Food words were considered as conditioned stimuli that elicit an appetitive emotional response. The emotional response-according to the two-process, three-stimulus-function learning theory involved-should be capable of mediating instrumental behavior toward the words. Motivational principles elaborated in the context of the three-function theory predicted that 5s deprived of food would learn to respond more quickly with an approach instrumental response to food words than would deprived 5s whose task was to make an avoidant response. Moreover, this difference should be of a lesser magnitude with nondeprived 5s. In addition, in a second experiment, it was predicted that food-deprived 5s would learn to make .an approach response to food words with less latency than nondeprived 5s. These expectations were supported. The findings contribute to the specification of motivational characteristics for the construct of a mediating emotional response (or state) in two-process learning studies (e.g., transfer of control and auto shaping), and suggest a means for integrating relevant animal and human research.

A definitive difference between the monologue of mass communications and the dialogue of personal conversation is the opportunity of each participant to reply to the other. Replying plays a fundamental role in determining the participation of each party to the conversation, rather than serving only as a mere dependent variable of each participant's behavior or as an influencer of one participant by the other. Participation in conversation may be reinforced by the opportunity to speak in reply. Latency data from four experiments (A 7 = 418) are isomorphic with an instrumental escape conditioning model in demonstrating analogues of (<;•) acquisition, (6) extinction, (c) partial reinforcement effects, (d) delay of reinforcement effects, (e) Delay X Acquisition Trials effects, and (/) drive effects. The research employed the general approach which Neal Miller has called "extension of liberalized S-R theory," and draws upon the motivation theories of Dollard and Miller, Byrne, and Festinger. Fortunately, most human communicationdocs not yet take the form of the television commercial, the mass lecture, or the laboratory persuasive communication, in which messages are directed by a communicator to an audience that has no direct opportunity to reply. Still ubiquitous in human life is conversation between two or a few more people, one of the distinguishing features of which is the fact, that each participant has the opportunity to reply to the other "communicators." Conversations conducted under formal rules or professional auspices, such as interviews, psychotherapy, group discussion, negotiation, and bargaining, are each the subject of such intense specialized attention from various segments of the profession of psychology that the)' are seldom all mentioned in a single sentence. Researchers have devoted considerable attention to the reinforcement of conversational behavior (e.g.,

No abstract