Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Received 12 March 2001; received in revised form 14 August 2001; accepted 12 September 2001
Abstract
Negative anticipatory contrast (NAC) occurs when the presentation of two solutions in sequence over a number of trials leads to the
suppression in consumption of the first solution. A hedonic disparity between the two solutions may lead to this suppression. However,
what the relative role of the gustatory properties versus the nutricaloric loads of the two solutions is in determining the acquisition of NAC is
uncertain. Previous experiments have typically used saccharine and sucrose solutions, which resemble each other in gustatory properties yet
differ in their nutricaloric loads. In contrast, the present experiments used soy milk and sucrose solutions, which are both highly nutritive but
differ in their gustatory properties. Soy milk was found to have a higher hedonic value than a 16% sucrose solution as measured by both
choice and absolute consumption. According to a hedonic disparity hypothesis, NAC should have occurred using a sucrose soy sequence
but not a soy sucrose sequence. Paradoxically, the sucrose soy sequence failed to yield NAC, but the soy sucrose sequence did yield a
repeatable, significant NAC. A consideration of the available theory and research indicated that NAC may be explained by a strong
conditioning of a satiety response produced by sucrose that opposes the conditioning of sucroses positive hedonic response. D 2002 Elsevier
Science Inc. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Negative anticipatory contrast; Hedonic disparity
1. Introduction
The consumption of food by rats is affected by foods that
they anticipate to come. For example, consumption of a
saccharine solution becomes suppressed when it is repeatedly followed by a sucrose solution [4 6,8,9]. A similar
suppression of a saccharine solution has also been acquired
when it has been followed by a range of other foods (e.g. lab
chow, chocolate milk, skim milk) [14]. This finding, known
as negative anticipatory contrast (NAC), relies on the
mechanisms of Pavlovian conditioning. For example, the
magnitude of the suppression depends on the degree of
contiguity between the two solutions [4,14].
NAC, however, presents a paradox for Pavlovian conditioning theories, because the pairings of the saccharine
solution with a second solution should cause an increase in
the consumption of the first solution, not a decrease
* Corresponding author. Tel./fax: +61-2-9385-3826.
E-mail address: j.kehoe@unsw.edu.au (E.J. Kehoe).
1
Present address: School of Psychology and Counselling, Queensland
University of Technology, Beams Road, Carseldine, Qld 4034, Australia.
0031-9384/02/$ see front matter D 2002 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 0 3 1 - 9 3 8 4 ( 0 1 ) 0 0 6 5 2 - 7
436
2. Experiment 1A
Experiment 1A was aimed at delineating the effects of
manipulating the concentration of the sucrose solution in a
437
Fig. 1. Consumption of a saccharine solution as S1 (left panel) and a sucrose solution as S2 (right panel) as a function of Days in Experiment 1.
438
3. Experiment 1B
While NAC emerged reliably using saccharine as S1 and
sucrose as S2, the two solutions differed in their nutricaloric
load, their known hedonic value, and to some extent, their
gustatory properties. It has yet to be shown whether anticipatory contrast occurs between two solutions that are both
high in nutricaloric load but are distinguishable in other
respects. Accordingly, Experiment 1B investigated the
results of pairing two solutions, both high in nutricaloric
load, namely, soy milk (S1) and sucrose (S2). As in Experiment 1A, this study parametrically varied the concentration of the sucrose solution.
3.1. Method
3.1.1. Subjects
The subjects were 40 male Wistar rats, aged 160 days.
All subjects were obtained and maintained as in Experiment 1A.
3.1.2. Apparatus and procedure
The apparatus and procedure were identical to those of
Experiment 1A, except soy milk replaced the saccharine
Fig. 2. Consumption of soy milk as S1 (left panel) and a sucrose solution as S2 (right panel) as a function of Days in Experiment 1.
curvilinear fashion, linear F(1,28) = 64.46, P < .01, quadratic F(1,28) = 4.82, P < .05.
3.3. Discussion
Experiment 1B revealed that NAC appeared for two
solutions that were both high in nutricaloric load. The
suppression of soy milk consumption was a direct function
of the sucrose concentration. Moreover, the size of the
effect was about the same as in Experiment 1A. For
example, in Experiment 1A, Group 32% drank 1.3 ml less
of the saccharine solution than Group Sacch, that is, 4.0
versus 5.3 ml. Similarly, in Experiment 1B, Group 32%
drank 1.1 ml less soy milk than Group Soy, that is, 11.2
versus 12.3 ml. However, the gross consumption of soy
milk was greater than that of the sucrose solutions. All the
groups that received soy sucrose pairings drank more than
11 ml of soy milk averaged across Days 2 13, but no
group drank more than 8 ml of their sucrose solution.
The animals consumption of the S1 soy milk was
sensitive to the concentration of the S2 sucrose solution,
but not in the way anticipated by the caloric disparity
hypothesis. According to the caloric disparity hypothesis,
NAC should only have occurred when the S2 sucrose
solution had a greater caloric load than the S1 soy milk. In
the present experiment, only the 16% and 32% solutions
had a greater caloric load than the soy milk, but NAC was
also obtained with the 4% and 8% sucrose solutions,
which had a lower caloric load than the soy milk.
There are two alternative hypotheses that might
explain the greater consumption of S1 soy milk versus
the S2 sucrose solution. First, the soy milk may have a
lower hedonic value than the sucrose solutions. However,
the absolute consumption of soy milk was greater than
that of the sucrose solution, which suggests that soy
milk had a greater hedonic value. If so, the suppression
in soy milk consumption as a result of pairing with the
sucrose solution would present a paradox for a hedonic
disparity hypothesis. Second, since the soy milk was
always presented before the sucrose solution, there may
have been suppression of sucrose consumption due to
satiation arising from the considerable consumption of
the soy milk.
439
4.1. Method
4.1.1. Subjects
The subjects were eight rats of the same type used in
Experiments 1A and 1B.
4.1.2. Apparatus and procedure
The rats were maintained as in previous experiments, with
1 h feeding at 4 p.m. each day, and water being removed at
10 a.m. The rats were placed into single cages for testing at
11 a.m. on three successive days. For 15 min, each rat was
given access to two tubes, one containing soy milk, the other
containing the 16% sucrose solution. The left/right positions
of the solutions were counterbalanced across rats and alternated across days for each rat in an ABA design.
4.2. Results and discussion
The rats consumed significantly more soy milk
(mean = 9.4 ml) than the 16% sucrose solution (mean = 2.6
ml), F(1,7) = 16.56, P < .01. Therefore, on this basis, the
subjects preferred soy milk to the 16% sucrose solution. In
conjunction with the greater consumption of soy milk
relative to sucrose in Experiment 1B, soy milk appears to
have a substantially greater hedonic value than the sucrose
solution. However, as noted previously, soy milk always
occurred before the sucrose solution in Experiment 1B,
which may have lowered the consumption of sucrose
through satiation.
5. Experiment 3
Experiment 3 was conducted with five aims: (1) to
replicate the NAC seen in Experiment 1B when soy milk
preceded sucrose solutions, (2) to determine whether a
contrast effect would appear when sucrose preceded soy
milk, (3) to determine whether a contrast effect would
appear when the same two solutions are presented in
sequence, (4) to determine the effects of consumption of
the first solution on the second solution, and (5) to determine the absolute consumption of the sucrose solution in
isolation from pairings with soy milk.
5.1. Method
4. Experiment 2
In Experiment 1B, the absolute consumption of soy
milk exceeded that of sucrose, suggesting that soy milk
may have the greater hedonic value. Experiment 2 was
undertaken to provide a converging measure of the relative
hedonic value of soy milk versus the sucrose solutions by
using a preference test. Specifically, rats were given a
choice between soy milk and the 16% sucrose solution.
The 16% solution was chosen for comparison, because its
caloric load was closest to that of the soy milk.
5.1.1. Subjects
The subjects were 56 rats of the same type used in the
previous experiments.
5.1.2. Apparatus and procedure
Unless otherwise stated, the apparatus and the procedure
were the same as in Experiments 1A and 1B. Subjects were
randomly placed into one of six experimental groups (n = 8),
which received either soy milk sucrose pairings (Soy
Suc), sucrose soy milk pairings (Suc Soy), soy milk soy
440
Fig. 3. Consumption of soy milk and a 16% sucrose solution as S1 (left panels) and/or S2 (right panels) as a function of Days in Experiment 3.
6. General discussion
The present experiments examined the contribution of
the caloric load and hedonic value of successive solutions to
the acquisition of NAC. First, a disparity in caloric load did
not appear to be a necessary or sufficient condition for
NAC. That is, NAC appeared whether the second solution
had either a lower or higher caloric load than the first
solution. Second, the present experiments revealed that
soy milk had a greater hedonic value as measured both by
a preference test (Experiment 2) and absolute consumption
(Experiments 1B and 3). Despite this greater hedonic value,
repeated presentations of a soy sucrose sequence depressed
consumption of the soy milk. This NAC paralleled that seen
using a saccharine sucrose sequence in Experiment 1A.
Conversely, a sucrose soy sequence failed to produce either
positive or negative contrast.
441
442
[10]
[11]
Acknowledgments
Preparation of this manuscript was supported in part by
Australian Research Council Grant No. A79800067 to
E.J. Kehoe.
[12]
[13]
[14]
References
[1] Berthoud HR, Baettig K. Effects of nutritive and nonnutritive stomach
loads on plasma glucose level and lateral hypothalamic eating threshold in the rat. Physiol Behav 1974;12:1015 9.
[2] Capaldi ED, Sheffer JD. Contrast and reinforcement in consumption.
Learn Motiv 1992;23:63 79.
[3] Flaherty CF. Incentive contrast: a review of behavioral changes
following shifts in reward. Anim Learn Behav 1982;10:409 40.
[4] Flaherty CF, Checke S. Anticipation of incentive gain. Anim Learn
Behav 1982;10:177 82.
[5] Flaherty CF, Grigson PS. From contrast to reinforcement: role of
response contingency in anticipatory contrast. J Exp Psychol, Anim
Behav Processes 1988;14:165 76.
[6] Flaherty CF, Grigson PS, Checke S, Hnat KC. Deprivation state and
temporal horizons in anticipatory contrast. J Exp Psychol, Anim
Behav Processes 1991;17:503 18.
[7] Flaherty CF, Mitchell C. Absolute and relative rewarding properties of
fructose, glucose, and saccharin mixtures as reflected in anticipatory
contrast. Physiol Behav 1999;66:841 53.
[8] Flaherty CF, Rowan GA. Anticipatory contrast: within-subjects
analysis. Anim Learn Behav 1985;13:2 5.
[9] Flaherty CF, Rowan GA. Successive, simultaneous, and anticipatory
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]