CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,610Memory and Neural MechanismsAnimal Behavior and ReproductionPrimate Behavior and Ecology

Species-specific defense reactions and avoidance learning

Bolles, Robert C.·1970·Psychological Review
DOI 10.1037/h0028589
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The prevailing theories of avoidance learning and the procedures that are usually used to study it seem to be totally out of touch with what is known about how animals defend themselves in nature. This paper suggests some alternative concepts, starting with the assumption that animals have innate species-specific defense reactions (SSDRs) such as fleeing, freezing, and fighting. It is proposed that if a particular avoidance response is rapidly acquired, then that response must necessarily be an SSDR. The learning mechanism in this case appears to be suppression of nonavoidance behavior by the avoidance contingency. The traditional approaches to avoidance learning appear to be slightly more valid in the case of responses that are slowly acquired, although in this case, too, the SSDR concept is relevant, and reinforcement appears to be based on the production of a safety signal rather than the termination of an aversive conditioned stimulus. Avoidance learning as we know it in the laboratory has frequently been used to explain how animals survive in the wild. The purpose of this paper is to turn this inferential process around and use the limited knowledge of natural defensive behavior to help account for some of the anomalies that have been found in laboratory studies of avoidance learning. Let us begin by recalling a little fable. It is a very familiar fable. It was already part of our lore when Hull gave his version of it in 1929, and the story has been told again many times since then. It goes something like this: Once upon a time there was a little animal who ran around in the forest. One day

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/h0028589

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In response to threat and injury animals, including humans, execute biologically based, non-conscious action patterns that prepare them to meet the threat by defending themselves.

    “In response to threat and injury animals, including humans, execute biologically based, non-conscious action patterns that prepare them to meet the threat by defending themselves.”

    From Somatic experiencing: using interoception and proprioception as core elements of trauma therapy (2015) · cites this paper as Bolles, 1970

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bolles, R. C.
Affiliations
University of Washington (US)
Corresponding author
Bolles, Robert C.
Venue
Psychological Review
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
1970-01
Volume
77
Issue
1
Pages
32-48
ISSN
  • 0033-295X (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1471
DOI
10.1037/h0028589
OpenAlex
W2127959107
Cited by
1,610
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 26 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 27 · 2023: 29 · 2022: 35 · 2021: 29 · 2020: 25 · 2019: 30 · 2018: 30 · 2017: 32 · 2016: 28 · 2015: 24 · 2014: 27 · 2013: 27 · 2012: 24
FWCI
40.44
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Psychological Review (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Animal Behavior and Reproduction
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Primate Behavior and Ecology
Keywords
avoidance learning, innate behavior, freezing, fighting, safety signals

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review