Transcript Compensatory-Response Model

Compensatory-Response
Model
• The compensatory-response model is
one version of preparatory-response
theory
• In this model of classical conditioning,
the compensatory after-effects to a US
are what come to be elicited by the CS
• Based on the opponent-process theory
of emotion / motivation
Opponent-Process Theory of
Emotion (Solomon & Corbit, 1974)
• Emotional events elicit two competing
processes:
– The primary- or A-process that is immediately
elicited by the event
• e.g., taking an exam elicits an unpleasant Astate
– An opponent- or B-process that is the opposite of
the A-process and counteracts it
• e.g., the pain during the exam (A-state) creates
a pleasant relief response (B-state) following
the exam
Properties of the A and B
processes
• A-process
– magnitude &
duration of the
A-state are
determined by the
stimulus event
– magnitude &
duration are fixed
(no change with
experience)
• B-process
– dynamic; changes with
repeated exposure
– with repeated exposure the
B-state begins earlier, has
greater magnitude, & lasts
longer
– if time passes without
exposure, the changes in the
B-state reverse
– Changes due to repeated
exposure depend upon short
delays between
Underlying Opponent
Processes
• First few stimulations
Stimulus
a-state
b-state
• After several
stimulations
Stimulus
a-state
b-state
Opponent-Process Theory of
Emotion
• The actual emotional state of the organism
is determined by the difference in
magnitude between the 2 states:
– The A-state minus the B-state = end
emotional result
– If A-state > B-state, then the emotion
experienced will be A-like
– If B-state > A-state, then the emotional result
will be B-like
Resultant Emotional State
Stimulus
a-state
b-state
Stimulus
a-state
b-state
• First few
stimulations
• After many
stimulations
Evidence for a CompensatoryResponse Model
• Siegel (1972) gave rats repeated
injections of Insulin
– Insulin’s effects are to reduce the level
of glucose in the blood
• Tested by giving the rats an injection of
saline (instead of insulin)
– Measured the CR (change in blood
glucose levels)
Siegel (1972) Results
• There was a strong CR that occurred,
but it was an INCREASE in blood
glucose levels
– (The opposite of Insulin’s direct effect)
• CR ≠ UR, and the CR was definitely
compensatory
More Evidence in Support of the
Compensatory-Response Model
• Conditioned morphine tolerance (Siegel,
Hinson, & Frank, 1978)
– Experimental Group: CS (light change
& noise reduction) paired with US
(injection of morphine) for 9 days
– Unpaired Control Group
– Placebo Control Group (CS paired with
injection of saline)
Siegel et al. Results (Conditioned
Drug Tolerance)
• Test: present CS,
inject every rat
with morphine, &
place each rat on
a moderately hot
surface
Mean Latency to Lick Paw
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Saline
Paired
Unpaired
– Measure latency to
lick their paws
– The faster they lick,
the quicker they feel
the pain