Solomon (1980) proposed an opponent process theory to account for motivational and affective dynamics. This theory asserts that the brain avoids extremes of emotional experience by countering the stimulation it receives with an opposite or “opponent” reaction. Opponent processes are thought to be responsible for the characteristic changes in affective experience that occur over time, and to account for the dynamics of affective response to such stimuli as skydiving and sauna bathing, which have heretofore been difficult to explain. However, the relevance of this theory for affective experiences in general (beyond physical stimuli and addictions) has yet to be demonstrated. The present paper examines opponent process theory predictions in two settings, involving affective responses to situation-scenarios and emotion-provoking slides. In each study, significant habituation to both positive and negative affective stimuli was found, as the opponent process theory would predict. Subjects also showed a reversal of affect when the stimuli were reversed from positive to negative or vice versa. However, contrary to opponent process theory predictions, there was no evidence that withdrawal responses were greater after habituation to the affective stimulus. The only instance of a significant difference in withdrawal responses was actually in a direction opposite to that which the opponent process theory predicts. All other predicted differences were not significant. The opponent process theory, therefore, was not supported in these data and appears to need revision or qualification as to its domains of application.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Brickman, P., & Campbell, D. (1972). Hedonic relativism and planning the good society. In M. H. Appley (Ed.),Adaptation level theory: A symposium (pp. 287–302). New York: Academic Press.
Brickman, P., Coates, D., & Janoff-Bulman, R. (1978). Lottery winners and accident victims: Is happiness relative?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36 917–927.
Craig, R. L., & Siegel, P. S. (1979). Does negative affect beget positive affect? A test of the opponent-process theory.Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 14 404–406.
D'Agostino, R. B. (1971). A second look at analysis of variance on dichotomous data.Journal of Educational Measurement, 8 327–333.
Diener, E. (1984). Subjective well-being.Psychological Bulletin, 95 542–575.
Diener, E., & Crandall, R. (1978).Ethics and values in social and behavioral research. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Landy, F. J. (1978). An opponent process theory of job satisfaction.Journal of Applied Psychology, 63 533–547.
Larsen, R. J., Diener, E., & Emmons, R. A. (1986). Affect intensity and reactions to daily life events.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, in press.
McNemar, Q. (1969).Psychological statistics. New York: Wiley.
Myers, J. L., DiCecco, J. V., White, J. B., & Borden, V. M. (1982). Repeated measurements on dichotomous variables: Q and F tests.Psychological Bulletin, 92 517–525.
Overmier, J. B., Payne, R. J., Brackbill, R. M., Linder, B., & Lawry, J. A. (1979). On the mechanism of the post-asymptotic decrement phenomenon.Acta Neurobiologiae Experimentalis, 39 603–620.
Parducci, A. (1968). The relativism of absolute judgments.Scientific American, 219 84–90.
Piliavin, J. A., Callero, P. L., & Evans, D. E. (1982). Addiction to altruism: Opponent-process theory and habitual blood donation.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43 1200–1213.
Rosellini, R. A., & Lashley, R. L. (1982). The opponent-process theory of motivation: VIII. Quantitative and qualitative manipulations of food both modulate adjunctive behavior.Learning and Motivation, 13 222–239.
Solomon, R. L. (1977). An opponent-process theory of motivation: V. Affective dynamics of eating. In L. M. Barker, M. R. Best, & M. Domjan (Eds.),Learning mechanisms in food selection (pp. 255–268). Houston: Baylor University Press, 255–268.
Solomon, R. L. (1980). The opponent-process theory of acquired motivation: The costs of pleasure and the benefits of pain.American Psychologist, 35 691–712.
Solomon, R. L., & Corbit, J. D. (1973). An opponent-process theory of motivation: II. Cigarette addiction.Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 81 158–171.
Solomon, R. L., & Corbit, J. D. (1974). An opponent-process theory of motivation: I. Temporal dynamics of affect.Psychological Review, 81 119–145.
Starr, M. D. (1978). An opponent-process theory of motivation: VI. Time and intensity variables in the development of separation-induced distress calling in ducklings.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 4 338–355.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Sandvik, E., Diener, E. & Larsen, R.J. The opponent process theory and affective reactions. Motiv Emot 9, 407–418 (1985). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00992209
- Social Psychology
- Emotional Experience
- Characteristic Change
- Affective Response
- Process Theory