Transcript Field conditioning of sexual arousal in humans

Field conditioning of sexual arousal in humans
Heather Hoffmann, Katie Peterson & Hana Garner
Knox College
Background
Only a narrow range of stimuli can be regarded as primarily or
“inherently” sexual. Stimuli typically acquire sexually arousing
properties through experience. It is commonly assumed that
classical conditioning plays a role in what we find sexually arousing,
and indeed numerous experimental studies have demonstrated the
impact this type of learning has on a wide range of sexual behaviors
across a variety of species (cf., Akins, 2004; Domjan & Akins, 2010,
Pfaus, Kippin & Centeno, 2001). However, there is still relatively
little empirical evidence of sexual conditioning from studies using
humans.
Participants
Fourteen heterosexual couples (college undergraduates) with the male as the
target subject were randomly assigned to the experimental (n = 7) or the control
(n = 7) group. Couples were paid $70 for their participation.
Conditioned Stimuli: the scent of basil and geranium essential oils
Current problem
Not only are there fewer human sexual conditioning studies,
human conditioned responding seems less robust compared with
other animals. Perhaps the artificiality of the experimental
parameters and/or of the laboratory environment may hinder the
learning and/or expression of sexual conditioning. The present study
used a field conditioning procedure in which precise control over
conditioning procedures was exchanged for more naturalistic
conditioning parameters. Specifically, the design afforded a more
appropriate context for sexual arousal (participant’s residence), a
conditioned stimulus (CS) that was more closely tied to sexual
responding (presented on their sexual partner as well as ambiently
in the room), more natural temporal parameters (longer intertrial
intervals), and a stronger, more natural/effective US (partnered
sexual interaction).
Unconditioned Stimulus: partnered sexual interaction (oral sex/ intercourse)
Can You Make Her Orgasm on Demand?
…That's not to say there can't be conditioning with regard to
sex. Michael Domjan did amazing things with domesticated
quail over at the University of Texas at Austin's Sexual Learning
Laboratory. "We have shown that an artificial stimulus that is
initially totally unrelated to sexual activity can become
associated with copulation through a Pavlovian conditioning
process." If all goes well, he says, "these domesticated quail
will, in fact, copulate with an artificial object.”
Cartoon: John Cuneo
Article: Stacey Grenrock Woods
Esquire Magazine April 3, 2009
Procedur
e
Conditioning
(in “field”; over 2 weeks)
Experimental
One odor (CS+) – sexual interaction (3 pairings)
Other odor (CS-) – non-sexual interaction (3 pairings)
(e.g., studying, watching films/TV, playing games)
Baseline (in lab)
Most human sexual conditioning studies rely on genital
responding as the conditioned response (CR). However, since we
now recognize that, in addition to preparing organisms for
interaction with biologically significant cues or events (signal or
expectancy learning), classical conditioning can alter the preference
for stimuli associated with such cues or events (evaluative
conditioning), we also included a measure of affective preference.
We considered this particularly appropriate for the present study
since evaluative or affective learning (i.e., changes in valence of
stimuli) may be stronger in real world settings (Baeyens,
Wrzesniewski, De Houwer, & Eelen, 1996; Öhman & Mineka, 200;
Rozin, Wrzesniewski, & Byrnes, 1998).
15 sec olfactometer-based
presentations (0.05 ml) of
basil and geranium
(3 of each)
1 min ISI
Control
Both odors with non-sexual interaction (3 pairings of each)
Sexual interaction (without odor; 3 times)
Measures
Genital arousal (electromechanical strain gauge)
Odor pleasantness (14 cm visual analog scale)
§
Results
Figure 1
0.14
cm change in penile cirumference
0.12
0.1
0.08
0.06
Discussion
The present study provides another demonstration of
conditioned sexual arousal in men, specifically an instance of
such learning in a real world setting. However conditioned
genital responses (CRs) were not stronger than those
obtained during laboratory conditioning. One reason for the
relatively weak learning may be that the participants, although
instructed to contact the experimenter as soon as they
finished the study, did not return to the lab for testing until
several days (up to 17) after completion. Although there was
no correlation between retention interval and strength of the
CR, there is a fair amount of individual difference in
conditionability (cf. Hoffmann, 2010) and the number of
participants was low. Further differences in context and odor
presentation between conditioning and testing could have
contributed to the weak CRs.
It is not surprising that the men would show an increase in
preference for an odor that was paired with their partner, even
if it wasn’t paired with sexual activity with their partner.
Although we did not confirm that the CS- became a
conditioned inhibitor, experimental men may have learned that
this odor predicted that sexual interaction with their partner
would not occur.
Experimental
0.04
Control
0.02
0
CS+
CS-
-0.02
-0.04
Stimulus
Figure 2
6
5
Implications
Although it was and perhaps still is commonly assumed that
classical conditioning plays a role what we find sexually arousing,
particularly in cases of deviant arousal patterns, a strict learning
interpretation of the development of sexual preferences has fallen out
of favor. Yet with modern developments in learning theory (e.g.,
expectancy learning, Rescorla, 1988; affective learning, De Houwer,
Thomas, & Baeyens, 2001; Behavioral Systems Theory, Timberlake,
2001) it seems appropriate to renew the investigation of contributions
and limitations of conditioning processes to explaining how cues
acquire erotic meaning. Such research may help us to better
understanding the impact that erotic stimuli have on sexual arousal
and subsequent behavior, potentially allowing us to alter such
responses to improve sexual functioning. Such information could have
direct application to managing sexual risk taking, sexual compulsion,
and paraphilic (e.g., fetishistic) behavior.
4
cm change in pleasantness
Affective preference: As can be seen in Figure 2, after
conditioning odor pleasantness increased in the control group
and it increased for the CS+ in experimental men. However,
the experimental group (relative to controls) showed a trend
for a significant decrease in preference for the CS- odor, t(12)
= -1.48, p = 0.16.
Same as baseline
(stimulus order changed)
Odors on partner’s t-shirt (0.05 ml) and in aroma fan (0.05 ml)
Hypothesis
Compared to controls, men who experienced a novel, neutrally
preferred scent paired with sexual interaction on three occasions
would show increased genital responding to and increased
preference for the olfactory CS.
Genital responding: As can be seen in Figure 1 we observed
a significant increase in genital responding to the CS+ in the
experimental relative to the control group, t(12) = 2.99, p =.01.
Testing (in lab)
References
3
2
Experimental
1
Control
0
CS+
CS-
-1
-2
-3
Stimulus
Akins, C. K. (2004). The role of Pavlovian conditioning in sexual behavior: A comparative analysis
of human and nonhuman animals. International Journal of Comparative Psychology, 17, 241-262
Baeyens, F., Wrzesniewski, A., De Houwer, J., & Eelen, P. (1996). Toilet rooms, body massages, and smells:
Two field studies on human evaluative odor conditioning. Current Psychology, 15, 77-96.
De Houwer, J., Thomas, S., & Baeyens, F. (2001). Associative learning of likes and dislikes: A review of 25 years
of research on human evaluative conditioning. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 853-869.
Domjan, M. & Akins, C. K. (2010) Applications of Pavlovian conditioning to sexual behavior and reproduction. In
Schachtman , T.R., & Reilly, S. (Eds.), Associative Learning and Conditioning Theory: Human and Non-Human
Applications. Oxford University Press.
Hoffmann, H. (2010). Hot and bothered: Classical conditioning of sexual incentives in humans. In Schachtman ,
T.R., & Reilly, S. (Eds.), Associative Learning and Conditioning Theory: Human and Non-Human Applications.
Oxford University Press.
Öhman, A., & Mineka, S. (2001). Fears, phobias, and preparedness: Toward an evolved module of fear and fear
learning. Psychological Review, 108, 483-522.
Pfaus, J. G., Kippin, T. E., & Centeno, S. (2001). Conditioning and sexual behavior: A review. Hormones and
Behavior, 40, 291-321.
Rescorla, R.A. (1988) Pavlovian conditioning: It's not what you think it is. American Psychologist, 43, 151-160.
Rozin, P., Wrzesniewski, A., & Byrnes, D. (1998). The elusiveness of evaluative conditioning. Learning and
Motivation, 29, 397-415.
Timberlake, W. (2001). Motivational modes in behavior systems. In R. R. Mowrer & S. B. Klein (Eds.)
Handbook of contemporary learning theories (pp. 155-209). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
Publishers.
Support
Funding from Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI) and Knox College are acknowledged and appreciated
Contact
Heather Hoffmann [email protected]
.