SENSORY AFFECT AND MOTIVATION *

C. Pfaffmann,R. Norgren

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.1977.tb39713.x

IF: 6.499

1977-04-01

Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences

Abstract:In the broad context of behavior, we can roughly categorize an organism’s responses to sensory stimulation as one of three possible kinds: (1) Approach and acceptance (A) ; (2) rejection or withdrawal (R) ; and ( 3 ) neutrality. By neutrality, I refer to stimuli that are sensed, i.e., above threshold, but under the particular circumstances are of no behavioral significance to the organism. They may become effective in activating A or R, under different maturational, motivational, or other endogenous and exogenous conditions. A or R are clearly intensity dependent. Whereas nearly all organisms will reject most stimuli at high levels of intensity, many will accept certain rejected stimuli at lower intensities or concentrations. Indeed Schneirlal believed that all A & R behavior was to be understood in terms of an underlying biphasic process. “For all organisms in an early ontogenetic stage, lower intensities of stimulation tend to evoke approach reactions; high intensities, withdrawal reactions with reference to the source.” He then added: “Doubtless the high road of evolution has been littered with the remains of species that diverge too far from these rules of effective adaptive relationship between the environmental conditions and response.” He cited evidence of W. Hess on the earthworm, Lumbricus terrestris L. At high intensity (of illumination), prompt anterior shortening occurs so that movement away from the focal source predominates. At middle intensity, there is less prompt shortening, and some increasing movement toward the source, whereas at low intensity bodily extension and movement toward the source predominate. Lower vertebrates show many striking species-typical approach and withdrawal responses. Deviations from this general rule seen in adult higher mammals were attributed to developmental changes during early ontogeny. An equivalent formulation couched not so much in behavioral terms as in expressions of affect or pleasantness, was put forth in 1874 by Wilhelm Wundt.2 His biphasic curve relating hedonic tone or pleasantness-unpleasantness to stimulus intensity is shown in FIGURE 1. As stimulus intensity rises from threshold, there is a region of increasing pleasantness to a peak, followed by a turndown through indifference to increasing unpleasantness. Engel’s3 studies of pleasantness ratings of different taste solutions of increasing concentration were early protypic experiments. In more recent years many studies on palatability, taste preferences and aversions with sucrose and/or salt, or human psychophysical response, typically show the biphasic form. Implicit in the P-U characterization is also A-R; pleasant tastes are accepted, unpleasant ones r e j e ~ t e d . ~ The adaptation and continued use of hedonic rating scales in food-survey research show these ratings to be significantly reliable indicators of what people