Habituation of mating preferences: a response to Chiandetti and Turatto
Habituation of mating preferences: a response to Chiandetti and Turatto
复制标题
交配偏好的习惯化：对 Chiandetti 和 Turatto 的回应
DOI：
10.1098/rspb.2019.2103
复制
发表时间：
2019
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Hughes, K. A.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Daniel, M. J.;Koffinas, L.;Hughes, K. A.
我们最近对雌性孔雀鱼对雄性新性信号的交配偏好进行的调查表明，这种偏好满足短期和长期习惯的标准[1]。基于这些结果，我们假设习惯化以及由此产生的对新性特征的偏好在交配行为的进化和遗传变异的维持中发挥着未被充分认识的作用。 Chiandetti 和 Turatto [2] 在他们的评论中回顾了与我们研究结果相关的心理学文献领域。因为我们的研究连接了两个相关领域——进化生物学和心理学——我们相信这种交流有利于澄清我们的结果与之前的习惯化研究结果之间的相似之处和区别，从而使来自这些不同学科的研究人员受益。 Chiandetti 和 Turatto 指出，对交配兴趣的习惯化已经得到了充分的研究，并指出文献表明，“柯立芝效应”——对以前的性伴侣失去兴趣——可以通过习惯化来解释（例如[3, 4]）。这是正确的，但重要的是要澄清我们的结果与文献之间的根本区别。 Chiandetti 和 Turato 描述 Daniel 等人[1]报告“习惯于同一个男性伴侣”[2，p. 2];然而，这是不正确的。我们的研究并没有像柯立芝效应的研究那样检查对同一伴侣的习惯，而是评估了一种不同的现象：对多个男性共有的表型的兴趣变化。我们研究的目的是测试习惯化是否可以解释对罕见/新颖表型的交配偏好，这些表型已在文献中得到充分记录（例如[5, 6]），但目前还没有任何近似或进化的解释。对新颖表型的偏好和对新颖性的其他偏好之间的区别很重要，因为这些不同的偏好具有不同的进化后果。例如，对新表型的偏好可以对性信号产生频率依赖的负选择，从而维持群体内的遗传变异[5]。我们的结果与 Chiandetti 和 Turatto 强调的文献相结合表明，习惯化可能导致生物组织多个层面上对新鲜事物的性偏好。这就提出了一个有趣的问题：什么决定了习惯是否会导致对新表型和/或个体的偏好？可能的解释包括个体表型独特性的差异或接受者心理的差异（例如，性信号是否在认知上表现为独立的表型或整合到个体的表征中）。解决这个问题将是未来研究的一个富有成果的途径。Chiandetti 和 Turatto 指出，与理解我们的结果相关的另一个文献领域涉及强化物有效性的习惯化 (HRE)。对 HRE 的研究表明，强化物（例如用于食物或水等操作性条件反射的奖励）的有效性逐渐减弱，部分原因是对强化物的习惯化[7]。该文献提供了习惯影响对具有生物学意义的刺激的反应的例子，即使强化剂的消耗被阻止[8]，正如我们在研究中观察到的那样。然而，我们不同意 Chiandetti 和 Turatto 的建议，即我们的结果可能是 HRE 的一个例子。在我们的研究中，与男性接触并没有被用作强化物，而神罗文献之外的研究（其中刺激也没有被用作强化物）也有
Our recent investigation of guppy female mating preference for novel sexual signals in males revealed that this preference fulfils the criteria for both shortand long-term habituation [1]. Based on these results, we postulated that habituation, and a resulting preference for novel sexual traits, plays an underappreciated role in the evolution of mating behaviour and the maintenance of genetic variation. In their comment, Chiandetti & Turatto [2] review areas of the psychology literature related to the results of our study. Because our study links two related fields—evolutionary biology and psychology—we believe this exchange is beneficial for clarifying the parallels and distinctions between our results and those of previous studies of habituation for the benefit of researchers from these different disciplines. Chiandetti & Turatto remark that habituation of mating interest has been well studied and point to the literature suggesting that the ‘Coolidge effect’—loss of interest in prior sexual partners—can be accounted for by habituation (eg [3, 4]). This is correct, but it is important to clarify a fundamental difference between our results and this literature. Chiandetti & Turato describe Daniel et al.[1] as reporting ‘habituation to the same male partner’[2, p. 2]; however, this is not correct. Rather than examining habituation to the same partner, as in studies of the Coolidge effect, our study evaluated a different phenomenon: change of interest in a phenotype shared by multiple males. The goal of our study was to test whether habituation can account for the mating preference for rare/novel phenotypes that have been well documented in the literature (eg [5, 6]), but for which no proximate or evolutionary explanations have been forthcoming. This distinction between preference for novel phenotypes and other preferences for novelty is important because these different preferences have distinct evolutionary consequences. For example, preference for novel phenotypes can generate negative frequency-dependent selection on sexual signals and thus maintain genetic variation within populations [5]. Our results, combined with the literature highlighted by Chiandetti & Turatto, suggests that habituation can result in sexual preferences for novelty at multiple levels of biological organization. This raises an intriguing question: what determines whether habituation leads to preference for novel phenotypes and/or individuals? Possible explanations include differences in individual distinctiveness of phenotypes or differences in receiver psychology (eg whether sexual signals are cognitively represented as independent phenotypes or integrated into representations of individuals). Addressing this question would be a fruitful avenue of future study.Chiandetti & Turatto state that another area of the literature relevant to understanding our results pertains to habituation of reinforcer effectiveness (HRE). Studies on HRE have documented that reinforcers (eg rewards used in operant conditioning such as food or water) progressively wane in effectiveness, which is partly attributable to habituation to the reinforcer [7]. This literature provides examples of habituation affecting responsiveness to biologically meaningful stimuli, even when consumption of the reinforcer is prevented [8], as was observed in our study. However, we disagree with Chiandetti & Turatto’s suggestion that our results are probably an example of HRE. Exposure to males was not used as a reinforcer in our study, and studies outside of the HRE literature (in which stimuli were also not used as reinforcers) have also
登录
查看更多内容
择偶偏好的习惯化：对丹尼尔、科菲纳斯和休斯的评论 (2019)
DOI：
10.1098/rspb.2019.1373
发表时间：
2019
期刊：
Proceedings of the Royal Society B
影响因子：
--
作者：
C. Chiandetti;M. Turatto
通讯作者：
M. Turatto
影响因子：
18.2
作者：
E. N. Sokolov
通讯作者：
E. N. Sokolov
女性性唤起的习惯和去习惯。
影响因子：
4.1
作者：
I. Meuwissen;R. Over
通讯作者：
R. Over
女性性唤起对幻灯片和电影的习惯
影响因子：
3.8
作者：
E. Laan;W. Everaerd
通讯作者：
W. Everaerd
DOI：
10.1037/h0046549
发表时间：
1961-01-01
期刊：
JOURNAL OF COMPARATIVE AND PHYSIOLOGICAL PSYCHOLOGY
影响因子：
--
作者：
FOWLER, H;WHALEN, RE
通讯作者：
WHALEN, RE