Underlying Processes in

Classical Conditioning
Theory
 S-S vs. S-R Models of
Conditioning
• S-S Learning = Stimulus-Stimulus
• The CS becomes directly associated with the US
• Therefore, the CS comes to elicit a response that is
similar / related to the US
• S-R Learning = Stimulus-Response
• The CS becomes directly associated with the UR
• Therefore, the CS comes to elicit the same response
as the UR
 S-S vs. S-R Models
• The research conducted to test whether
classical conditioning is based on S-S or
S-R learning has found evidence to support
both positions (not usually in the same
study :)

• Currently, there tends to be a heavier

emphasis on study of S-S associations
 S-S Approaches

• One example is Pavlov’s stimulus-

substitution theory
– The CS acts as a substitute for the US
– A connection forms in the brain between the CS and the
US activation sites
– When the CS is activated alone following acquisition, it
will automatically activate the US site in the brain
– Therefore, the CR should be almost identical to the UR
(because the connection between UCS and UR in the
brain is hardwired)
 Evidence in support of the stimulus
substitution hypothesis
• Jenkins & Moore (1973) study:
– Autoshaping in pigeons
– One group had CS(light)-->US(grain)
• Photos showed pigeons trying to “eat” the lit
key (open beak and closed eyes) when they
pecked
– 2nd group had CS(light)-->US(water)
• Photos showed pigeons trying to “drink” the
lit key (closed beak and open eyes) when
they pecked
 Jenkins & Moore (1973)
Left = Water Right = Grain
 Evidence against the stimulus
substitution hypothesis
• Any study in which the elicited CR is
different from the UCR
e.g., when a tone is paired with shock, rats will
jump to the UCS (shock), but the CR is
typically freezing

e.g., when a light is paired with food, rats will

rear to the light (CR) but the UCR is approach
to the food dispenser
 Preparatory Response Model
• Kimble’s (1961, 1967) theory proposed that
the CR is a response that serves to prepare
the organism for the upcoming UCS
e.g., following acquisition of CRs in eyeblink
conditioning, the CR eyeblink may actually
prepare the person for the upcoming airpuff
such that the eye would be partially closed
when the airpuff occurs
 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 A-state

– 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 • B-process
– magnitude & – dynamic; changes with repeated
duration of the exposure
A-state are – with repeated exposure the B-
determined by the state begins earlier, has greater
magnitude, & lasts longer
stimulus event
– if time passes without exposure,
– magnitude &
the changes in the B-state
duration are fixed reverse
(no change with – Changes due to repeated
experience) exposure depend upon short
delays between presentations
Underlying Opponent Processes

Stimulus
a-state
• First few stimulations
b-state

• After several
Stimulus
a-state
b-state
stimulations
 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
• First few
stimulations
b-state

• After many
Stimulus
a-state
stimulations
b-state
 Evidence for a Compensatory-
Response 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)
45
• Test: present CS,
inject every rat with
Mean Latency to Lick Paw

40
35 morphine, & place
30 each rat on a
25 moderately hot
20
surface
15
– Measure latency to lick
10
their paws
5
– The faster they lick,
0
the quicker they feel
Saline Paired Unpaired
the pain
 Challenges to the Compensatory-
Response Model
• Eikelboom & Stewart (1982) found that the CR
was much like the response to the drug itself (UR)
with both opiates like morphine and with
stimulants such as cocaine and d-amphetamine.

• It has been argued that conditioned tolerance

effects could be due to habituation of the direct A-
process rather than being due to classical
conditioning of the opponent B-process.