An opponent-process interpretation of postshock bursts in appetitive responding

LaBarbera, Joseph D.; Caul, William F.

doi:10.3758/bf03214426

Cited by 8 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Post shock suppression diminishes as fear discrimination continues, and is mostly confined to the first two seconds immediately following shock offset. Consistent with a prior report 19 , foot shock facilitation of reward seeking emerges during later sessions. Facilitation is observed when foot shock is fully predicted on danger trials and is surprisingly delivered on uncertainty trials.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

“…Alternatively, the opponent process theory of acquired motivation can also provide an account of post shock increases in appetitive behaviour 19,[43][44][45] . In opponent process theory, presentation of an aversive stimulus elicits a negative hedonic 'a process' and is followed by an opponent positive 'b process'.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Picture a rat exploring a novel environment when foot shock is unexpectedly delivered. Foot shock delivery will elicit a brief, undirected activity burst, followed by freezing [17][18][19][20] . While theoretical accounts vary [21][22][23] , the behavioural phenomenon of post shock freezing is widely observed [24][25][26][27][28] .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In their original demonstration, Estes and Skinner noted a compensatory increase in responding following shock delivery, though this was perhaps a return to baseline. later demonstrated that foot shock can facilitate reward seeking 19 . Even more, the magnitude of facilitation increased with foot shock experience.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Foot shock facilitates reward seeking in an experience-dependent manner

Strickland

Dileo

Moaddab

et al. 2021

Behavioural Brain Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Animals organize reward seeking around aversive events. An abundance of research shows that foot shock, as well as a shock-associated cue, can elicit freezing and suppress reward seeking. Yet, there is evidence that experience can flip the effect of foot shock to facilitate reward seeking. Here we examine cue suppression, foot shock suppression and foot shock facilitation of reward seeking in a single behavioural setting. Male Long Evans rats received fear discrimination consisting of danger, uncertainty and safety cues. Discrimination took place over a baseline of rewarded nose poking. With limited experience, all cues and foot shock strongly suppressed reward seeking. With continued experience, suppression became specific to shock-associated cues and foot shock facilitated reward seeking. Our results provide a means of assessing positive properties of foot shock, and may provide insight into maladaptive behavior around aversive events.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Foot shock facilitates reward seeking in an experience-dependent manner

Strickland

Dileo

Moaddab

et al. 2021

Behavioural Brain Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We have previously reported data showing that postshock inhibition of fear did indeed increase as a function of trials (LaBarbera & Caul, 1976). However, for reasons that are not clear, this effect was not noted in the present study where subjects failed to exhibit less distress during CS z as a function of the number of CSt-shock trials during Phase 1.…”

Section: L----jcontrasting

confidence: 52%

Decrement in distress to an aversive event during a conditioned positive opponent-process

LaBarbera

Caul

1976

Animal Learning & Behavior

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

During Phase I, 24 rats received CSt (light)-shock trials while the remaining 24 rats received CSt and shock on a random control schedule. During Phase 2, all subjects were presented trials of CS. (tone)-shock. When CS. was subsequently presented immediately after CSt while subjects licked for water, it was found that subjects that had received CSt-shock pairings during Phase 1 exhibited less suppression of licking to CS., indicating less distress, than control subjects. The results are compatible with the opponent-process theory and suggest the presence of a positive hedonic afterreaction to an aversive event which reduced distress to a following aversive event.Can the delivery of an aversive event reduce the magnitude of distress experienced by a rat in reaction to a subsequent aversive event? Solomon and Corbit's (1974) opponent-process theory of motivation implies that a hedonically positive aftereffect aroused by an aversive event should reduce the distress elicited by an aversive event that immediately follows. The theory holds that a hedonically positive b-process, as well as a negative a-process, is activated during the presentation of an aversive event. However, the b-process is sluggish in nature: it appears after the arousal of the a-process and decays after the aversive stimulus and the a-process have terminated. Therefore, if the positive hedonic effect that remains after the termination of the aversive event is temporally superimposed upon a following aversive event, the magnitude of distress elicited by that second event should be diminished.Solomon and Corbit hypothesize further that repeated presentations of the same aversive event have no effect upon the negative a-process. However, after many presentations, the positive b-process is strengthened in intensity. Consequently, during stimulus onset, the strengthened b-process serves to diminish the effects of the a-process. When the stimulus and the a-process are terminated, the strengthened b-process is apparent in terms of behavior that is motivationally more intense that before. The theory predicts, therefore, that after repeated delivery of an aversive event, its capacity to reduce distress to a subsequent aversive event should increase.Preliminary data from our laboratory suggest that a positive afterreaction to an aversive event can

show abstract

The opponent-process theory of acquired motivation: The costs of pleasure and the benefits of pain.

Solomon¹

1980

American Psychologist

303

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An opponent-process interpretation of postshock bursts in appetitive responding

Cited by 8 publications

References 14 publications

Foot shock facilitates reward seeking in an experience-dependent manner

Foot shock facilitates reward seeking in an experience-dependent manner

Decrement in distress to an aversive event during a conditioned positive opponent-process

The opponent-process theory of acquired motivation: The costs of pleasure and the benefits of pain.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About