The interaction of hunger and thirst in the rat

Two groups of rats were given a series of trials in an enclosed runway with a food reward at the end, one group being run hungry, the other hungry plus thirsty. Then each group was split into three sub-groups: one run hungry, the second thirsty and the other hungry plus thirsty, in each case without food reward.

It was found that, whereas on the rewarded runs the extra, “irrelevant,” thirst increased running speed, on unrewarded runs it had the opposite effect and slowed up performance. Thus on unrewarded runs the two sub-groups running thirsty, and hungry plus thirsty, ran as slowly as those running hungry. Differences were found not to depend on whether the animals had been hungry or hungry plus thirsty on previous rewarded runs.

The interaction of primary needs therefore depends on the external situation. This can be accounted for in terms of the Pavlovian theories of mutual induction and conditioning, but not in terms of Hull's theory of “irrelevant drives.”     

Pavlovian analysis of interactions between hunger and thirst

In four experiments we examined the effect of an irrelevant drive on classical conditioning with food and water. In the first experiment the irrelevant drive weakened the conditioned response in extinction. In Experiments 2 and 3, this suppressive effect was found also in acquisition. Furthermore, the presence of an irrelevant drive during nonreinforced presentations of the conditioned stimulus was found to protect the conditioned response from extinction. Experiment 4 showed that the depressive effect of the irrelevant drive is manifested only when the relevant drive is present. Taken together, these results suggest that an irrelevant drive can influence conditioned responding by modulating the representation of the unconditioned stimulus.     

Asymmetrical interactions between thirst and hunger in pavlovian-instrumental transfer

Pavlovian-instrumental transfer experiments have demonstrated that a stimulus paired with a sucrose solution under hunger will increase instrumental performance under thirst relative to a stimulus previously paired with food pellets. In Experiment 1 it was demonstrated that this difference is, in part, produced by suppression induced by the pellet stimulus, which, it was found, acted to reduce instrumental performance under thirst. In Experiment 2, the reverse shift was examined, comparing the effects of stimuli paired with either a saline solution or a sucrose solution under thirst on instrumental performance under hunger. Although the sucrose stimulus was found to elevate performance when hungry, the saline stimulus was found to be without effect. This asymmetry in the interaction between hunger and thirst is discussed in terms of the way motivational states control the interaction between sensory and affective components of the reinforcer.     

Motivational control of instrumental performance following a shift from thirst to hunger

Thirsty rats were trained to press a lever for either a sucrose solution or saline before performance was tested in extinction while the animals were either hungry alone or experiencing both hunger and a sodium appetite. Reinforcer-specific motivational control was observed in that the animals trained with the sucrose solution pressed more than those trained with the saline when they were tested hungry, but not when they were tested under combined hunger and sodium appetite. In order to assess the role of a Pavlovian incentive process in this effect, thirsty animals received non-contingent pairings of one stimulus with the sucrose solution and another with saline in the second experiment. In an extinction test the sucrose stimulus augmented lever pressing relative to the saline stimulus when the animals were hungry, but not when they were thirsty. In the subsequent experiments the contribution of the Pavlovian process was equated by giving concurrent training with both incentives. Lever pressing and chain pulling were reinforced concurrently, one with the sucrose solution and the other with saline, while the animals were thirsty. Once again, the animals pressed more in extinction if this action had been trained with the sucrose solution rather than the saline, but only if they were hungry rather than thirsty. Thus, instrumental performance across a thirst-to-hunger shift can also be controlled by an instrumental incentive process. The direct engagement of the instrumental process by this motivational shift contrasts to the absence of such control following a hunger-to-thirst transition (Dickinson & Dawson, 1987a), a fact attributed to the asymmetrical motivational interactions produced by water and food deprivation.     

A new approach to manipulation arguments

There are several argumentative strategies for advancing the thesis that moral responsibility is incompatible with causal determinism. One prominent such strategy is to argue that agents who meet compatibilist conditions for moral responsibility can nevertheless be subject to responsibility-undermining manipulation. In this paper, I argue that incompatibilists advancing manipulation arguments against compatibilism have been shouldering an unnecessarily heavy dialectical burden. Traditional manipulation arguments present cases in which manipulated agents meet all compatibilist conditions for moral responsibility, but are (allegedly) not responsible for their behavior. I argue, however, that incompatibilists can make do with the more modest (and harder to resist) claim that the manipulation in question is mitigating with respect to moral responsibility. The focus solely on whether a manipulated agent is or is not morally responsible has, I believe, masked the full force of manipulation-style arguments against compatibilism. Here, I aim to unveil their real power.