Inhibitory interactions between appetitive and aversive stimuli.

Abstract

This article reviews the behavioral evidence that a stimulus of a given affective value will exert a central inhibitory influence on responding maintained by stimuli of the opposite affective value. The effects of aversive stimuli on appetitively motivated behavior and of appetitive stimuli on aversively motivated behavior are considered separately. The evidence for a true inhibitory action is evaluated in terms of three behavioral criteria: the summation, retardation, and counterconditioning tests. Special attention is paid to the role of peripheral response interactions in determining the outcome of these tests. Although aversive stimuli meet all three criteria as inhibitors of appetitive behavior, the evidence that appetitive stimuli inhibit aversively motivated behavior is far less consistent. The strongest evidence for the inhibitory effect of appetitive stimuli comes from studies attempting to countercondition the reinforcing properties of aversive stimuli. It is concluded that this line of research supports general motivational theories that argue for the functional equivalence of excitors and inhibitors of opposite affective value.Any general theory of motivated behavior has to face the problem of the interaction between responses maintained by appetitive and aversive stimuli. During the last 15 years or so a number of theorists (e.g.

Conditioned inhibition of emotional responses: Retardation and summation with cues for IAPS outcomes

“…The results confirmed that participants had attached emotional relevance to the previously trained CI, this contributed to the way they rated stimuli and in consequence how they learned about the stimuli subsequently in comparison to novel stimuli (Dickinson & Pearce, 1977;Konorski, 1948;1967;Konorski & Szwejkowska, 1956). …”

Counterconditioning of shock by a water reinforcer in rabbits

“…The decline in defensive behavior was accompanied by the development of an alimentary conditioned response, salivation, to the shock, suggesting that appetitive conditioning may be an important causal factor underlying the successful counterconditioning of aversive stimuli. Subsequently, outside the Russian literature (e.g., Marukhanyan, 1954), little attention has been paid to the counterconditioning of the responses elicited by unconditioned aversive stimuli despite the theoretical importance of the phenomenon for understanding appetitive-aversive interac-By contrast, the counterconditioning of conditioned, as opposed to unconditioned, defensive responses has been somewhat more intensively studied (see Dickinson & Pearce, 1977;Wilson & Davison, 1971, for recent reviews). For example, Scavio (1974) initially conditioned a defensive nictitating membrane response to an auditory CS with a paraorbital These experiments are based on a Masters thesis submitted by M. F. Dearing to the University of Sussex.…”

“…By contrast, the counterconditioning of conditioned, as opposed to unconditioned, defensive responses has been somewhat more intensively studied (see Dickinson & Pearce, 1977;Wilson & Davison, 1971, for recent reviews). For example, Scavio (1974) initially conditioned a defensive nictitating membrane response to an auditory CS with a paraorbital These experiments are based on a Masters thesis submitted by M. F. Dearing to the University of Sussex.…”

Food as a contextual cue in counterconditioning experiments: Is there a counterconditioning process?

“…These considerations may explain why results using this procedure have been contradictory (Delprato & Jackson, 1973;Poppen, 1970). Also, as pointed out by Dickinson and Pearce (1977), the only experiment using this procedure that obtained a difference favoring the counterconditioning group (Poppen, 1970) changed the schedule for the baseline response from VI 60 sec in acquisition to consistent reward in test for the counterconditioning group, which could account for the difference between this group and the control group. Wilson and Dinsmoor (1970) trained rats to remain on a platform to avoid shock.…”

“…Reviews of counterconditioning experiments (Dickinson & Pearce, 1977; Reid, 1973; Wilson & Davison, 1971) indicate that, when exposure to the This research was supported in part by the National Institute of Mental Health, Grant MH34119, to the first author. Reprints can be obtained from the first author, Department of Psychological Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana 47907. feared cue is equated, most comparisons of counterconditioning and extinction have not found that counterconditioning reduces fear any better than does mere exposure to the feared cue.…”