A new theory of motivation is described along with its applications to addiction and aversion. The theory assumes that many hedonic, affective, or emotional states are automatically opposed by central nervous system mechanisms which reduce the intensity of hedonic feelings, both pleasant and aversive. The opponent processes for most hedonic states are strengthened by use and are weakened by disuse. These simple assumptions lead to deductions of many known facts about acquired motivation. In addition, the theory suggests several new lines of research on motivation. It argues that the establishment of some types of acquired motivation does not depend on conditioning and is nonassociative in nature. The relationships between conditioning processes and postulated opponent processes are discussed. Finally, it is argued that the data on several types of acquired motivation, arising from either pleasurable or aversive stimulation, can be fruitfully reorganized and understood within the framework provided by the opponent-process model.First, we describe the kind of phenomenon which has caught our attention. Two fictitious examples will suffice. In the first, a woman at work discovers a lump in her breast and immediately is terrified. She sits still, intermittently weeping, or she paces the floor. After a few hours, she slowly regains her composure, stops crying, and begins to work. At this point, she is still tense and disturbed, but no longer terrified and distracted. She manifests the symptoms usually associated with intense anxiety. While in this state she calls her doctor for an appointment. A few hours later she is in his office, still tense, still frightened: She is obviously a very unhappy woman. The doctor makes his examination.1 This research was supported by U. S. Public Health Service Grant MH-04202 to the first author and Grant MH-16608 to the second author. We are grateful to Burton S. Rosner, Francis W. Irwin, and Martin E. P. Seligman for their painstaking and helpful editing of an earlier draft of this paper. Finally, we are indebted to Dorothea Jameson Hurvich and Leo M. Hurvich, whose development of the Hering theory into their coherent, opponent-process color vision theory first suggested to us a new way of thinking about affect and hedonic process.2 Requests for reprints should be sent to Richard

The history of 2-process learning theory is described, and the logical and empirical validity of its major postulates is examined. The assumption of 2 acquisition processes requires the demonstration of an empirical interaction between 2 types of reinforcement contingencies and (a) response classes, (b) reinforcing stimulus classes, or (c) characteristics of the learned behavior itself. The mediation postulates of 2-process theory which argue that CRs are intimately involved in the control of instrumental responding are emphasized, and 2 major lines of evidence that stem uniquely from these postulates are examined : (a) the concurrent development and maintenance of instrumental responses and conditioned reflexes, and (b) the interaction between separately conducted Pavlovian conditioning contingencies and instrumental training contingencies in the control of instrumental behavior. The evidence from concurrent measurement studies provides, at the very best, only weak support for the mediational hypotheses of 2-process theory. In contrast, the evidence from interaction studies shows the strong mediating control of instrumental responses by Pavlovian conditioning procedures, and demonstrates the surprising power of Pavlovian concepts in predicting the outcomes of many kinds of interaction experiments. Parts of this paper were delivered in a *. ' Harold Schlosberg Memorial Symposium time of occurrence and the duration of address, Eastern Psychological Association, a trial without any regard to the ani-Atlantic City April 1965 This paper is mal ' s behavior. That is, E arranges dedicated to the memory of Harold Schlos-... , ... .?, berg relations between stimulus events which

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

The purpose of this paper is to describe two particular ideas, which we shall call "anxiety conservation" and "partial irreversibility," within a general theory of anxiety and avoidance learning. In doing so, more familiar postulates appear to us to generate some new and interesting theorems about behavior, some of which seem to correspond to established facts. We shall not concern ourselves at this time with an exhaustive review of empirical data. Rather, we shall direct our attention to a theoretical argument and shall illustrate specific points with observations drawn from the following fields: avoidance learning, psychotherapy, physiological psychology, and psychosomatic medicine.Although we shall make no attempt here to validate thoroughly the logical deductions from our theoretical notions, 1 We wish to thank our colleagues for many instructive and constructive criticisms of the preliminary drafts of this manuscript. We are especially indebted to G.

No abstract