The Psychophysiology of Sex

The Role of Classical Conditioning in Sexual Arousal

The Role of Classical Conditioning in Sexual Arousal heather hoffmann Conditioning models hold intuitive appeal for explaining the etiology of atypical sexual arousal. The majority of treatments for sexual disorders are based on such models (Plaud & Martini, 1999), and numerous case studies attest to the effectiveness of behavior or response modi¤cation techniques in dealing with paraphilias (Gaither, Rosenkranz, & Plaud, 1998). It is also a common theoretical assumption that learning plays an important role in the development of normative sexual arousal patterns (e.g., Ågmo, 1999; Hardy, 1964; McConaghy, 1987; Pfaus, Kippin, & Centeno, 2001; Roche & Barnes, 1998; Woodson, 2002). Yet there are limited laboratory data, at least in humans, showing the effects of learning on sexual arousal, and precisely how conditioning processes affect what we ¤nd erotic remains unclear. Classical conditioning would appear to most directly contribute to how stimuli acquire sexually arousing properties; however, operant conditioning is probably also involved. Classical (a.k.a. Pavlovian or respondent) conditioning consists of learning about the relationship between an initially “ineffective” cue (the CS) and a behaviorally signi¤cant stimulus (the US) and typically results in a conditioned emotional or motivational state (the CR). Operant (a.k.a. Skinnerian or instrumental) conditioning typically creates changes in the frequency of (goal-directed) behavior (R) resulting from its association with reinforcing or punishing consequences (SR ). Pavlovian and instrumental conditioning can be distinguished at a conceptual and procedural level, but in practice it has been dif¤cult to separate their effects (Schwartz, 1989). For example, it was once thought that the different types of conditioning were applicable to different classes of behavior (i.e., classical to autonomic responses and operant to skeletal ones). However, operant procedures have been shown to affect re®exive behavior and voluntary responding can be classically conditioned. Procedures exist for separating the roles of classical and operant contingencies in the control of behavior, and a recent study suggests a mechanistic distinction at the cellular level (Lorenzetti, Mozzachiodi, Baxter, & Byrne, 2006), but the interactions between these types of conditioning are complex and both processes appear to simultaneously affect any given learning situation . For example, in sexual learning situations, stimuli that have acquired 261 arousing properties through Pavlovian procedures can also contribute to the approach of those stimuli. Such an explanation has been used to describe the development of paraphilias (Junginger, 1997; McGuire, Carlisle, & Young, 1965). An accidental pairing of a neutral object (CS) with arousal or orgasm (US) gives the stimulus erotic value. Sexual arousal to the object (CR) elicits approach and/or masturbation (R) that is positively reinforced by an increase in sexual arousal and orgasm (SR ). The majority of both animal and human studies aimed at examining the role of learning in sexual arousal have employed Pavlovian procedures. The Laboratory Evidence Nonhumans Pfaus, Kippin, and Centeno (2001) and Akins (2004) provide the most recent review of the in®uence of learning on sexual and reproductive behaviors in a variety of species, including humans. They concluded that classical and operant conditioning produce both temporary and lasting changes in appetitive, precopulatory, and consummatory sexual behavior. Although Sachs and Garinello (1978) found conditioned decreases in the time to display penile erection in rats, sexual arousal in nonhumans is usually measured indirectly through changes in latencies to engage in other sexual behaviors. For example, Domjan and colleagues found conditioned approach, conditioned courtship, and conditioned copulatory behaviors in male quail in the presence of CSs (e.g., colored lights, orange feathers, bird models, and contextual cues) that were previously paired with either visual exposure to a female or the opportunity to copulate with a female (for review , see Domjan & Holloway, 1998). In male rats, Zamble, Hadad, Mitchell, and Cutmore (1985) found conditioned decreases in ejaculatory latency in the presence of a CS (plastic tub) that had previously been paired with exposure to a female without consummation. Kippin, Talianakis, and Pfaus (1997) found conditioned ejaculatory preference to females scented with an odor that was previously associated with the ability to copulate. Studies on conditioning of female sexual arousal are less common. Gutiérrez and Domjan (1997) found increases in squatting behavior (an index of sexual receptivity) in female quail following the paired presentation of a particular compartment (CS) and copulatory opportunity. Coria-Avila, Ouimet, Pachero, Manzo, and Pfaus (2005) showed a conditioned partner preference in female rats for males scented with an odor that had been paired with the ability to pace copulation, which is rewarding for female rats (Paredes & Alonso, 1997). Humans O’Donohue and Plaud (1994) and...