Abstract
In order to learn more about their reaction to the female sex attractant, 61 male Norway rats were given two-choice preference tests in which they reacted to cues from receptive vs. non-receptive females. In the first experiment, 16 heterosexually experienced males showed a reliable preference (p < .01) for receptive over nonreceptive anesthetized females, as did 15 naive males (p < .02) which later proved to be copulators. Ten naive males which later proved to be noncopulators showed no reliable preference for either type of female. In the second experiment, 15 naive males which later proved to be copulators showed no reliable preference for the odors from receptive vs. nonreceptive females. From these experiments, we conclude that naive males which later prove to be sexually vigorous are attracted to the composite bodily cues from receptive females, and that this attraction is not mediated by olfactory cues alone.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Reference Notes
Hitt, J. C., Phillips, I. T., & Asato, H.Hormonal determinants of preference for female sex-odors in rats. Paper presented at the meeting of the Psychonomic Society. San Antonio, November 1970.
Marasco, E.Responses of isolated naive male rats to sex odors. Unpublished manuscript, 1974. Available from Elizabeth Marasco, Department of Psychology, Princeton University, Princeton. New Jersey 08540.
References
Barnett, S. A. The rat: A study in behavior (rev. ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1975.
Beach, F. A. Analysis of the stimuli adequate to elicit mating behavior in the sexually inexperienced male rat.Journal of Comparative Psychology, 1942,33, 163–207.
Beach, F. A. Characteristics of the masculine “sex drive”. In M. R. Jones (Ed.),Nebraska Symposium on Motivation (Vol 4) Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1956.
Bronson, F. H. Pheromonal influences on reproductive activities in rodents. In M. C. Birch (Ed.),Pheromones. Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1974.
Calhoun, J. B. The ecology and sociology of the Norway rat. (U.S. Public Health Service Publication No. 1008). Washington D. C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1962.
Cars, W. J. Pheromonal sex attractants in the Norway rat. In L. Krames, P. Pliner, & T. Alloway (Eds.),Advances in the study of communication and affect (Vol. 1).Nonverbal communication. New York: Plenum Press, 1974.
Carr, W. J., Loeb, L. S., &Dissinger, M. L. Responses of rats to sex odors.Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 1965,59, 370–377.
Carr, W. J., Loeb, L. S., &Wylie, N. R. Responses to feminine odors in normal and castrated male rats.Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 1966,62, 336–338.
Carr, W. J., Wylie, N. R., &Loeb, L. S. Responses of adult and immature rats to sex odors.Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 1970,72, 51–59.
Gibson, J. J. The senses considered as perceptual systems. New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1966.
Keesey, J. C. Olfactory preferences by heterosexually naive and experienced male rats for estrus and diestrus female urine. Unpublished master’s thesis, San Jose State College, 1962.
Landauer, M. R. Sexual and olfactory preferences of male hamsters (Mesocricetus auratus Waterhouse) for conspecifics in different hormonal conditions. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1975).Dissertation Abstracts International, 1975,36, 2106B–2107B. (University Microfilms No. 75-24, 349).
Landuaer, M. R., Banks, E. M., & Carter, C. S. Sexual and olfactory preferences of naive and experienced male hamsters (Mesocricetus auratus).Animal Behaviour, in press, (a)
Landauer, M. R., Banks, E. M., & Carter, C. S. Sexual preferences of male hamsters (Mesocricetus auratus) for conspecifics in different endocrine conditions.Hormones and Behavior, in press, (b)
Larsson, K. Conditioning and sexual behavior in the male albino rat. Stockholm: Ahnquist & Wiksell, 1956.
Le Macnen, J. Les phenomenes olfacto-sexuels chez le rat blanc.Archives des Sciences Physiologiques, 1952,6, 295–332.
Lydell, K., &Doty, R. L. Male rat odor preferences tor female urine as a function of sexual experience, urine age, and urine source.Hormones and Behavior, 1972,3, 205–212.
McCall, R. B., Lester, M. L., &Corter, C. M. Caretaker effect in rats.Developmental Psychology, 1969,1, 771.
Nodine, C. The effects of non-exposure to post-partum estrous odor at a critical period in infancy upon adult mating behavior in the rat. Unpublished master’s thesis. Bucknell University, 1959.
Pfaff, D., &Pfaffmann, C. Behavioral and electrophysiological responses of male rats to female rat urine odors. In C. Pfaffmann (Ed.).Olfaction and taste. Proceedings of the Third International Symposium. New York: Rockefeller University Press, 1969.
Pottier, J. J. G., &Baran, D. A general behavioral syndrome associated with persistent failure to mate in the male laboratory rat.Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 1973,83, 499–509.
Pranzarone, G. F. The effects of differential exposure of male rats to estrous and diestrous female odors upon approach behavior and physiological development. Unpublished master’s thesis. George Peabody College for Teachers. 1968.
Stern, J. J. Responses of male rats to sex odors.Physiology and Behavior, 1970,5, 519–525.
Whalen, R. E. Hormone-induced changes in the organization of sexual behavior in the male rat.Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 1964,57, 175–182.
Whalen, R. E. Estrogen-progesterone induction of mating in female rats.Hormones and Behavior, 1974,5, 157–162.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
This research was supported in part by U.S. Public Health Service Grants MH25456 and HD07043. We thank Lily Yee for technical assistance.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Landauer, M.R., Wiese, R.E. & Carr, W.J. Responses of sexually experienced and naive male rats to cues from receptive vs. nonreceptive females. Animal Learning & Behavior 5, 398–402 (1977). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03209586
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03209586