No abstract

No abstract

Sexual responses were conditioned in male Japanese quail using the opportunity to copulate with a female as the unconditioned stimulus (US). The conditioned stimulus (CS) was a 3-Dobject made of a taxidermically prepared female quail head mounted on a terry-cloth body. Both appetitive conditioned responses (approach and proximity to the CS) and consununatory conditioned responses (mount and cloacal contact directed toward the CS) developed when 2-min presentations ofthe CS were followed immediately by the US,but not when the CS and US were separated by trace intervals of 10 or 20 min (Experiment 1). Postconditioning sexual satiation suppressed conditioned cloacal contact responses more than conditioned approach to the CS (Experiment 2), and "acute" extinction suppressed both conditioned mounting and conditioned cloacal contact responses more than conditioned approach to the CS (Experiment 3). These results demonstrate a functional dissociation between conditioned appetitive and consummatory responses and imply that the motivational and/or associative mechanisms underlying the two types of behavior are distinct.Ethologists have long viewed behavior in terms of sequences ofmotor patterns that progress toward the attainment ofa biologically important goal (Craig, 1918;Hinde, 1953;Lorenz, 1981;Tinbergen, 1951). Early components of behavioral sequences were referred to as "appetitive" and were assumed to mobilize the animal and bring it into contact with species-typical sign stimuli. Later components were labeled "consummatory" and were thought to enable the animal to interact in a conclusive and adaptive fashion with those sign stimuli. Progress from appetitive to consummatory stages was presumed to be regulated by interaction with specific stimuli that gated the transitions from one stage to the next (Baerends, 1988;Hinde & Stevenson, 1969).Investigators of animal behavior in laboratory paradigms have also distinguished between "early" and "late" response components in considerations of complex behavior. For instance, Konorski (1967) viewed feeding behavior in terms of preparatory and consummatory responses. Preparatory responses involved the elicitation of hunger and searching behavior, whereas consummatory responses involved reflexes beginning with the arrival offood in the mouth. According to Konorski's model, when a cue was paired with the opportunity to eat, the reThis research was supported by Grant MH39940 from the National Institutes of Mental Health. We are indebted to Bill Brooks for his conscientious care ofthe animals, to Tor Neilands for statistical advice, and to Robert A. Rescorla and his reviewers for their penetrating suggestions. Correspondence should be addressed to M. Domjan,

No abstract