Field conditioning of sexual arousal in humans.

Socioaffective neuroscience & psychology Pub Date : 2012-03-15 eCollection Date: 2012-01-01 DOI:10.3402/snp.v2i0.17336
Heather Hoffmann, Kathryn Peterson, Hana Garner
{"title":"Field conditioning of sexual arousal in humans.","authors":"Heather Hoffmann, Kathryn Peterson, Hana Garner","doi":"10.3402/snp.v2i0.17336","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Human sexual classical conditioning effects are less robust compared with those obtained in other animals. The artificiality of the laboratory environment and/or the unconditioned stimulus (US) used (e.g. watching erotic film clips as opposed to participating in sexual activity) may contribute to this discrepancy. The present experiment used a field study design to explore the conditioning of human sexual arousal.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Seven heterosexual couples were instructed to include a novel, neutrally preferred scent as the conditioned stimulus (CS + ) during sexual interaction and another novel scent during non-sexual coupled-interaction (e.g. watching a movie, studying together). Seven control couples used both scents during non-sexual interaction. Conducted over a 2-week period, both experimental and control couples had three sexual interactions (oral sex and/or intercourse). In addition, experimental couples had three, while the controls had six, non-sexual interactions. Genital responding to and affective preference for the odors were assessed in the laboratory before and after the experience in the men.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We observed significantly increased genital responding to the CS+ in the experimental relative to the control group; however, conditioned responses were not much stronger than those obtained during laboratory conditioning. Experimental males also showed a trend for decreased preference for the CS- odor. They may have learned that this odor predicted that sexual interaction with their partner would not occur.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The present study provides another demonstration of conditioned sexual arousal in men, specifically an instance of such learning that happened in a real-world setting. It also suggests that inhibitory learning may occur, at least with the affective measure.</p>","PeriodicalId":90343,"journal":{"name":"Socioaffective neuroscience & psychology","volume":"2 ","pages":"17336"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-03-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.3402/snp.v2i0.17336","citationCount":"19","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Socioaffective neuroscience & psychology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3402/snp.v2i0.17336","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2012/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 19

Abstract

Background: Human sexual classical conditioning effects are less robust compared with those obtained in other animals. The artificiality of the laboratory environment and/or the unconditioned stimulus (US) used (e.g. watching erotic film clips as opposed to participating in sexual activity) may contribute to this discrepancy. The present experiment used a field study design to explore the conditioning of human sexual arousal.

Method: Seven heterosexual couples were instructed to include a novel, neutrally preferred scent as the conditioned stimulus (CS + ) during sexual interaction and another novel scent during non-sexual coupled-interaction (e.g. watching a movie, studying together). Seven control couples used both scents during non-sexual interaction. Conducted over a 2-week period, both experimental and control couples had three sexual interactions (oral sex and/or intercourse). In addition, experimental couples had three, while the controls had six, non-sexual interactions. Genital responding to and affective preference for the odors were assessed in the laboratory before and after the experience in the men.

Results: We observed significantly increased genital responding to the CS+ in the experimental relative to the control group; however, conditioned responses were not much stronger than those obtained during laboratory conditioning. Experimental males also showed a trend for decreased preference for the CS- odor. They may have learned that this odor predicted that sexual interaction with their partner would not occur.

Conclusion: The present study provides another demonstration of conditioned sexual arousal in men, specifically an instance of such learning that happened in a real-world setting. It also suggests that inhibitory learning may occur, at least with the affective measure.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
人类性唤起的场反射。
背景:与其他动物相比,人类的性经典条件反射效应不那么强大。人为的实验室环境和/或使用的无条件刺激(US)(例如,观看色情电影片段而不是参与性活动)可能导致这种差异。本实验采用实地研究设计来探索人类性唤起的条件反射。方法:7对异性恋伴侣被要求在性互动中使用一种新颖的、中性偏好的气味作为条件刺激(CS +),在非性伴侣互动(如一起看电影、学习)中使用另一种新颖的气味。七对对照组夫妇在非性互动中同时使用两种气味。在为期两周的研究中,实验组和对照组夫妻都进行了三次性互动(口交和/或性交)。此外,实验组夫妇有三次非性互动,而对照组有六次。在实验前后,男性生殖器对气味的反应和情感偏好被评估。结果:与对照组相比,实验组对CS+的反应明显增加;然而,条件反射并不比实验室条件反射强多少。实验雄性也表现出对CS气味偏好降低的趋势。他们可能已经了解到,这种气味预示着他们不会与伴侣发生性行为。结论:目前的研究提供了另一个关于男性条件性唤起的论证,特别是在现实世界中发生的这样的学习实例。它还表明,抑制性学习可能会发生,至少在情感测量中是这样。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Being enjoyably challenged is the key to an enjoyable gaming experience: an experimental approach in a first-person shooter game. Prospective memory evaluation in aging: new tools and methods. Is binding decline the main source of the ageing effect on prospective memory? A ride in a virtual town. Testing the mate-choice hypothesis of the female orgasm: disentangling traits and behaviours. Do rats have orgasms?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1