Social support effects on cardiovascular reactivity: is a stranger as effective as a friend?

OBJECTIVE: We investigated whether the effects on cardiovascular reactivity of social support from an audience member depend only on the behavior of that person or also depend on the relationship between the audience and the actor. That is, is there any added reduction in physiological response if the person who is nodding and smiling supportively is also a friend? METHOD: Ninety subjects gave a speech to an observer. In two of the conditions, this observer was a confederate of the experimenter and a stranger to the subject. This confederate acted in either a supportive or neutral manner during the speech. In the final condition, this observer was a friend, brought by the subject, who was then trained to show support in the same manner as the supportive confederate. The comparison of the two confederate conditions tested the effect of support, holding the relationship constant. The comparison of friend and confederate supportive conditions tested the effect of the relationship, holding the supportive behaviors constant. All participants were female. RESULTS: Both supportive conditions produced significantly smaller cardiovascular increases than the confederate-neutral condition, and the friend-supportive condition produced significantly smaller systolic blood pressure increases than the confederate-supportive (friend-supportive: 7.9 mm Hg: confederate-supportive: 14.9 mm Hg; confederate-neutral: 22.9 mm Hg). Differences for diastolic pressure and heart rate were not significant, although the data followed the same pattern. CONCLUSIONS: Social support from a friend attenuated cardiovascular reactivity in a laboratory setting to a greater degree than support from a stranger. The subjects' construal of the supportive behaviors can have an effect on reactivity, over and above the effects of the actual behaviors themselves.

Systematic changes in gaping during the ontogeny of pecking in ring doves (Streptopelia risoria).

Food pecking in the ring dove is a skilled prehensile response that is similar to, but simpler than, many other prehensile responses. Previous work has shown that this response is initially poorly executed and requires experience for its accurate direction and coordination. The response involves two components: the thrusting of the bird's head toward food, and the opening and closure of the beak around food. Here, this second component, called gape, is followed through development with a precise measurement system. Four squabs moved through a similar sequence of three gape topographies, each of which is more efficient in picking up seed, during development. The present outcome, together with other work, argues for a substantial contribution of experience with pecking to the development of food pecking. We discuss the implications of these findings for understanding the ontogeny of motor control and for understanding how experience affects behavioral development.

Prehension in the pigeon. I. Descriptive analysis.

Eating in the pigeon involves a series of jaw movements some of which serve a prehensile function; i.e., they are utilized in the grasping and manipulation of objects. These prehensile behaviors are extremely brief (30-80 ms), produce an adjustment of jaw opening amplitude to the size of the food object, are mediated by an effector system involving a relatively small number of muscles and are amenable to both "reflexive" and "voluntary" control. This combination of structural simplicity and functional complexity suggests that the pigeon's jaw movements may provide a useful "model system" for the study of motor control mechanisms in targeted movements. The present report provides a classification of jaw opening movements occurring during eating and a preliminary determination of the extent to which each movement class is scaled to the size of the food object. Jaw movements were monitored during responses to spherical food pellets of six different sizes (3.2-11.1 mm in diameter) using a transducing system which produces a continuous record of gape (i.e., interbeak distance). Assignment to movement classes was then carried out using a computer-assisted scoring program. Functions relating jaw opening amplitude to target size were determined for each movement class. Four jaw movement classes were identified: Prepecks (just prior to pecking), Grasps (opening movements made during pecking but prior to contact with the target), Mandibulations (movements serving to position and transport the object within the buccal cavity) and Swallows. For two of these movement classes (Grasps, Mandibulations) jaw opening amplitude is scaled to pellet size but the scaling functions differ in ways that reflect the functional requirements of the two behaviors.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Grasping in the pigeon (Columba livia): final common path mechanisms.

A combination of cinematographic and denervation procedures were used to analyse the mechanisms involved in the adjustment of gape size during grasping in the pigeon. Gape size was found to vary directly with seed size and to reflect the operation of two variables, jaw opening velocity and jaw opening duration. Effects upon duration are mediated, indirectly, by the effect of seed size upon head height, which, in turn, controls the velocity of head descent. The data suggest that the control of gape during grasping may involve two different effector systems (jaw muscles, neck muscles). Analysis of the displacement of individual jaws (maxilla, mandible) during grasping indicates that both opener muscles take part in the control of gape. Denervation experiments (motor nerve section) identified these opener motoneurons as contributors to the final common path for the opening phase of grasping. A comparison of the kinematics of pecking/grasping in pigeons and reaching/grasping in humans reveals a number of similarities in the topography and spatiotemporal organization of these behaviors.

"On-line" monitoring of jaw movements in the pigeon.

A system for the monitoring of jaw movements in the pigeon is described. A Hall-effect device mounted on the pigeon's upper beak is used to sense voltage changes induced by variations in the position of a magnet mounted on the lower beak. Analogue voltage changes are digitized and monitored by a microprocessor. The system produces data comparable to that obtained using high speed cinematography but permits "on-line" measurements of gape and increases the rapidity of data acquisition and analysis. It may be used to monitor beak movements during consumatory (eating, drinking) and conditioned (key-pecking) behaviors.

Trace autoshaping: Acquisition, maintenance, and path dependence at long trace intervals.

The pigeon's tendency to acquire and maintain signal-directed key pecking under a trace conditioning procedure was parametrically examined. In Experiment 1, the percentage of CS trials with a key peck response was a decreasing function of the trace interval for separate groups of pigeons. The majority of subjects acquired signal-directed key pecking with trace intervals as long as 36 sec. In Experiment 2, differential maintenance of key pecking occurred across trace intervals in a within-subject procedure. Maintenance of key pecking at 36- and 60-sec trace intervals was path dependent in that responding depended on the subject's performance under the preceding trace interval.

Rate and temporal pattern of key pecking under autoshaping and omission schedules of reinforcement.

The role of response-reinforcer contiguity on autoshaped key pecking in pigeons was studied by scheduling response-dependent nonreinforcement at the beginning or the end of brief (8-sec) discrete trials. Schedules that permitted chance conjunctions of key pecking and food sustained high rates of responding, whereas those that prevented the occurrence of key peck-food intervals shorter than 4 sec sustained low response rates. In addition, selective reinforcement schedules supported accelerating or decelerating rates of responding within individual trials. These effects were traceable to response-reinforcer (operant), but not stimulus-reinforcer (respondent) factors.