Pavlovian conditioning of sexual arousal: First- and second-order effects.

Zamble, Edward; Hadad, G. Marilyn; Mitchell, John B.; Cutmore, Timothy

doi:10.1037/0097-7403.11.4.598

Cited by 86 publications

(90 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Inc tioned responses, sexual learning procedures often result in a common outcome: Exposure to a sexually conditioned stimulus increases the responsiveness of males to species-typical cues provided by a female. For example, exposure to a sexually conditioned stimulus decreases the latency of rats to ejaculate when they engage in copulatory behavior in response to a sexually receptive female (Zamble, Hadad, Mitchell, & Cutmore, 1985). Conditioned facilitation of responding to female cues has also been observed in studies with male fish (Hollis et aI., 1989) and quail (Domjan, Greene, & North, 1989).…”

mentioning

confidence: 83%

One-trial appetitive conditioning in the sexual behavior system

1997

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

mentioning

confidence: 83%

One-trial appetitive conditioning in the sexual behavior system

1997

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…As mentioned above, when a discrete cue (CS) is repeatedly presented in association with delivery of a reward (US) a number of different responses can emerge that are conditional upon this relationship (CRs), and the topography of the CR is dependent on a number of factors, including the species or strain of the animal (Boakes, 1977;Kearns et al, 2006;Kemenes and Benjamin, 1989;Nilsson et al, 2008;Purdy et al, 1999), the nature of the CS and US (Burns and Domjan, 1996;Davey and Cleland, 1982;Davey et al, 1984;Domjan et al, 1988;Holland, 1977;Jenkins and Moore, 1973;Peterson et al, 1972;Schwam and Gamzu, 1975;Timberlake and Grant, 1975;Wasserman, 1973), the spatial and temporal contingencies between the CS and US (Brown et al, 1993;Costa and Boakes, 2007;Holland, 1980a;Silva et al, 1992;Timberlake and Lucas, 1985), prior experience with the CS or US (Boughner and Papini, 2003;Engberg et al, 1972;Gamzu and Williams, 1971) and the internal drive state of the animal (Berridge, 2001;Boakes, 1977;Davey and Cleland, 1982;Toates, 1986;Zamble et al, 1985;Zener, 1937). Taken together, all of these factors contribute to the incentive motivational state of the animal and thus affect the degree to which the CS acquires incentive motivational properties (Lajoie and Bindra, 1976).…”

Section: Individual Differences In the Attribution Of Incentive Saliementioning

confidence: 99%

Individual differences in the attribution of incentive salience to reward-related cues: Implications for addiction

2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SummaryDrugs of abuse acquire different degrees of control over thoughts and actions based not only on the effects of drugs themselves, but also on predispositions of the individual. Those individuals who become addicted are unable to shift their thoughts and actions away from drugs and drug-associated stimuli. Thus in addicts, exposure to places or things (cues) that have been previously associated with drug-taking often instigates renewed drug-taking. We and others have postulated that drugassociated cues acquire the ability to maintain and instigate drug-taking behavior in part because they acquire incentive motivational properties through Pavlovian (stimulus-stimulus) learning. In the case of compulsive behavioral disorders, including addiction, such cues may be attributed with pathological incentive value ("incentive salience"). For this reason, we have recently begun to explore individual differences in the tendency to attribute incentive salience to cues that predict rewards. When discrete cues are associated with the non-contingent delivery of food or drug rewards some animals come to quickly approach and engage the cue even if it is located at a distance from where the reward will be delivered. In these animals the reward-predictive cue itself becomes attractive, eliciting approach towards it, presumably because it is attributed with incentive salience. Animals that develop this type of conditional response are called "sign-trackers". Other animals, "goal-trackers", do not approach the reward-predictive cue, but upon cue presentation they immediately go to the location where food will be delivered (the "goal"). For goal-trackers the reward-predictive cue is not attractive, presumably because it is not attributed with incentive salience. We review here preliminary data suggesting that these individual differences in the tendency to attribute incentive salience to cues predictive of reward may confer vulnerability or resistance to compulsive behavioral disorders, including addiction. It will be important, therefore, to study how environmental, neurobiological and genetic interactions determine the extent to which individuals attribute incentive value to reward-predictive stimuli.

show abstract

“…Once second-order responding was established, it was independent of subsequent extinction of responding to CS 1 (Experiment 3) but was attenuated by reduced sexual motivation (Experiment 4). Zamble et al (1985) previously demonstrated secondorder sexual conditioning in experiments with male rats and also reported that after acquisition, second-order conditioning is independent of the integrity of the firstorder stimulus. The present data are consistent with these findings and extend their generality in several ways.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Second-order sexual conditioning was previously demonstrated in rats by Zamble, Hadad, Mitchell, and Cutmore (1985), but they measured conditioning only indirectly by demonstrating shorter ejaculation latencies following exposure to the second-order stimulus. Sexual conditioning has been investigated more extensively in male Japanese quail (see Domjan, 1994, for a review).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Second-order sexual conditioning in male Japanese quail (Coturnix japonica)

Crawford

Domjan

1995

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Second-order conditioning of social approach to a female conspecific in male Japanese quail was investigated in four experiments. Subjects that received paired first-and second-order trials acquired second-order conditioning in both Experiments 1 and 2. In contrast, subjects that received paired first-order but unpaired second-order trials, and subjects that received unpaired first-order but paired second-order trials, did not acquire second-order conditioning. In Experiment 3, subjects for whom the first-order conditioned stimulus was presented in extinction showed second-order conditioning comparable to that shown by subjects in a control group that did not receive the extinction procedure. In Experiment 4, subjects approached a second-order stimulus less when sexually satiated than when sexually deprived. These flndings suggest that second-order sexual conditioning in quail is mediated by an association of the second-order stimulus with a representation of the unconditioned stimulus.Second-order conditioning has been ofconsiderable historical interest because it putatively increases the range of situations in which Pavlovian conditioning may occur. First-order Pavlovian conditioning requires the pairing of a conditioned stimulus (CS) with an unconditioned stimulus (US), such as food, water, or shock, that is biologically important to the subject. This limits first-order conditioning to situations in which subjects encounter unconditioned stimuli. In contrast, in second-order conditioning a previously conditioned stimulus (CS 1) is used in the role of a US to produce conditioning to a new stimulus (CS2). Therefore, second-order conditioning can occur in situations that do not involve exposure to an unconditioned stimulus, provided that the subjects previously receive first-order conditioning.Most modem studies ofsecond-order conditioning have involved fear conditioning in rats (e.g., Rizley & Rescorla, 1972) or appetitive conditioning in rats and pigeons (e.g., Holland & Rescorla, 1975b;Rescorla, 1979). The present experiments were conducted to extend the study ofsecondorder conditioning to sexual behavior.Second-order sexual conditioning was previously demonstrated in rats by Zamble, Hadad, Mitchell, and Cutmore (1985), but they measured conditioning only indirectly by demonstrating shorter ejaculation latencies following exposure to the second-order stimulus. Sexual conditioning has been investigated more extensively in male Japanese quail (see Domjan, 1994, for a review). Studies with Japanese quail have confirmed that, as in rats, sexually conditioned stimuli can facilitate copulatory behavior (e.g., Domjan, Greene, & North, 1989). In addition, these experiments have identified circumstances in which first-order conditioned stimuli can also directly elicit various conditioned responses (e.g., Akins, Domjan, & Gutierrez, 1994).Male quail approach and remain near visible but physically inaccessible females (Domjan & Hall, 1986) and also come to approach and remain near visual stimuli that have been paired w...

show abstract

Pavlovian conditioning of sexual arousal: First- and second-order effects.

Cited by 86 publications

References 20 publications

One-trial appetitive conditioning in the sexual behavior system

One-trial appetitive conditioning in the sexual behavior system

Individual differences in the attribution of incentive salience to reward-related cues: Implications for addiction

Second-order sexual conditioning in male Japanese quail (Coturnix japonica)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About