1 F — l l l l 3 l G 0 O O O 0 O O yH 1,3 1,5 1,3 1,3 1,3 1,3 l I 5 Vocalization Data Day 1 2 3 4 5 81 82 S3 Minute: 1 15 15 15 10 4 l O l 2 26 10 8 7 6 O 0 l 3 26 8 3 8 ll 0 4 5 4 21 13 4 5 6 O l 3 5 l4 7 6 6 3 6 3 O 6 16 12 15 6 5 l6 4 l 7 29 13 2 O 6 l3 7 3 8 ll 9 l3 4 8 6 O 5 9 21 9 4 5 6 5 O 6 10 14 3 9 1 7 o o 3 Total: 193 99 79 52 62 47 19 28 Number of Shocks: 10 Feeding Latency: 5 sec. Feeding Time: 270 sec. Condition: Measure: HZJOWLTJUOCUZD‘ Minute: xOCDNONU‘t-b-LAJMH ,_. Q Total: jumber of Sh‘ Feeding Late 5 Litter: : NCP Group LL Condition: Behavior Checklist Data Day 3 S SZ 81 Measure 11 Vocalization Data Day S3 $2 81 o a Minute 10 00000 00000 00003 00000 31000 00011.. 53254 73194 67890 1 16 45 49 Total 10 Number of Shocks: Feeding Latency: 5 sec. 240 sec. Feeding Time: Condition: I Measure: HEOWWUOWB’ Minute: KOCDNO‘AU‘IALAJMH ,_‘ C) Total: xh‘mber Of Sh< r“ . Condition: LL Group: CNF Litter: 5 Behavior Checklist Data Day 1 2 3 4 5 s1 s2 s3 Measure: A 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 B 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 c 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 D 2 2 2 2 1 1 3 3 E 1 2 1 o 1 1 1 1 F — 1 3 1 1 2 1 1 G o o o o 0 o o 0 H 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 2 5 1 5 5 5 5 5 Vocalization Data Day 1 2 3 4 5 $1 82 S3 Minute: 1 24 14 12 2o 14 2 8 2 2 24 15 10 26 15 19 13 7 3 11 7 6 17 23 1o 4 4 4 17 3 6 9 6 8 3 2 5 14 2 o 18 17 14 o 4 6 11 o 4 8 13 13 3 3 7 10 o 4 2 0 1o 2 2 8 15 o 1 18 1 9 1 3 9 11 1 3 15 4 4 1 1 10 10 5 7 o 14 8 2 3 Total: 147 47 53 133 107 97 37 31 Number of Shocks: O Feeding Latency: 5 sec. Feeding Time: 240 sec. Condition: Ll Measure: HEQWL‘GUOWID’ Minute; \omwafiwpwwk— ,_2 0 Total: timber of Shc Fee ‘ . ““9 Time- Condition: LL Group: CON Litter: 6 Behavior Checklist Data Day 1 2 3 4 5 81 s2 s3 Measure: A 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 — B 2 2 3 2 3 2 2 — C 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 — D 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 — E 1 o 1 o 1 1 1 — F — 1 1 1 1 3 2 — G o o o o o o o — H 5 5 o o 1 o 1 — I 1 1 1 1 5 5 5 — Vocalization Data Day 1 2 3 4 5 s1 s2 83 Minute: 1 36 27 20 19 16 1 7 — 2 39 27 24 20 10 3 19 — 3 37 3o 24 23 5 13 12 — 4 36 28 24 24 13 11 19 — 5 37 3o 24 24 0 6 23 — 6 39 28 2o 23 4 5 2o — 7 37 30 25 18 16 17 21 _ 8 33 3o 14 21 14 16 10 — 9 41 31 13 28 13 22 12 _ 10 40 32 2 22 12 9 6 — Total: 375 293 190 222 103 103 149 — Number of Shocks: 7 Feeding Latency: 1213 sec. Feeding Time: 270 sec. Condition: Measure: HZEQHZL‘UUCWZD' Minute; \omuowwpwme—l ,_. Q Total: Feeding Late Fee . ding Time Condition: LL Measure: HEDWMUOU’S’ H H H N H I—‘U‘IO| Minute: oomqmwthH LA) (I) H Total: 367 Group: NC Litter: Behavior Checklist Data Day 2 3 4 5 l 1 l l 2 3 3 3 l 2 2 2 1 l l l l l 0 1 l l l l O O O O 5 l l l l 1 l 1 Vocalization Data Day 2 3 4 5 39 34 32 22 41 3O 36 23 38 32 32 25 37 20 33 21 4o 21 34 23 38 20 37 22 25 24 27 33 Number of Shocks: 7 Feeding Latency Feeding Time: : 605 sec. 260 sec. 6 SI NU‘IOwl—‘I—‘NNH 81 82 H H 0.5 H H m m H 82 S3 S3 . #W, Condition : Measure: HZL‘O'TJL'IZIUQWID' omwmmwar—A ,__i (D Total: 3mm Of Sh‘ “Suing Time r0 Litter: NCP LL Group: Condition: Behavior Checklist Data Day 81 Measure Vocalization Data Day 81 o 9 Minute 3 4 r0 0 O 12 0553300 0164364 2956258 4038338 9340006 0000000 0000000 4567890 1 52 32 23 57 37 Total 7 Number of Shocks: 10 sec. Feeding Latency: 365 sec. Feeding Time: Condition: Measure: HIEO'TJLTJUOUJy Minute; «omuo‘mbwmw ,_. C) Total: Number of SI" .eeding Late FEred‘ . ing Tlmc Condition: LL Group: CNF Litter: 6 Behavior Checklist Data Day 1 2 3 4 5 81 $2 Measure: A l 2 l l l l l B 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 C 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 D 3 3 3 2 2 3 l E 3 l l l l 2 1 F — l l l l l l G O O O O 0 O O H 1,3 1,3 1,3 1,3 l l l I 5 5 5 5 Vocalization Data Day 1 2 3 4 5 81 82 Minute: 1 O O 10 ll 4 O O — 2 O l 6 10 4 O O — 3 7 0 l3 l4 1 O 6 — 4 4 9 10 13 l 5 O — 5 l3 6 9 7 O l O — 6 9 4 4 12 3 O O — 7 9 2 5 6 O O O - 8 7 5 5 8 o 7 0 — 9 O :0 2 2 l O O - lO 2 O 4 3 3 O O — Total: 51 27 68 86 l7 l3 6 — Number of Shocks: 0 Feeding Latency: 5 sec. Feeding Time; 310 sec. Condition: I Measure : HIL‘O’TJL‘UUOWID' Minute; kOCDNONwAwNH ,_. C) Total: NUmber of Sh Fe - Condition: LL Group: CON Litter: 7 Behavior Checklist Data Day 1 2 3 4 5 s1 82 Measure: A 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 B 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 c 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 D 1 1 2 2 3 1 2 E 1 o 1 1 1 1 1 F — 1 1 1 1 4 2 G o o o o o o o H 1,3 1,3 1,3 1,3 1,3 1 1 I 5 5 5 Vocalization Data Day 1 2 3 4 5 51 s2 Minute: 1 21 18 12 19 7 o o 2 21 22 13 14 3 o o 3 25 15 10 17 7 o o 4 25 13 9 13 o o 1 5 16 18 6 7 4 o 1 6 12 14 14 16 1 o o 7 20 20 8 15 o o o 8 18 18 12 10 1 o 1 9 20 11 3 11 o o 4 10 28 28 9 8 o 0 2 Total: 206 177 96 130 23 o 9 Number of Shocks: l3 Feeding Latency: 5 sec. Feeding Time: 210 sec. U) to U'll—‘OI—‘l—‘NNOH U) (.70 le—‘Ol-‘WU‘INNH l\.) O Condition: Measure : HEEQWE'UUOWP \DCDNO‘U‘l-blAJNI-A ,_2 0 Total: Mumber of S} Feeding Late Needing Time Condition: L Measure: HIEQ'UNUOU’D’ Minute: Okocoumuw-b-wMI—J H Total: L Group: NC Litter: Behavior Checklist Data 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 1 1 — 1 O O ,3 1,3 5 Day 3 4 l l 2 2 2 2 3 2 l l 2 l O O l 1,3 5 5 Vocalization Data 1 2 25 32 25 2O 14 20 18 3O 20 13 9 15 19 7 21 8 21 16 10 6 182 167 Number of Shocks: l3 Feeding Latency: 5 sec. Feeding Time: 255 sec. Day 3 4 22 3O 22 23 18 23 23 25 18 22 16 23 l6 16 22 13 20 9 l8 6 195 190 81 wowbl—‘LAJNNH o o o o o o o o o o E O 82 WOOAl-‘LAJNNH 52 O OOOOOOOOl—‘Q I—' 0 U'lOOAl—‘NNNH l—‘OOOOl-‘ONNA 1"" O Condition: Measure: HIEGFIJFJUOUDID' Minute; \O(D\JO\U‘IJ>~L;JI\J)—‘ ,_. Q Total: Number 0f S) Feeding Lam F‘Ee ‘ . ding Tim! Condition: LL Group: NCP Litter: Behavior Checklist Data Day 1 2 3 4 5 Measure: A 1 1 1 1 1 B 1 1 2 2 2 C 2 2 2 2 2 D 2 1 2 1 1 E 1 1 1 1 o F — 4 4 4 2 G o o o o o H 1,3 1 1 1 1 I 3 3 5 5 5 Vocalization Data Day 1 2 3 4 5 Minute: 1 o o o 2 9 2 o 7 3 11 17 3 o 6 9 9 14 4 3 15 13 7 11 5 8 11 12 13 16 6 4 13 14 15 14 7 11 16 12 19 17 8 16 15 16 15 11 9 14 10 10 21 13 10 9 7 17 13 10 Total: 63 100 106 125 142 Number of Shocks: l3 Feeding Latency: 5 sec. Feeding Time: 235 sec. 7 SI mHO-bHNNwI—J Sl Ol-‘LOONOOOOO ON 82 Orbl—‘NNMH 82 0000000000 0 S3 LnHOAI—‘NNNH S3 0000000000 0 Condition : Measure: Hmmnzmcnw» Minute; \DODNofim-ALAJMM—e ,_. Q Total: Number of Sh Feeding Late 7 Litter: CNF Group: LL 0 . Condition Behavior Checklist Data Day 3 S 82, Sl Measure Vocalization Data Day S3 82 81 Minute 2211000000 2100022020 6 2 1 O 1 4 4 4 O 1 4203000540 3540033043 9 2 4 5 3 4 O 1 3 4 6572020101.. 0033301020 1234567890 1 35 25 18 21 24 Total 0 Number of Shocks: 5 sec. Feeding Latency: 295 sec. Feeding Time Condition: Measure: HZEGWL‘UUOUUZD' comuo‘lmbwmrfl ,.__‘ C) Total: I{Umber of 51 Feeding Lam “Eeding Tim< l Litter: CON Group: HH Condition: Behavior Checklist Data Day 3 S 82 SI Measure: .12 20 3O 10 .10 Vocalization Data Day S3 S2 81 Minute 12 15 07514410 03803222 04000112 21120700 03000602 31374720 10000120 00423000 34567890 1 22 33 ll 22 54 Total 7 Number of Shocks: 5 sec. Feeding Latency 150 sec. Feeding Time: Condition: Measure: HEDWEHUOWJ’ ©(D\lC‘U1>‘>(.IMP—‘ ,_. O Total: Number of S} Feeding Late Fee ' ding Timc 1 Group: NC Litter: HH Condition Behavior Checklist Data Day 3 S $2 81 Measure Vocalization Data Day S3 82 81 n . Minute 10 10 11 13 00000 10 13 12 6 2 302.16 0004.4 5.1142 00101 03443 01003 67890 1 32 22 3O 63 4O 17 Total 7 Number of Shocks: Feeding Latency: 5 sec. Feeding Time: 137 sec Condit ion: Measure: HEO'TJL'UUOWSD' \OWNONU‘I-DWMH ,_‘ 0 Total: NUmher of Q Feeding Lat Fee ' ding Tin 1 Group: NCP Litter: HH Condition Behavior Checklist Data Day S3 82. Sl Measure 20 4O 10 Vocalization Data Day S3 82 81 Minute: 13 15313422 .10 5541 11991111 1 00100000 31321101 23442252 76384323 41413220 42233323 34567890 1 32 24 58 31 16 13 103 24 Total 7 Number of Shocks: 5 sec. - o Feeding Latency 123 sec. Feeding Time Condition: Measure: HUIO’TJDJUOWZD' Minute; \omwoxw-bwwp—l ,_‘ C) Total: Number Of Feeding La M , edlng Ti 1 Litter: CNF Group: HH Condition: Behavior Checklist Data Day 3 S 82 Sl Measure Vocalization Data Day S3 $2 $1 0 a Minute 11 74210310 70400650 83047140 10332110 73004110 61100000 00161100 33700016 34567890 1 20 20 14 16 21 38 34 24 Total 7 Number of Shocks: 5 sec. Feeding Latency 290 sec. Feeding Time: Condition: Measure: HIEQ'WEUUOUJID‘ Minute; \OODNO‘mwar—l ,_4 O TOtal: Number Of C Feeding Lat F i 2 Litter: CON Group: HH Condition: Behavior Checklist Data Day 3 s 82 $1 Measure Vocalization Data Day S3 82 $1 Minute 13 5 7330 2232 0313 8007 7350 3311 7890 l 51 26 34 45 16 13 23 Total 8 Number of Shocks 7 sec. Feeding Latency: 130 sec. Feeding Time: Condition: Measure: HIIIOHJL‘OUOUDD’ Minute; kOODVC‘UTabLAJMH ,_. Q Total: ){Umber of c m , edlng Lat % - Condition: HH Group: NC Litter: 2 Behavior Checklist Data ___________________________ Day 1 2 3 4 5 s1 52 53 Measure : A 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 — B 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 — c 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 — D 2 2 4 3 3 3 3 — E 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 — F — 1 1 1 1 4 4 — G o o o o o 3 o — H 1 1 1 3 3 o 1 — I 5 5 5 5 5 2 5 — Vocalization Data Day 1 2 3 4 5 s1 s2 53 Minute: 1 12 10 2 3 8 6 0 — 2 10 9 2 2 4 6 1 - 3 8 8 4 4 1 2 o — 4 13 9 1 2 3 o o — 5 10 9 4 3 1 o 1 — 6 7 10 5 4 2 o o — 7 10 9 1 2 1 o o — 8 12 5 2 3 o o o — 9 7 4 1 1 3 o o — 10 13 1 3 5 1 o o — Total: 102 74 25 29 24 14 2 — Number of Shocks: 8 Feeding Latency: 6 sec. Feeding Time: 125 sec. Condition: Measure: HEC’TIL‘UUOWD’ Minute; KOmNmU‘l-bLAJMH ,_. O TOtal: NUmber Of ( Feeding Lat F . Qedlng Tin Condition: HH Group: NCP Litter: 2 Behavior Checklist Data Day Measure: A l 2 l 1 1 1 1 _ B 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 _ C 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 — D l 3 3 3 2 3 3 — E O O l 1 l 1 1 — F — 1 l 1 l 4 4 — G O O 3 O O 3 3 — H l l 3 3 3 O l — I 5 5 l 1 l l 5 — Vocalization Data Day 1 2 3 4 5 s1 s2 s3 Minute: 1 6 7 6 16 10 0 0 — 2 9 3 1 10 13 O O — 3 7 2 5 9 11 O 5 - 4 8 O 11 9 9 O 4 — 5 6 O 7 9 10 O 7 — 6 4 1 7 9 11 O 15 — 7 8 O 1 10 O O 12 — 8 6 O O 14 4 O 15 — 9 8 O O 15 4 O 12 - lO 9 O O 2 3 0 4 — Total: 71 13 38 103 75 O 64 — Number of Shocks: 8 Feeding Latency: 5 sec. Feeding Time: 110 sec. Condition: Measure: HIEO'HL‘UUOCDID' Minute; \OCDNONw-DQJNH ,_4 O Total: Number of Feeding L a: h ' edlng Til 2 Litter: CNF Group: HH Condition: Behavior Checklist Data Day S3 s2 Sl Measure F 0 O O G Vocalization Data Day S3 82 81 o 3 Minute 11 11 14 10 24 39 26 64 31 Total 0 Number of Shocks: 5 sec. Feeding Latency: 145 sec. Feeding Time: Condition: Measure: HEC’YJMUOWID' \Omwmmwal—J ,_2 C) Total: NUmber of Feeding La Feeding Ti 3 Litter: Group: CON HH Condition: Behavior Checklist Data Day 3 S SZ 81 Measure Vocalization Data Day S3 82 81 o o Minute 1.. O . 3 O O 2 223300 000000 000200 511100 100010 000000 567890 1 14 14 10 42 Total 4 Number of Shocks: 5 sec. . ~ Feeding Latency 80 sec. Feeding Time Condition: Measure: HZEOWWUODJ3> Minute: LomucNm-AWMH ,_, Q Total: NUmber Of Feeding La F , eeding Ti 3 Litter NC Group: HH Condition: Behavior Checklist Data Day 3 S SZ 81 Measure Vocalization Data Day S3 82 81 Minute 0104634572 2300000000 3542452334 3264404033 265 6111246502 2526124124 2288338372 1234567890 1 32 46 29 68 29 35 Total 4 Number of Shocks 5 sec. Feeding Latency 125 sec. Feeding Time: Condition: Measure: HEDWMUOWB’ Minute: \OOOVONU‘IALAJMI—l ,_. Q Total: NUmber Of Feeding La Fe - ”“19 Tu 3 Group: NCP Litter: HH c o Condition Behavior Checklist Data Day 3 S $2 $1 Measure Vocalization Data Day S3 $2 $1 Minute .|._ 0284142000 0240000000 1021000110 1320020100 0 O l 2 6 l 5 3 l 0 0000000000 0000000000 1234567890 1 31 19 Total 4 Number of Shocks: 5 sec. Feeding Latency: 130 sec. Feeding Time: Condition: Measure: HZEO’TJL’JUOUJID' kOCDwmm-DWNH ,_‘ Q Total: NUmber Of ( Feeding Lat Fee ' . ding Tin 3 Group: CNF HH Condition Litter: Behavior Checklist Data Day 3 S 52 $1 Measure E F Vocalization Data Day S3 SZ 81 Minute 0110000000 0000010001 1000000000 2002010000 2100100011 0000000010 0000000000 1234567890 1 Total: 0 o o Number of Shocks 5 sec. Feeding Latency 130 sec. Feeding Time: Condition: Measure: HIEQHJD'JUOCUB’ Minute; \OGDQO‘U‘IALAJNI“ ,_4 C Total: Feeding La Fe - edlng Ti Condition: HH Measure: HIEOWJDJUOWII’ Minute: OkOCDNO‘U‘l-waH f—J Total: HNNNH 0100] 12 6 10 7 11 10 10 11 8 8 93 Group: CON Litter: Behavior Checklist Data U‘Il—‘Ol—Il-‘NNNIH Day I—‘UTOI—Il—‘NMNH l—‘U‘lOl—INLMNNH l-‘OOwI—‘NNI—‘H Vocalization Data U‘ILAJNIKOWU'IONKOU‘Il—l I—l m c» Number of Shocks: 8 Feeding Latency: 10 sec. Feeding Time: 120 sec. Day 11 17 23 13 12 12 103 NH nBCD ANOI—‘OOOQ ox . l\.) 4 H H H.A H'w M N H U) '..: OOOOWOOOOQ) sz I—‘U'lbobl—‘Nl—‘NH 82 S3 S3 Condition: Measure: HSIOWL‘UUOWD’ Minute: @mwmmwar—l ,_: 0 Total: NUmber Of Feeding L FMing T 4 Litter: Group: NC HH Condition: Behavior Checklist Data Day 81 Measure Vocalization Data Day Sl Minute 9.100 0001 0000 0.000 0051 0021 1234 000000 001000 10.1000 000000 000000 201011 112200 56789 10 11 11 Total 8 Number of Shocks: 5 sec. Feeding Latency 146 sec. Feeding Time: Condition Measure: HEOWMDOC’D’ goajwoxmbwmra ,_l 0 Total: NUmber of Feeding La F . “ding Ti 4 Litter: NCP Group: HH Condition: Behavior Checklist Data Day 3 S 82 $1 Measure 40 40 FG Vocalization Data Day S3 $2 $1 Minute 0000 0000 0000 0200 0310 1221 0104. 7890 l 13 15 13 Total 8 Number of Shocks 5 sec. - o Feeding Latency 115 sec. Feeding Time: Condition Measure: Hmmwmoom> Minute: tomuchm-AWNH r.‘ O Total: NUmbEr of Feeding La F . eedlng Ti Condition: HH Group: CNF Litter: 4 Behavior Checklist Data Day 1 2 3 4 5 s1 sz 33 Measure: A 3 1 1 l l l 1 _ B l 2 2 2 2 3 3 _ C 2 4 4 2 2 4 4 _ D l 3 2 l 2 3 3 _ E O 1 l l l l 1 _ F — l l l 1 1 1 _ G O O 3 O O O O — H l l l l l l l — I 5 3 3 5 5 5 5 — Vocalization Data Day 1 2 3 4 5 $1 82 S3 Minute: 1 7 l6 6 12 l3 13 15 — 2 12 7 O 10 17 20 17 — 3 ll 23 O 7 ll 18 12 — 4 9 9 O 16 16 7 9 — 5 4 4 14 21 8 12 13 — 6 7 20 26 23 13 13 16 — 7 1 l7 0 20 ll 13 21 — 8 0 14 7 23 17 15 15 — 9 8 ll 3 26 6 11 ll — 10 ll 16 3 l7 3 9 13 — Total: 70 147 59 175 115 131 142 — Number of Shocks: 0 Feeding Latency: 5 sec. Feeding Time: 190 SEC- Condit ion: Measure : HZEOWFJUOUJS’ Minute; \OCDNO‘m-bwwp—l ,_i 0 Total: Number of Feeding L F 1 Wing I CON Litter: 5 Group: HH Condition: Behavior Checklist Data Day 3 s 82. Sl Measure 01 Vocalization Data Day S3 82 S1 Minute 000000 000000 000000 000000 000000 360000 010003 567890 .1 14 Total: 3 . c Number of Shocks 5 sec. ~ 0 Feeding Latency 485 sec. Feeding Time: Condit iox Measure: HZIIO'TJLTJUOw3’ \omwmmwar—I ,_‘ C) Total: NUmber of Feeding Le Fe - edlng T1 5 Litter: Group: NC HH Condition: Behavior Checklist Data Day S3 82 SI Measure Vocalization Data Day S3 82 81 Minute 10 13 00000 00000 03601 03000 21032 0 15436 1 4.1175 67890 1 25 66 55 31 Total 3 Number of Shocks: Feeding Latency: 35 sec. 530 sec. Feeding Time Condition Measure: HIEO’TJDZIUOCOZD' Minute; \OODNONU‘IALAJNH ,_4 O Total: N”New of Feeding La F . Condition: HH Group: NCP Litter: 5 Measure: HCL‘Q'I'JMUOIDJ’ Minute: OkDCONONU'IwaH H Total: Behavior Checklist Data Day 1 2 3 4 5 81 l l l l l l 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 3 l 2 2 3 2 l l l l l l — 2 l l l 4 O O O O O O l 1,3 1,3 1,3 l O 5 3 5 l Vocalization Data Day 1 2 3 4 5 81 O 21 1 l9 3 l 0 l6 4 7 7 O 3 24 2 l3 2 O O 10 2 10 O O 5 6 l 5 O 0 l4 3 5 O O O O 3 l l O O 0 O 0 l O 0 0 O l 3 O O O 0 7 3 O 0 22 83 24 62 12 1 Number of Shocks: 3 Feeding Latency: 23 sec. Feeding Time: 425 sec. 82. UTE-'ONl—‘(AJWNH 82 0000000000 0 S3 S3 Condition: Measure: HZL‘Q'TJLTJUOUJW Minute; @(DNONU‘l-JE-L‘JNH ,_4 0 Total: Number Of ‘ Feeding Lai needing Tir Condition: HH Group: CNF Litter: 5 Behavior Checklist Data Day 1 2 3 4 5 81 52 S3 Measure: A 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 _ B 2 1 2 2 2 2 3 _ c 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 — D 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 _ E 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 — F — 4 2 1 1 1 1 — G o o o o o o o — H o o 1 1 1 1 1 — I 1 2 1 5 5 5 5 — Vocalization Data Day 1 2 3 4 5 31 S2 33 Minute: 1 0 o 5 13 11 16 11 — 2 o o 11 9 13 10 19 — 3 o 6 16 6 6 17 14 — 4 o 4 15 17 8 16 16 _ 5 o o 3 14 3 15 16 — 6 o 13 1 14 12 12 14 — 7 o 16 1 10 15 14 13 _ 8 0 9 o 7 7 9 9 _ 9 1 11 3 11 6 11 13 _ 10 o 6 9 6 2 13 6 _ Total: 1 65 64 107 83 133 131 — Number of Shocks: O Feeding Latency: 5 sec. Feeding Time: 330 sec. WV 7- Condition Measure: HEQmmOnm» Minute: \Oa)\lO\U‘ID(.le——' ,_. C Total: Feeding Lat De ‘ edlng Tin 6 Litter: Group: CON HH Condition Behavior Checklist Data Day 3 S $2 81 Measure Vocalization Data Day S3 82 81 Minute 0000000310 0000000000 0000000000 8533000150 1 1700430000 0005060210 0000040000 1234567890 1 25 25 14 Total 17 Number of Shocks 5 sec. Feeding Latency: Feeding Time: 485 sec. Condit i0: Measure: HZEGDHJLTJUOUJID' Minute; \OODNmUT-bwwld ,_4 O Total: NUmer Of Feeding La ‘eeding Ti Condition: HH Group: NC Litter: 6 Behavior Checklist Data __________________________ Day 1 2 3 4 5 s1 s2 s3 Measure: A 1 l 1 1 1 1 1 _ B 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 — c 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 - D 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 — E 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 — F — 1 1 1 1 3 2 — G o o 0 o o o o — H 1 1 1,3 1,3 1 o 1 — I 5 5 5 5 5 _ Vocalization Data Day 1 2 3 4 5 51 s2 s3 Minute: 1 o 7 20 7 12 7 7 — 2 o 3 3 10 10 10 19 — 3 1 6 16 8 10 12 18 — 4 2 7 15 8 9 8 2o _ 5 o 6 8 7 10 14 19 — 6 o 4 20 7 10 16 17 — 7 1 3 13 7 14 17 14 — 8 1 2 9 14 11 20 11 — 9 o 1 2 10 9 13 19 _ 10 o 5 6 10 9 22 12 — Total: 5 44 112 88 104 139 156 — Number of Shocks: l7 Feeding Latency: 5 sec. Feeding Time: 505 sec. Conditiox Measure: HZIQ'TJFIUOUJII’ Minute; gomuofiwhwwh- ,_. Q Total ‘ NUmber 01 Feeding I 6 Litter Group: NCP HH Condition: Behavior Checklist Data Day S3 82 SI Measure Vocalization Data Day S3 82 81 Minute 0000000000 0001000000 2000200300 7120020100 0203343100 132230010 0 0000003110 123456789 0 O l 0 l4 12 16 13 Total 17 Number of Shocks: 5 sec. Feeding Latency: 390 sec. Feeding Time: way“ 7, Condition Measure: HESONJL‘UUOCUD’ Minute; kOCDVOWLn-D-WMH ’..4 O TOtal NUmber 0' Feeding ] Feeding . Condition: HH Group: CNF Measure: HIEOHJMDOUJZ’ Minute: Okomumm-war—l ’_l Total: Litter: Behavior Checklist Data Day 1 2 3 4 5 l l l l l 2 3 5 2 5 2 2 2 4 4 2 2 2 3 3 O l l l l — 4 2 l l 0 O O O O O l l l l 2 4 5 5 5 Vocalization Data Day 1 2 3 4 5 O 3 4 6 10 O 5 O 7 7 3 9 l 7 l6 1 3 6 3 l4 0 3 4 6 l7 0 2 3 ll 10 O O 3 14 12 l l 7 12 ll 3 l 3 ll 10 6 O 4 16 10 14 27 35 93 117 Number of Shocks: O Feeding Latency: 5 sec. Feeding Time: 410 sec. 6 S1 UTI-‘Ol—IHLJUID-Ull-J 81 16 12 ll ll l7 13 121 l 3 4 3 l l O l 5 $2 S3 Conditior Measure: HmmuijOUJZD‘ Minute: KOmNO‘U‘lbWNH ,__4 0 Total: Numb” 01 FGeding I Feeding r 7 Litter: CON Group: HH Condition: Behavior Checklist Data Day S3 82 SI Measure Vocalization Data Day 3 s SZ 81 Minute nvO 1 9 0 2 O 1 2 2 1.1 O 2 7 O O 3 1 O 112 l l 8 4 l 2 0 1 4.3 6 2 M H 3 1 2 l 134 4 6 4 1 O 0 O 9 2020000010 0000030200 1234567890 1 7 1|. 48 21 15 31 Total 5 Number of Shocks 5 sec. Feeding Latency 320 sec. Feeding Time: Conditior Measure: HEEGHJFJUOCDZD' Minute; \OCDVONUw-D-WNI—l ,_. C) TOtal Number 0 Feeding FeQding 7 Litter Group: NC HH Condition Behavior Checklist Data Day 3 S 82 81 Measure A B C 01.. Vocalization Data Day S3 $2 81 Minute 00 00 12 000000 000000 246665 000000 000000 000000 000000 567890 1 27 Total 5 Number of Shocks Feeding Latency: 10 sec. Feeding Time: 420 sec. Conditi‘ Measure; HIOWWUOmZD' Minute; \OCDwo‘um-h-WMH ,_. Q Total: NUmber Of Feeding L F . 96‘3ng T 7 Litter: Group: NCP HH Condition: Behavior Checklist Data Day 81 Measure 31 DE Vocalization Data Day 81 Minute: 1 3 O O 2 O 0 9 10 13 33 25 Total: 5 Number of Shocks: 5 sec. 0 o Feeding Latency 315 sec. Feeding Time: Conditior Measure: HZECEHJWUOWW Minute; \omwmwbwwp—d ,_‘ Q Total NUMbEr O Feeding Feeding 7 ~ o Litter CNF Group: HH Condition: Behavior Checklist Data Day S2 81 Measure: Vocalization Data Day 82 81 Minute O6 00 Ol 00 00 2 111091 1.. 02614.6 20604.1 410036 011121 002100 000000 456789 13 10 32 17 42 4O 10 Total 0 Number of Shocks: 5 sec. Feeding Latency: 345 sec. Feeding Time: APPENDIX C Summary of Shock-chamber Activity Data for Individual Ss NMQ mqu NHH>HUU¢ NWfiEM£L MUOEM ufilzooqu l ‘ Amvhma Amavmvm vaamm Amavmoa AHHVmNH mumn >ua>auo< uwnEmno xoonm "Hmuoe somoumm4 mcfluw>flso mcflwmam mcflvmwcx mcHEoouo coflumaflmfluuom mcHHQEmue mcflnnsm mafiomm >pfi>fluu< .cwo wmmowm >pfl>flpumcH "wusmmwz HIZOUIQQ HIUZI HEN Amy Aavm Amvmmm mm Amav Roche AvVHHH Amvmmm Nm Ammo Away Amvv Awov Away Ammo I I I I Amavoam I I I I AHVP AHVNH I I Aavm Amvom Avvam AHVF Amvam Aavm Anvmm Amvma Amavmo I I AHHvoom Ahavoha Amavmma Ammvmma Abvan ANHVHNH Amvmv Anvmm AmVHmH Aoavmm Amvmaa Amoeba Anommm Amavmmm Amavmna “HHVHFH Awavmma Amavmam Hm m w m m H hmm m¢mQ wufl>fluo< Hwnfimno Moonm "Hmuoe nomoummm mcHH0>HDO mafixmam manomwsx mQHEOOHw cofipmaflmfluuom mcflHAEmue meannsm manomm mpH>Hpu¢ .cwo wmmomm mufl>flpomsH uwmsmmwz HIUZIQH \AMQ murmfia \AuHx/AUUIN LQIEHJL MUOSW HIl AHUZIIq‘HI AHV Advovm mm Avv Amvov Amvwmv Nm Amy AHVHmm Aavn Amvmmm Hm “may Ammo AHVmH I Ahvmo I “comm Amvooa Amvmm I AONVHVM Amavaom AMHVNHN “wavwmm Amvfim AnvaH I Amvao m v mmn Ammo Ammo Aavm Ahvmm Aavm Amvom AnvaH “Hon Amvmma Ahvmo mama wufl>fluo< uwnamno xoonm “Nev Amavmoa Aoavomm Amvmm "Hmuoe nomoumad mcfluw>flso mcawmam mcflvmwcx mcHEOOuo cofiumaflmfluuom mcflagswue mannnsm mcflomm mufi>fluum .cww wmmomm mpfl>fluomcH "wuswmwz HImUZIQQ NmQ M#MQ NUfl>HUU¢ HQIEHSL MUOCQ HIIIrIHZUlIqu “mommm “Navwmm “Naommm Ammo Ammo vamm I Amavmwa Ammvmom Aomvmom AmavovN Amavbma Aavma I Ammvmom Aomvnmm Aomvmom “Havemm Aomvwwa “How I Aamvvma Abavam m v hmn Ammvmva Amavoaa APHVVNH mumn wufl>flpo< HmaEmno xoonm "Hmuoe somoumm< mafiuw>flso mcflwmam mcflwqux mcHEoouo coflumaflmfluuom mcHHQEmue mcflnnsm mCHomm mufi>fluo< .cww wmmumm >ua>flpomcH "wuzmmwz HIMZUIQQ ‘..—...;— ng ...- N ‘ZOULHQH Ammo Anvoma Amvmom Aevmm AOHVmNH mm Ammo AmeH AHom Away Amvvm Awfivmmm Amvmm AHVHH Amvmm mm Amvfiwm am Home Amvoa Amvnmfi Amfivmmm Amavwwm Amfivmma Amvmm “Noam Afiov Amwv Away I Aflvm I I Amiga lava Amvnwfi “momma ANVHmH Awflvomm AmHVHHm Awavomfi ANHVmNH Amfivmwm AHHvomH Amflvom ”acme Ahavmhfi Avvwv I I Amvwfi AmVHH vafim v m N awn mama mufl>fluo< HwnEmno xuonm Amvv Aoavom “moan AmHVOHm AHVmH Amvwoa "Hapoe somoumm< mafiuw>flso mcflwmam maficmwcm mCHEOOHo coflpmafimfluuom mcHHQEwHB meannsm mafiumm mufl>apu< .cwo wmmomm wuH>HuUMCH u GHDmmwz NIZOUIHQ w»- \AMQ muva \Auflxwfluofi HGIEREIL XUOSW NIUZI \HJH. Amvom Amvomm mm Amoova Amvoov Nm “How Amvomm Hm Amav I Amvmv Afivo Amvma Anvmm Aaoo Amvma Amvma onam Aavm Amvmw Amvmo I I AHVmH I Amavomm nvvomv Amvvvv Anvmwe m v m N ham MflmQ mpfl>flpo< “unamno Moonm Avv Aavmha Aavna Amvmmm "Hmuoa somoumm< mcflum>flso mafimmam mcflommcx mGHEOOHU coaumaflmflnnom mcflanswye mcflgnsm mafiumm huH>HuU¢ .cww manomm mufl>fiuumcH "whammwz NIUZIQQ NMQ MUMQ NUH>HUU< HQIEHIL MUOSm NIQUZI‘H‘IH Amv Amvomm mm Ahv Amvmw vaHmv Nm AHV flavovm Hm Ammo Ammo Aamvwnm AmmvmvN Amavamm Romvomm Amavbm Avavmva Aevmm Aaavhm I Aavm m v awn Ammo Aavo AHVMH Aomvawm Aamvvmm Anavwam “mavnmm Aoavmma AovamH Anavmoa Aamvoma Amavmmm AHVP Amov Amvmn Amvwa Amvoa mama >pfl>fluo< uwnsmno Moonm Ammo Amvmm Aavo lava AHVN Amvnm lava ”Hmuoe aomoumm< mcfluw>fiso mafimmam mcflvmwcx mGHEoouo coflumaflmflunom mcHHQEmHB mafinnsm mafiumm mufi>fiuu< .cmo wmmumm aufl>fluumcH "whflwmwz NIQUZIHH NmQ MQMQ NDH>HUU< HQIErJL MUOSW NIILNZUII‘HIQ Away Amvmm AHVOH m Aaooa Amvnma mm Amvvmm “Hay Ame Amvmma Amvmm Avvmmm Aavmoa Aavoa I vamma Amvmov mm Hm on Ammo Ammo I Amvmm I Amvvw Abvmma vawmm Aavmm Avvmn Aqvow I I Advom Amvaov Amvmbm Aoavoma m w m mmn Amav Aooohm Aavm Amvaom mama hufl>fluo< Hmnfimno Moonm Amav Amvmm Amvom Amvmn “momma "HMpOB nomoummm mcflnw>flso mcflhmam mcflvmwux mCHEoouo coflumaflmfluuom mcHHQEwue mcflnnsm mcflomm hpfl>fluo¢ .cwo mmmomm wufl>fluumcH "musmmwz NIhZUIQH \AmQ mqu WUH>HUU¢ LQIEGKIL MUOQm. mlzooqu Ammo Ammo Aomv “mom Amovm Amvmm “momva Ammvvma AomvnvN Amvw Avvmm Avavooa I Ammvomm Ammvmma AHHmeH Anon I AHVOH % Amavmm Ahvom Amvnma mm mm Hm Ammo Ammo Ammo flame Ammo I Amvma I Amvnw AnvaH AHVN I I I I Aavm Amvom Amvom Avvmm I Ammvmma Anavmma loavmoa ”How I Amaomm Amavaoa I I I Ammvnmm Ammvmmm Ahmova Amavmmm Amvomm AHVmH Amvmv ANVHH Amvmm I Amvam ANVHH AmVHo AHHVmoH Amvmm m v m N H me mumn >pa>flpom Hmnamno Moonm "Hmpoe comoumm< mcfluw>flzo mafihmam mcHUmwcx mcflEoono coHumHHQHHHom mcflHnEwue mafinnsm mafiomm pr>Huum .cww wmmomm wuH>HuumcH ”mnsmmwz mIZOUIQQ w~ Ii \AMQ mme WDH>HHU< HQEIEfiiL MUOfim mIIIhUZIIq‘HI iHI|i Amwv Anomaa vamm Amavmvm “vomm “ovmoa mm Amv Aavma Avvvam Avvmom Nm Amav Amvmm Apvmmv Hm Ammo ABHHV Ammo Ammo Amhv Ammvmwa flamvmam Ahavmm Awavnm AmHvomH I AHVHH Amvmm Amvma AHVNH Awmvwmm onvmnm Ammvmhm Aomooom Ammvmhm Ammvmnm Aomvomm Ahavhwa Ammvmom Aoavmma Amvmo Aavm “bomb Aoavom Amavoma Amvom Amvmm Amvhw Amvnm Amvmm I I Amvmw Amvwa I m w m N H ham mama wufl>fluo< umnEmno Mooam "Hmuoe numoumm< mcflnw>flso mcflwmam mcHUmwa mQHEoouw coflumafimfluuom mcHHnEwue mcflanzm mcflumm th>Huu¢ .cww wmmomm mpH>HuumcH "wusmmwz MIOZIQQ Mlmhvs/Nl qq ll|i Amav “Hem Amvmm AHVN Aavm Amvmv AHVF Ahvmwv mm AmHv Amvmv Aavv Ahvvha Avvomm mm AHHV AHVN Aavm Avvvm AHVNH Avvmmv Hm Ammo Ammo Ammo vamm I AHHVmHH onom AHHVNmH I Ammvomm Aamvavm Ammvmmm Anavoom Avmvomm Amavava Avavmma Amavwvm AHvam onav Ahvoo AmHVwHH Ammvam Apvww Amvom Anvom Avvmm Amvm Aaavoh m w m mmo Ammo AHVF Amvmm onvm Amvow Mpmn mpfl>fluo< HwQEmQU Moonm lame Aavv Amvam Aoavmm Amavmm "Hmuoe nomoumm< msflnm>flso mcflwmam mcflwmwcx mcHEoouo GOHumHHmfluuom mcHHaEwue meannsm mcflumm mpfl>fluu< .cmo mmmowm wufl>HuUMCH "wuswmwz MImUZIQH NUNQ UH>H UUQ IHMVOHEMFRU VHUOQW Mlhzoiqq AHmv HNHVOHm Hmvmm ANHvaH mm HNHV HNVN Hmvomm Anvmw Hmvwm Nm AvNV Hmwo wav Ammo homo Ammo Hovmn I I I I Havom Amvom Hevmw HothwH vaHm AOvamH HmHvNNH HNHVoow HmvamH HmHvaH HNHome HmVHe HNvaH AHVm Hmva I Avvnw I I HNVNN HONvaN AvaowN AovamN AmHvam HNHVmHN Hm m w m N H hma mqu wufl>fluu< Hwnfimnu xoonm uHmpoe zomonmm< mcfluw>fl50 mafiwmam mcflvmwcm mcHEoouo coflumaflmfluuom mcHHnEmue mCHnnsm mcflumm huH>Huu¢ .cww wmmomm wuH>kumcH "wusmmwz MIMZUIHH ,Vlzooqu Awmv Ahoy Ammv Hmvov HNHVvo I Hva I HovHv Hva HHov Hmvmm I Hmva I I I HNVNH HNVOH vaw I Avame AoNVHoN HwHoooN HmVNm AOHVmNH HOHomOH HNHmeH HHHme Hmvmn mm mm Hm Homo HmvHN HNVoH HvaHNm Hmvmn ANHVNOH Ammo Amvmo Hmvwm HNHvaH AHHVHOH HNHVOOH v awn wumm xufl>fluo< Hmnfimno Moonm "Hmuoe zomoummm mcfluw>flso moaxmam mcfioqux mcHEOOHU coflumaflmflnuom mcHHgEmue mcHnnsm mcaomm huH>Huo¢ .cww wmmumm muH>HuUMCH "wusmmwz VIZOUIHH NGQ MUMQ NUH>HHU< HGIERSL MUOSm VIUZI qq I Hmva I vaHm AHVN Hmva HHHVNHm HONVNVN HvVOOH HmvomH HmVONH HNVHm mm Nm Anvmm HNVNmN HmvmoH am Home Hmwv vamv HOHVNNH HovNOH vamo Hovom Hmvom Hmvmm I I Ava vamv Haven HNva I I HNvm HHVm Anvbm HNHvow Amvwm I Ava HmvaH I I HvaNmN HNHVmNH HNHVNNH AvamHm HHNvmmm AmvavH AHHme HNHVNHH Hmvmm AmeN Hovom HHVQN I HNVNH HHVmH m v m N H mmo mama muH>Huo¢ uwpamno Hooam "Hmuoe numoummd mcfluw>flso mcflmmam mcflvmwcx mcHEoouo cofiumaflmfiunom mcHHQEwuB mcHnnsm mCHumm huH>Hu0< .cwo wmmowm >pfl>fluomcH "wusmmwz VIUZIQQ \AMQ MUNQ \Anvflxwunnvnvd‘ HQIEHXL VHUOQW VI HHUZI qq HHV AHvovm mm HHV HHVOVm mm Anv HNVNN Hmvmom Hm Hovv HNHVHvN HOHvoo HovawH HHVON Hmva Away HNHVONN HNVOH HHVm HvamNH vaHv Hmvmm v th Hnmv HmvomN Hva vaNN HHHVmN Havov Hmvmm HNHV HovaN Hmvvm Hva HNVNmH mama wpfl>flu0< HwQEmSU Moonm HNHV HNva HHVN ANVNoH Hmvva "Hmuoe zumonmmm mcHHw>Hso mcflwmam mcflvmwax mcflEoouo coaumaflmfluuom mcHHgEmae mcHnnsm mCHomm huH>Huud .cwo wmmomm MuH>HuUmCH "wusmmwz VImUZIHH n—r—v VIENZOIJH‘H. HvHv Anvav ANomw vamm Hva mm HmHv HHVNH AmvaH mm HmHV vaomv HHVN HNVMN Amvma Hm Hwy HvaH HvamH HHHV vaNmN HNvow HHVoN vaNwH v hma HmHv HoVONH HHVm Aqvoo Avamm Hwy Homo HNvmom HNHVNom I Ava I HmvaH I Avam HNVHNN ANVHw mama mufl>fluu< Hwnfimno Moogm "Hmpoe nomonmmé mcfluw>flso mcflwmam msflomwcx mcHEoouw coHumaflmHHuom mcHHnawue mannsm mcaomm MuH>Huu¢ .cww wmmumm wuH>HuUMCH "wusmmwz VImZUIQQ mew ~v MIZOUIQJH TIIIIH||i AONV Ammo ANov HHHVNN HVHVNN HoHvom HNVNN Hova Hmvwm vavm HHVVH I Hmvov Hvav HHVv HNVNN Hmva HNVmN HHmvmmm HVNVmNN Homvoom HHVv I HNVN Hmvmm ANVHOH HNVOOH mm mm Hm HNvV ANov Amvv HHmV Avmv Hvam I Hmvhm ANVNH HHom vamN Hmva Hmva I HmVHN HmVHN ANVHH I vamv Ahvmo HmHVNm HONVNNH Hmvmm AmHVOHH AVHVOOH Hmvaom HvaHNm HNNVmom HHNmeN Hovamm I vamw Hovmo HNVVN Hva I HHvo HNVNN vamm HNVOH m w m N H awn mumn Npfl>HuU< HwQEMQU Moogm uHmpoe comoummfi mcflum>flso mcflhmam mcfiomwcx mcHEoouw cofiumaflmfluuom mCHHngue mcHnnsm mcflomm >HH>Huo< .cmo wmmumm wufl>fluumcH "musmmwz mIZOUIHQ MUNQ UHN/H UUQ IHQANEQFHU VHUOCW MIUZI qu Home Away Hmvhv I Hva I Amvmw Hova HOHVNN Hmomo HHNVNVH AmvaNH Hmva Hmvmm HNHVNmH HOHvaN mm Nm Hmvv Anvnm AHVm Hmvmo HNHVNHH vaNm Aoavmmm am Ava H¢V¢OH AHvoN HmvowH Hmvbm AHHmeH Hmvom Hmva vav HvVQOH Hvao vamv Hmvmn Hovmn HvVHN v awn HNmV Hmvwo HHVNw Hmvoo ANVNN Anymoa Hmvmh Hva Hmvmm HHVOH HHvoN vaan Amvwn Hovom vawo mumm hufl>fluo< HwQEmSU Moonm HNvV AHVVH AHVmH Hvam Amvvva HvVoN HNHVmNH HmvamH HmHVNvH AvHVNoN HmvHNH Hmvvm "Hapoe numoummd mafiuw>flzo mcflwmam mcflomwax mcHEoouo :OHumHHmHHHOm NQHHQEwue mcHnnsm mafiumm mpH>Huo¢ .cww wmmumm muH>HuUMCH "wusmmwz mlOZIQH wr—v MIDHUZ|JH~HI ANHV “no HNvmm Hva vamm HHVm ,I HHVNH HmVNNv HvVONm mm Nm HHHV Hmvmo Hmva H¢VOHv Hm HHvV Home Ahmv HmHVmHN HNNvva HmvaNN HmvmmH Avvom HvVNOH HNVNN AvaHHm HHNmeH HHHVNOH ANvao HvHVOHH I Ava AHVmH HNVvN I HNVm m w m man Home HNoV HmNVNNN HNHvoON Hmvm Hmvmm HHmvooN HmHvowH HvaowH HONvowH Hmomm ANVON mama NuH>HpU< HwQEMSU xuonm "Hmuoe numoummm mcflnw>flso mcH»MHm mcflvmwcx mcHEoouo coflumaflmflunom mcHHnEmue mcHnnsm mafiumm hufl>fipu< .cww mmmumm wuH>HpUmCH uwnsmmwz mlmUZIQQ l‘ W"”“ mlrINZUIQI‘H. HONV AmvaH HNVNNN vaNm Amvmm mm HmHV ANNV Home Hnwv I I HmvhoH I I I HHVNH I I I HNVHH HHVN Hmvme HmVHON vaHN Hmvvm Hva HvaN I HvVoN HNVVVN HOHVvNN vaoNH AvaoNH I HHVNH Hva ANVNHH AvvmmH Hvav HwHommH HNHmeH Nm Hm m v Nan vav Ammo Howe I AmvaH AHVNH AHVN AHVN HNVHw HHVm I HNvm HMHVHHH ANvaHH HoHVHNN Amvwm Hmvwm HmvaHN HNHvaH AmanoH AovamH qumN ANVNH HNVON ANHVNNN ANHVmw Aqvmm mwmm wufl>fluo¢ Hwnfimno xoonm HHmuoe nomoumm< mzfluw>flso mafiwmam mcHUmwfix mCHEoouo coflumaflmfluuom mcHHnEwue mcHnnsm mafiomm Npfl>fluo< .cww wmmomm muH>HuUwCH "wusmmwz mIMZUlflQ NAMQ muva \AUHNVHUUQ LflcyEflIL vHUOva WIZOMVINHQH. I Amvv Aavv Ammv Amvv Ahmv Avmv Ammv "Hopoe I I Avvmm I I I I I numoummd I I I I I I I I mCHH0>HDO I Hmvmm I HmvaH I I I I mcHNMHN I I I I I I I I mcflvmmflx I Hva I I HNVmN I I I mcHEOOHo I I I I I I I I cofiumaflmfluuom I I I I I I I I mcflanfiwne I HNVHH I Hva ANVOH “Hem I I mcHnnsm I I I I I I I I mafiomm I HmvaoN HONvoHN HHHvomN HmHvaH HNvamN ANHVHOH I mpH>Huu< .cwo .I vabm vanm Avva HNHVNHH HmvmmH HmHvam HNHVva ommomm I HHvawH HmvamN Hhvhw AMHVQON HOHVvNH Hmvnv HHvaw NpH>HpumcH ”wusmmwz mm Nm Hm m a m N H awn mama wufl>fluo< Hmafimno Moonm QIZOUIHH Ii NAMQ MUMQ \MUerflUUfiV LGFAEGSL vaOcmm WIUZI ‘Hq mm Hwy HNVmN HvaH AmVNom mm Hva HHvamH HmvHHH HmVOVN Hm Ammo ANNV Hmva HmHvaH HmHvooH HVHVmHH HNHVNOH HoNvomN ANNVHmN HNHVVOH HHvaHH I HHvo m v awn flavoN HHNV Hmvv AmvNN Hmvmv HoHVHNH HOHoww Amvow HmvNN HHmvHNN Hmvom HHHVmHH Amvamm HNVm Hmva mama wpfl>fluu< uwnfimno Moonm HHVOH Hva HmvHNv HNVNN "Hmuoe somoumm< mcfluw>fiso mafimmam mcflvmmcx mcHEoouo COHumHHQHHHOm mcHHngue mcansm mcfiomm MuH>Hu0< .cwo ammumm wuH>HpumcH "wnsmmwz ©IOZIQQ NAMQ QUMQ \finvflxwflflnvdw .HQ/AEFIIL XUOCW «VIQUZIQ‘HI Howe HNHV Hva "Hmuoa I I I somoumm< I I I mCHH0>HDO Amva vaHNv HHVNN mchmHm I I I mcflvmwfix ANVOH I AHvo mcHEoouw I I Amvmo I I I I I coaumaflmfluuom I I HoVVNm I I I I I mcHHnEwue I Hva I HVHVNNH Hmvmm HHVN I I mcHnnsm I I I Amvam I I I I mcflumm I HNvmmH Hmvmm ANHvaN HvamNN invawH Amvmm HONVmNN NpH>Huu< .cwo I Hva AHVo vaHm HNvaH HmvaH I icon» wmmumm I Anvmnm Hhvomv Hmvmm HNvmoH HNVNON Hmva AwHVNmH NuH>HpomcH "musmmwz mm Nm Hm m v m N H man mpmn hufl>flpo< Hwflfimao Moonm olmUZIHH QIBHZUII‘H‘H mm Hva HNvmm HNVNv HmvaH Hvam HNVHoH AoVNHH Nm HmNV HvVNHH HNvoo vamm Hmvvn HmvoNH HmvaH Hm Home Ammo AmHV Home Avov HHNVHHN HmNomVH HmoNN HomvmwN AeNVmHN I HHvo I AvaNwH I HVNVNNN ANNvomm HNVOHm Hmvwn HmvaoH I AHVm AHVm HHHVNN AHvaoH Hmvhm ANva I I HOHVNN m w m N H qu mama mpH>Huo< umaamgu Hooam "Hmpoe somoummd mafiuw>flso mcmeHm mcflcmwcx mGHEoouw cofiumaflmfluuom mcHHgamue mchnsm mcflomm muH>Huu¢ .cwo wmmomm wuH>HuUmCH "wuawmwz olmZUIQH \fmg 515400qu MULMQ “fix/HUUAN HwonEmSU VHUOSW _|||||H||i HHOHV HHNv Hmvv Aomv ANOHV Ammo Homo HHNV HNVOH HvHva HoomN I I I I I I I I HmVNVH I HHVN I I HONVHN Hva Hva HOvaN HvNVNmH HmHvon HvHvaH HHvaHH HHVN I HNvom HHVNH HNVo I I I HmNVom HHNVNOH Hmvmv HvNVNmH HmvvmmN HmNVNHv Hmmvon HmvaoN I I I I I I ANNVNOH I HvamHm HvammN HmHVmOH ANNVmNH HmmvmmH AmHvom Hmvam ANNVoHH I I I I I I Hhvmw HNHVomH vamN Anvom HHHVva I I I I AmVHH mm Nm Hm m v m N H awn mama mpH>Huo< prEmno Huonm “Hapoa flumoummm maflum>flso mcHhmHm maaomqu mcHEoouo coflumaflmfluuom mcHHnEmue mcHnnsm mafiomm >UH>Huud .cwo ammomm th>HuomcH "wusmmwz PIZOUIHA KIIIMUZI HRH Hva Hmva HmvaH HHHVHHv mm AoHv Avvoa Hmvmm Hmvwmv Nm va AmvHN Havqu Hm HHNV Home ANov HHov Hmwv I I AHVN I I HoHVNNN HNHVNvN Hmva Hmvmp Amvom HHVN HHoow vaHo HHVNH I AvamHm HHNvmmN HNHVNNH HmvamH HvHvooH I HHVm I I I ANNVvHH ANvaHH HvamNN HNNmeH HoHvaN I HNVmH Hva I Hva Avvma Aavva AmvoN AmHVHmH Amvwoa m v m N H Nan mama mpH>Hpo< umgfimno Hoogm nHmuoe nomoummfl mcHHw>HDO mcfl>mam mcflcmwcx mcflEoouw coflumaflgflnuom chHQEwHB mcHnnsm mcflumm wuH>Huua .cww wmmomm muH>HpUMCH "wusmmmz PIUZIQA h I nHUZI HQ HHV AHV HONV Away Hva HHV HNV HHV "Hmpoe I I I I I I I I numoumam I I I I I I I I mcHum>Hso I I HmvaN HmVNOH Havmw I I I mcHNmHm I I I Amoco I I I I mcHoqux I I I HHVN HvaN I I I mcHEoouo I I I I coflumaflmfluuom I I I I I I Hqum I mcHHnamue I I AHVN Amavmm I I I I mcflflflzm I I I I I I I I mafiomm I I AmvNom HmHvomN AHHVwNH I I I NHH>Huom .cmo I I I I Aavm I I I wmmomm AHvovm AHvovm ANVHH HmvNN AwomNN AHvovm HHVOVm AHvoqm NuH>HpumcH uwmmmmwm mm Nm Hm m w m N H awn mpmn mufl>fluo< Hwnfimzu Moonm nImUZIHA uvan NHMQ WDH>HUU< LQIEGIPL VHUOSW KIIIINZU|qq HNHVMON AmvaNH HHHVHmN HHVmH I Hmvhv HHVwH I I HmommH HVHVNVH HQHvomH HNVNHH HmHVmHN Hmva mm Nm Hm HNvamv HNvamv HHvoN I HHVN AHVN Amvmm HHHVHN I HHVv Hmvhm I awn HmvaoN HNvao HNVHH HONVNNH Ammo HmNo Hmvme HHHvomm HHVN HHvo HvHvooN HHvavH vamN HHvo HNVNN Hva mama Nufl>fluo< Hwnfimno Moogm uHmuoe numoummm mcfluw>flso mcflhmam maficmwcx mCHEoouw coflumaflmfluuom mcHHQEmue mcHnnsm mcHomm muH>Huu< .cwo wmmomm muH>HuomcH "wHSmmwz hImZUIAH up >— I mumg “fix/fl UUAN HQQENFHU VHUOCW H IZOD IHIHE _IIIIIH||.1 Homo HavNN vavN HmvHHN HmHVomN HmHV¢OH Hva HHVNN Hmva mm Anew Hmwv Hmov HNav Howe Hmwv meo vam Hmvwm I I I I I HNHvehH I HNHVoON Hovbo HNVNm AoHvomm HNHVNN Hmvw HNvom HNva Hmvmw HNHVNom HmvHe I HNNvmmNHOHVNNH HmHVOOH Hva HmHVOHH HNV@OH HmNVNom HvaHwN HmvmmH HeHVNOH ANvm AmHvom HNveH HOvamN HNvmm HNHVHN HNvam HvammH Hmvbw HHHvom HmHooo Hmvna I Hmoom I onHa HHVm Hovoa HNvmm HNVNHN Hmvom ivHvomN HNvm ANVHN Hmvoa Nm Hm m w m N H mmo mumn NHH>HHU< HwnEmao xuonm uH309 gomoummé mcflum>flso mafixmam msflcmwcx mCHEOOHO coflumaflmfluuom mcHHnEmue mcHnnsm mcfiomm muH>Huo< .swo wmmomm wuH>HuUMCH "wuswmwz HIZOUIEE M“NQ u..n>.H pom HMQEmrHU vHUO£m HIIIHUZIEIH HHV HNvV I HvaN I Hmvmm I HNHVNmH .I HHHVNVH HHVOVm HNHVOHH mm Nm HOHV Hva HNVHN Hva HNVmN Haemom Hm Hva Anv HovamH HmHvomN HHHVONH Ammo HmvamN HovaoN AHVHH v th HNmV Howv Hovv I Hva I HvaH I Hva Hva vaNH HNVHH HVHVNmH HNHomHH HmHvoN Hmvavm HmHVoow Hmvamq AHVm Amva Hmvww mama Nufl>fluo¢ Hwnfimno xUOQm "Hmuoe nomoumm< mCHHG>HDO mafiwmam mcflomwcx mGHEoouo coflumaflmfluuom mcHHQEmHe mchnsm mafiomm muH>HuU< .cwo wmmumm muH>HpumCH "wuswmwz HIUZImm uura. MUMQ NAUfl>HUU< LQrNEfirsL VHUOHAW HI lnNnUZ IHMNN _|||.||UHI.|i. Ammo ANHvNHH HavoN HNNVHNN HvaN HmHvHoH mm Homo HONV HmvamN HNVOHH HOHVmNm Hmva AhvaH Amvmaw Nm Hm Hmwv Ammo HHVNH I HOHvomH Hhvom Anvmm HmNVOMH vaNm HNNVHNH HmNVNNH HvamoH Avame AOvaNN HNme HHVw m w awn HmOHV Hmva HvammH ANNvme HHNvaH HoNVHoN HmNHv HHmv HONvmmH I mevaN HOvam HmmvomN vawH HMHVHo HHVm HONVme HvaNow HNVOH HNvm mama wufl>fluo< Hwnfimno xoogm "Hmuoe numonmam mCHHw>H50 mafihmam mcHomwcx mGHEOOHo GOHumHHmHuuom mafiHQEwuB mcHnnsm mafiomm Mpfl>flp04 .cmo wmmUmm NHH>HuomCH u mHDmmwz HImUZImm HIIINZUIHIE _|||Hl|l|.i AONV Hmwv Hva Homo Hove Heme HHHV HNV "Hmuoe I I I I I I I I Homoumma I I I I I HHV I I mcHuw>Hso HHVNm I Anvvw I I I I I mchmHm I I Ava I I I I I mchqux HHVNm vamm HHVVN vamHH HNVNH HNHVNNN HNVHON Hvao mcHEoouo I I I coflumaflmfluuom I I I I I I mcHHnEwue Avvmma anvmmN I AHVm I I I I mCNQQSM HNVON HmvaH I I I I I I mcHomm HmVNON HmvamH vamom HmHVNmN HoHVNON HHHVNOH HmvaH HNVNH NHH>HHU< .cwo HNVNH Amoco Hmvmv HvaN vaNNH HHvoH HHVVH HHVHN manomm HNVNm I Hmvmm HmHvaH HvHvNoN HNNVNNH HmvoON Hmvmmm NHH>HpomcH "mmmmmmm mm Nm Hm m a m N H hma mama Nufl>fluo< Hwafimno Moonm HIszImm mumn Uflxrfi UUMN IHQQEMQU MUOQW N IZOD [HIE _IIIHI mm Ammo Home HNHVNN Hvamw I Hva HmHVONNHeHVmNN HNHVNHmHmHvaH HMHVHmH Hmvhm Hhvmv Hmvoa HHVN HNHvomH Nm Hm Howv Hwov Ammo Hva I loo va Ame HmvmmH HavNN I I vaHw HavoNH HHvom HmHvaNN HQvamN HmvaoH Hvamom ANvamH HQvaoN HvammH HvammN HmvamH HNVHN HNHVHN HNHVwN HmHvomH HvaN Hovmm HHHva HNHva HovmmH HovmmH onHa HmVHo m w m N amp mama mpfl>flu0< Hwnfimno Moonm lane HHvam HNHVowH HmvawH HOHvom HaHVNNH Hmvom "HmuOB Somonmm¢ mCHHw>HDO mafimmam mafivmwcx mcHEoouo coflpmaflmflunom mcHHQEwHB mcHnnsm mcflumm wufl>fipu¢ .sww wmmumm NuH>HuUMCH "wuswmwz NIZOUIEE unlvUIHwQ uH>HuU< HMQEMfiU xuocm NIUZININHIN _IIIHIIII mm HVHV Hmv Amy I vamHN I I HNva HvaH I I HNVON HmoHHm Hmvhom Nm Hm Ammo Hmmv vaan HmHVHMN HHHVNmm AmvamN Hhvmo HHHVwOH Howe Heme HHVHm Hva HHVm Havmv “moon v awn Ammo HHmv HHVNoH Anvnm Hmvmo Hva Ammo Hva I HHVvoN Hmva Hva HNHVNNH Hva HVHowNH HNVNON HHHVHN HNva HmvaHN Hmvmv Hmvmm N H mama NuH>Huo< gwnsmnu Hoonm "Hmpoe numoummm mcflum>flso mafimmam mcflvmwcx mcHEoouo coflumafimflnuom mCHHQEmHB mcHnnsm mcflumm hpfl>fluo¢ .cwo wmmumm hpfl>fluumcH "wusmmwz NIUZIEE mnva NI WON/HIE ”35% #04 HmnHEMnHU vHUOer . , mm Ammo HOHV Hva HNvaNH Hmvho HmvaN Nm Hoe Home ANOHV Hone Home Hmwv I Hovom Hvav Hovva I I I HVHVNoH Hmvam Hva vamH I I I I HmvNH HNVm I HvaN I I I I I Hmvom I I I I I I HNHVwNH HoNVNmH HQHvom HNvam HHNmeH I HNvaNH HvammH Hmvom HHHvom HmNVNNH I HHHVom HmHVNN ANNvowH HmvavH ANHvom I I HNHVNVH HNNvme HONVHmH HONVNHN HHNvaN HHvowm HNva I HmvoH Hmvvv HNvm Hm m w m N H Nan mama NHH>HHU¢ “magmno xuonm "Hmuoe nomoumm< mcfluw>flso mcflwmam mcfiomwcm mQHEoouo coflumaflmfluuom mcHHHEwue mcHnnam mcflomm mpH>Huo< .cwo mmmumm th>HuumsH "wusmmwz NImUZImE Ii mpmq wash u0< HmnHEmnHU XUOSm NILZUIHINMIN mm Hmvv Hmbv HNV HMNV Hva I vamm HNVNHH Hmvmo HQvaN HNVNN HOvah HHHVNVH HOHVOON vavo Hovwv HmvmmH HNvam Nm Hm Hva HNNV HHVm HHHVNN Hmva vavNH Ammo ANNV Hoe I I HNVVH Hva HvaH I HNvmm I HNVQH HNvamN HoNVNmH HmHVNOH HNHVNHN HNVNNH HmvaN v m awn AVNV love I HNVNH onmNm HNVOOH I HHVm Hva Hva HOHVQNH HwHVmNH Havov HHvawH Hmva Amoco N H mama NHH>Hpo¢ “magmao xuonm "Hmuoe somoumm< mafiuw>flso mafihmam mcflvmwcx mcHEOOHG coflumaflmfluuom mcHHHEwue mcHnnsm mafiomm >pH>HuU< .cww wmmumm huH>HuUMCH ”wusmmwz NILZUIEE N lhzcrk ...:L mm Ammo HNVNN HHVmH HNHme HHvo HNHVNNH HVHVNNH Hovmm Nm Homo HmomN ANV HavoNH HHVHH HOHVNN HNVNH HvvamN Hm Heme Hmva HHVN Ammo Ammo Home ANNV I I I Hmvmm HNVOH I HHVN I HNVNH I HHVN I I I HHvo I HHvo HHHVmN HovaN AmvaN HHvo HHvaN HmHVNN Hmvmv HNHVOHH HNHVNNH HVHVHNH HvaoNN HNNvmoN HvvaoH HnHVNNH AmvamN HHNVmoH HvaNON HoHVHHN HNHVoNH Avvhm HNVN HNVmN w m N H th mumm mufl>fluu¢ Hwnfimno Moonm "Hmuoe nomoummm mQHHm>HDO acahmam maflomwcx mcHEoono coflumHHQHHuom mcflaflfiwue mcHnaam mCHumm mufl>fiuo¢ .cww wmmomm huH>HuUMCH “wusmmwz MIZOUIEE ! Enema uH>HuU< Hmnfimgo XUOQm MIUZIII mm AHV HHvoqm Nm HHHV vamH HNvmo Hmvmmv Hm HNHV HwNV HmvaN Hmvmv I Hva I Hva vaNm HHHVONH HOvavN HNHVmom m v Nmn Hva HmomH HNVHH Hovom vaHv Hmvwom HwNv Hmvv HNvmo AmvaH Hmva vamHH HNVHH vawH HNVN I HNVNNH HNVNN Hmvvm vamv HNVONN HvvamH mama mpH>Huu< HwnEmno Hoonm "Hmuoe nomoummm mcflnw>flso mcHNMHm msflvmwcx mcHEoouo coflumaflmfluuom mcHHQEwHB mcHnnsm mafiomm mpH>Huud .cww wmmowm NUH>HuUMCH "wuswmwz MIUZIEE MI nHUZImHiI mm HHVNH HHVHNH Havana HNVmN Hmvom HmVNHv Nm HQHV HHVOH HmvoN HQVOHm Hm Hva va HNVNN HHVN HOHVNHH Hovoo Hovhmm Ammo Hmvv HHVN HNVHN Hovhv I HHVoH Hmvmm HONvomN HVHVONH HmHVHOH AmHVovN HVvamH Hmvvn v m awn HNHV Hmwv vamm HoVNNH Hhvmmm HmHVNNH vamm HvaomH HNvmm HOvam N H mama muH>HuU< quEMSU xoonm "Hmuoe numoummfi mcHHw>HSO mafixmam mcflvmwcx mcHEoouw coHumHHmHHHom mcHHHEwue mcHnnsm mCHomm muH>Huu¢ .cww wmmomm wyfl>fluomcH "wusmmwz MImUZImm w xv“.— NPMQ \AUIfixwflUUAN IHfl‘raErfirar» VHUOCW mIII mUZIMNHH mm HONV HHVNH HHVHNH Havana HNva Hmvom HNVNHV Nm HOHv HHVOH HNVON HmVOHm Hm HmNV Ammo Hmvv HNHV Hwy I I I HNva HHVN HNVHN Avvmm I Hovnv I I HHVN HHVmH Hmvmm I HOHVNHH HONmeN HwHVONH Hmvoo HmHVHOH HmHvovN vamm Hovhmm HVvamH HQVVN HNvmm m w m N awn mama Nufl>fluu< HwnEmso Moonm Hmvv HOVNNH HNVwmm HNHVNNH AvHvomH HOHme "Hmuoa nomouam¢ mcfluw>flso mcflhmam mafiomwcx mcHEOOHO coflumaflmflunom mcHHQEwHB mcHnnsm mcHumm mpfl>fiuo< .cwo wmmomm NpH>HpUmCH u mhgmmwz MImUZlmm MILZUINEIH muth UH>HHU< HwnHEman vHUOer Amhv AOBV Avmv "Hmuoe I I I :omoumma I AHV AOHV I I I I I mcHum>Hzo I I I I I Hva HNVHH Hmva mcHNmHa I Hmvmn HNHVoOH HNvom HmHVmHH I I I mcHoqux I HmVHN HHVm I vaNm Hmvom HNvmmH Hvam mcHEoouw I I coaumaflmfluuom I I I mCHHQEmuB I I Hva HNVo HovNN Hmvnw Hmvmm Hmvmv mcHnnsm I I Avom I HmvHH Amva Hmvmm Hmva mcHumN I HOHVHm HmHVNNN HmHVNHN HmHvaH HNNvoNH HoNvaH HvHvoNH NHH>HHU< .cmo I HHVm I Hovmo HHHVNHH HmHvaH HwHVNOH HmHvaH mmmumm I HmVon HOHVNVH HNHVmoH HmHva HvHvNN Hmvwv Amoco NHH>HuomcH n MHDmmwz mm Nm Hm m v m N H awn mumn hpfl>fluo< HwQEMQU Moonm MImZUImm .mukwfl. \AHHNVHUUAN LGIEHJL XUOSW VIZOUINIHHIH mm Heme HOHvoo ANV Amvamm HmvmmH AHVvH Hva HHVN Amy HOvamH Hvam HOvaHm HNHmem Nm Hm Hmv “Nev . Ahmv vav I HNvaHN HNVON HmvmvH I I I HNvo I I I HNVN HNVHN HmvaNN HNHvon HmHvNHH I Hva HVHVNNH HwHVOHN Hmvam Hmvam Hmva HOHvoo m v m N mmo mumn mpH>Huo¢ “magmgo Huonm Hmvv HNVHN Hva AvanoH HovaNN HHvaNH nH309 gowoumm< mcfluw>flso mCNNMHm mcflummcm mcHEoouo coflumaflmflnuom mcHHQEmHB mcHnnsm mcflomm mufl>fluo< .cwo wmmumm NuH>HuumcH "wusmmwz VIZOUIEE I HH mpma uH>H uofi “$8:an Moosm VIUZIEHIH mm Hmvv HoHv HovmmH HNVvOH HmvNo HHvamH Nm ANNV Ammo Homo Hobo Hva Hone Hmv HmHv HONV I I I HNVNON Hmvme HNVONN HNvomH HNvam Hvam I Aavfl ANVmH AwHVmoH Avvaw Aoavho I Hva HNva HmvamH Hmva HNVoN HmvoH HNvaNN HmvamH HmvaHH HNVvOH HvaHm HHom Hmvom Hhvmo HNHVNOH Hovmm HNHVNNH HNvaom Hmvwh Hovmm HNVvN HmVHH HoHVomH Hm m w m N H awn mama wpfl>fluo< HwQEan Moonm "Hapos Lomoummm mcfluw>flso mCHNMHm mcfivmwcx mcHEoonw coHumHHQHHHOm mcHHHawue mcHansm mcflomm muH>Hpu< .cww wmmomm Npfl>fiuumaH "wusmmwz VIUZIEE Eva mnvaH WUerflUUmN LGIEGIL MUOQW VI “021% I Hoe Hov HmHv HHNV Have Ammo love I HmVNHN I I I I I I I I I HNvm I Hmvmm HHHVNv vaHH I I I I I HNVVH vamH I I I I HNVHOH Hmvmm HOvaNH HNHvom Amomm I I Hmvmw HNVHN Hovom Hmva HNHVNHH HNvawN I HHVOVm Hmvmmv HNvav Hovnov HmHvoom HVHvoom HNHvaN mm Nm Hm m w m N H Nan mama NuH>Huo< uwnfimso Moonm "Hmuoe nomouama mcfluw>flso mafimmam mcflcmmcx mGHEoouw COHuMHHQHHHom mcHHngue mcHnnsm m:flomm >pH>Huo< .cwo wmmumm huH>HuUmCH "wusmmwz WImUZlmm MDMQ \AUHNVHUUQ .HGFNFFIIIIL MUOQW VIENZUIEIH mm AmVNMH HNvomH HmvovH “How vava Nm Hmvmm HmomoH vamH HmVNwH AQVMHH Hm HmvmmH vame Hovmm HHVNN Ahvmva Hmva vanm Hmvmm HNvHvH HNVHNH v mma Hmvva Avvbm HHomm Hmvme vawaa HQNV Hmvmo Hvao HvVHHH HQVONH HNVNN I HmvaH AVVONH HNvow Hmva HmvooH HHHVNHN N H mumn mpH>Huu< Mwnfimgo Moonm HHmuoe nomoummé mQHHw>HDO mafihmam mcflcmwcx mcHEoouo coflumaflmfluuom mcHHnEwue mcHnnsm mafiomm hpfl>flu0< .cwo mmmomm hufl>fluumcH "wnsmmwz vaZUImm r m mnvmg \ADHNVHHUQ LQIEGJL MUOQW WIZOUIHINHIH Homo Hva Hmvo HONV HNHVVNH HmvHoN HmHvomH HNva HNva vamm HNVN Hmvnm vamo Hmva HmVHm I HmVNH Hmva I AHNVHVH I I I HNVNN HNvamH HmHvaH HmHVNHH HNHVNOH I Hva AHVN HNVNN Amvww HVVNN HWHVmoN HmvamH m v m N awn m¢m0 NUH>Huo< HwQEmno xoonm "HmuOB numonmm< mGHHw>HDO mcflwmam mcavmwcx mQNEOOHw coflumafimfluuom mcHHHEwue qunnsm mafiumm wufl>fluu< .cwo mmmomm wuH>HuumcH n wHDmmwz mIZOUImm m mqu Wpfl>fluo< HaEIEIcE VHUONHm WICZIEE _IIIHIII. mm HHV HHVOVm Nm Avv HNVNH HNVHNm Hm Ahmv Hamv Homo Ammo Hmov Hva HNVmN HNVNN I I HoHVNNH HmHVHoN Hmva HNHme Hovmm HNVmH HNVVH HNVHw I I HNHVNHH HmHva Hmva HNHVom HvHVHm I I I HHVN I HmHVNoH HmHvaH ANNVHNH HNNvam HmNVNmN I I HvawHN I HHHVNm Hova Hvam HmVHH Hova HNVmOH m w m N H hmn mpmn Nufl>fluo< Hmnfimno Mooam "Hmuoe sumoumm4 mCHHw>HSO mCHNmHm mcflvmmcx mGHEoouw coflpmaflmflunom NCHHQEmue mcHnnsm mcfiomm NHH>HHU< .cwo mmmomm muH>HHUMCH "wHSmmwz mIUZImm w,“ - — MUMQ nix/H pom “~09:an vHUOCm MI «HUZIE mm ANNV vavv Hhvvm HmHvooN HmvomH Nm on HmVNmH HHVNm HmvmvN Hm Howe AHvawN HHVOH vawm HNVNH Hmvwm Hmva vav Hmov Hmvv Hva vamm vamo I Hva HmvaNH HNHvomH HmHVNNN I Havov Hova HHVmH Amoco ANNvaH HONVVmH HNHVNNH I I I HHVm I HmNVNNH HmvamH HHHVHN HonNH Hmvom I HmvNN HNVON Hhvmm Haven Hbvmm HOvavN v m N H awn mama mufl>fluo< Hwnfimflo Mooam "Hapoe somoummd mcfluw>flso mcfixmam mcflvmwcx mcHEoouw :ofiumaflmflunom mcHHHEmue mchnsm mcflomm th>Huu< .cwo wmmumm mpfl>fluomcH "mHSmmwz mImUZIEE wan» m I Int/HO I NINE I Heme HoNv Hva ANNV Hva HmHV Amy "Hmuoe I I I I I I I I numoumm¢ I I I I I I I I mcfluw>flso I HovwhH HNonH HmvmmH HmvaH vavHH I I mcHNmHN I I I I I I I I mcflvmwax I vanm Hvao HNVNOH Amvva HHVNN I Hvav mcHaoouo I I I I I coflumaflmfluuom I I I I I I I I mCHHQEmuB I HNVN HNVNN HNVNw HHVmH HHVmN I I mcHnnsm I HNVNN HvaN HNVmN HHVN Hva I I mcHomm I HmHvaH HOHVomH HNVmHH HOHVNNH HNVoON Hmvme HHvom NHH>Huu< .cww I I I I HHVHH HmvNo HavNHH I mmmumm I HNVmHH HmVONH vamNH AoVHm H¢VNOH vammN HHoomv NHH>HuumcH uwmmmmwm mm Nm Hm m v m N H mmo m#mn Nufl>fluo< HwQEan Moosm mImzolmm !"w mpmq uH>HuU< HmnEmflu Moonm QIZCCIEE I ANNV HmHV ANNV quv Hva Ammo ANNV "Hapoe I I I I I I I I nomoummm I I I I I I I I mcfluw>fiso I I I I I I I I mcflmmam I I I I HavoH I I I mchmwcx I HNVNN HNvmmH Hmvamm vamNN HNmeH HMvamN HHHVNwm mcHEOOHw I coflpmaflmfluuom I I I I I I mCHHQEwuB I I I I HNVNN I I I mcHnnsm I I I I I I I I mcflomm I vaHm Hvam I HvHVHON HmvmoH HmvmnH vaNm NHH>HHU< .cmo I I I I AHvo HHVHH I I ammomm I HHHVNNN HNmeN HVHVNmH Hmvmm HmvaN HvHVoNH HOHVQOH NHH>HuomsH "mmwmmwfl mm Nm Hm m w m N H hma mama NuH>Huo< HwHEmno xuonm oIZOUImm vyw UHNVHUU . . Q HQAHEM 6 M00 m S mm Home HoNV Hva Homo Ammo Hove AHVwH I Aaavmm AOHVmOH Amvmoa APVPNH I I Hmvom HNHva Hovow I Hva I I Hva I I HONVNm I HONVON HvHvoN Hva I I I I I I HNvom HwNvmmm HNHVHvH mevme HNmeHN AvammN HNHVNNN Havoc HNVONN HmvNo HOHVNo HVHVNNH HHHVvN HNva HNVNNH AvaN AHVN Hova HVVNN Nm Hm m w m N hmo mama muH>Hpo< uwnamnu xuonm HNHV Avvmma HmvaN Hvam Hmvmw uH309 nomoummd mCHHw>HDO mafimwam mcflomwcx mcHEoouo :oflumaflmfluuom mcHHngus mcHnnsm mcflomm MuH>Hu0< .cww mmmomm wufl>fluom2H "mnsmmwz ®IUZIEE Wr“‘“ mm Hmv HNHV Ammo Howe Hva Hva Homo I I Hovom HHVNH I I I I I HvaH Hmvom Hva I I Hmva HmvHN HmHvaH Hmon HOHvHoH HNHVHmN HmvawN I I AHVN HNvm HNVm HNvm I I HHVNN HNNVHom HHNVNNN ANNvmoN HvvamH HmvomH HvaH HNVNN HNVHN ANVNm Hmva HHVN I Hmvwom Hovmow vamH Hmvmm Hmvom HHHVom HmvamH Nm Hm m w m N H hma mama muH>Huu< Hwnfimno xoonm "Hapoa nomonmmm mGHHw>HSO mcflwmam msflvmocx mcHEoonw aoflumaflmfluuom mcHHnEwue mcHansm mcflomm >pfi>fluo¢ .cmo wmmumm >ua>fipumCH "wHSmmwz olmUZImm MUMQ NUH>HHU< .HmnHENSU #LCrHU. I HNHV HNNV Hva Hva HHNV Ahmv HOHV nH38: I I I I I I I I nomoummm I I I I I I I I mcfluw>flso I HmVNON HmvaH HmvmmH HovmmH Hmvme HmVNN I mcHNMHm I I I I I I I I mcHUqux I HHVHw HHVOH vamw Hvam HNvmv HNvov Hmvwh quEOOgo I I I I I cofiumafimflnuom I I I I I I I I mcHHHEmue I HHVNm I HNVNH Hmvvv Hmvom Hmvom I mchnsm I HNva HwVNN I Havom Hmvvm vaNw I mcHumN I HvawH HOHVNVH HmvwvH HHHVVON HOHVHOH AmHVOHH HNVmN mpH>Huu< .cmo I I HvaH I Hmvom I HNvom I wmmumm I HHvov HHvaH HmvmmH Hvav Haven vamoH Hmvva NHH>HuumcH uwmmmmwm mm Nm Hm m w m N H mmn mumm Npfl>fluu< Hwnfimno xoonm mIszImm Viv-r -‘ ua>fluo< HmnEM£U x00£m mm Homo Hva HHHVHN HvVHN HOvamm Nm Hva HNvomH Anvvov Hm Ammo HmHVONN vamN Hovmm Hovam Anvom vanm Ammo vavm HoHVNNH HNVmH HNNVNHH HvamNH HwHVmHH HmHomm Hva v >mQ Have HNVHVN Hovvh HHVNN Hmvmm HmVHN Hevhw ANNV HONV HNVmNm invomN HHVN HNVNN HHom I HmvmoH HNVON HNVN I Hmvhm HvVHNH N H mama muH>Hpo< HwnEmso Hoonm "Hmpoe Lomoummd mcHHw>HsO mcHNMHm mafivmwcx mcHEOOHO coflumaflmfluuom NCHHnEwue NCHnnsm mCHomm wufl>fiuu< .cwo wmmumm wuH>HuUMCH "wuswmwz NIZOOIEE us-r MUMD. >UH>HUU< LGFAEESL #[CIU mm Hmv HNVmN Hmvam Nm HmHv HovmoN HNva HNomwN Hm Hmv Ammo HHmv AoNV I vamN HHVv I HHVNmH Amoco HNVNNH Hmvnm I Hmva HHvo Havom Hquv HHNVNVH HNHVNNN HNvmmH I HNVNN HNVmH HHVN Hmvvvm HNHVNmN HwVHHH HNVNNN m v m N Nan mumn muH>Hpum HwnEmnu xuogm Howe vamN Hmvom HQHme HmvamH vawv AmocoH nH309 comoummd mcfluw>flso mafimmam mcfiomwcm mCHEOOHw coflumaflmfluuom mcHHHEmHB mcHnnsm mCHomm muH>Huu< .cwo wmmumm huH>HuomcH "wusmmwz NIUZIEE sun UH>H uu< HwnHEmao Moocm Avmv ”HmuOB I nomoumm< I mcflnw>wso I I I HmvamN AHHVNHN HHHVNvH AHHVNwN AmvmmH mCHNmHN I I I HNVHH HHVOH I I I mcHoqux I I I I I HmVNHH Hva AvaN mcHEoouw I I Aavwoa I I I I I QOHumHHQHHHOm I I I I I I I I mCHHQEwHB I I I I I I I I mcflnflsm I I I I I I I I mcflomm I I Hva HNHVONH HOHVOHN ANHvaH ANVHHH HNVNON NHH>Huu< .cwo I HNVN I HOHVow HNVNw I I I manomm I Hmvmmm HNmem Hmvmm Hovom HOHVNNH HNVNNH HNVNVH NHH>HuomcH "wmmmmwm mm Nm Hm m a m N H mmo mama mufl>fiuo< Hwnfimno Moonm hImozImm .... uH>HuU< H®QEM£U x00£m mm Hmvam HNVNN AhvaH Nm Heme HNVNmN vaNHm HNVOHm HmvmmN HNvmow vava I I I vaHN I Hova HNV¢N I HHVm HovHN I Hmvww I I I HHVN I onmN vawHH Hmva HmvNN HmvaH HovmmH HOHVNmH Hm m a m N H man mama mpH>Huo< umgfimxo Hoonm "amuoe numouamd mcflum>flso mafiwmam mcflumwcx mcHEoouw coflumafimfluuom mcHHHEwue mcHnnsm mafiomm huH>Hu04 .cmw wmmomm mua>apomcH "wuzwmwz hImZUlmm i w ISITV LIBRARIES I 1 4 ‘ 71 UNIVERSITY Ll ”'IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IBRIARIES 1 03071 487