Elsevier

Hormones and Behavior

Volume 53, Issue 2, February 2008, Pages 307-311
Hormones and Behavior

Letter to the Editor
How useful is the appetitive and consummatory distinction for our understanding of the neuroendocrine control of sexual behavior?

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yhbeh.2007.09.023Get rights and content

Section snippets

The origins of the appetitive/consummatory distinction

First and foremost it is important to recognize that the appetitive/consummatory distinction was not proposed to support a particular model or metaphor for the functioning of the nervous system. Rather these terms were proposed as a way to capture variation in species-typical behavior that puzzled many comparative psychologists and ethologists. As noted by Sachs (2007), the specific terms “appetitive” and “consummatory” were first coined by Craig (1917). However, we agree with Marler and

Relationship between the appetitive/consummatory distinction and energy models of motivation

The pioneers of modern ethology Konrad Lorenz and Niko Tinbergen both embraced the appetitive/consummatory distinction as a useful first step in behavioral description (Lorenz, 1950, Tinbergen, 1951). A careful reading of their early discussion of this concept reveals that they found it useful precisely because it provided a terminology to organize many behavioral phenomena for a causal analysis. However, both Lorenz and Tinbergen adopted models or metaphors of nervous system function that were

The current utility of the appetitive/consummatory distinction as a description of behavior related to an analysis of the mechanistic control of behavior

Modern training in neuroethology and behavioral neuroscience no longer devotes much attention to the models of drive proposed by Tinbergen and Lorenz. A survey of relevant textbooks in behavioral neuroscience and neuroethology reveals little consideration of such models outside of a historical context (e.g., Carew, 2000, Rosenzweig et al., 2004, Zupanc, 2004). We would argue that the linkage of the terms appetitive/consummatory with these now defunct motivational models is not an impediment to

Conclusion

Our recommendation is that the appetitive/consummatory distinction be maintained for studies of sexual behavior. We recognize the criticisms made by Sachs (2007) but do not think they are serious enough to warrant a complete ban on the use of these terms. Like many terms in the biological and behavioral sciences, the terms appetitive and consummatory should be used in a precise manner and with caution. Again a consideration of the fate of related terms whose usefulness has been criticized can

Acknowledgments

The preparation of this review and the experimental work described was supported by grants from the NIMH (Grant number RO1 MH50388) to GFB and from the Belgian Fonds de la Recherche Fondamentale Collective (Grant number 2.4562.05) to JB. We thank Peter Holland for discussions about the appetitive/consummatory distinction.

References (35)

  • J. Balthazart et al.

    Appetitive and consummatory male sexual behavior in Japanese quail are differentially regulated by subregions of the preoptic medial nucleus

    J. Neurosci.

    (1998)
  • F.A. Beach

    Characteristics of masculine “sex drive”

    Neb. Symp. Motiv.

    (1956)
  • D. Bindra

    How adaptive behavior is produced: a perceptual-motivational alternative to response-reinforcement

    Behav. Brain Sci.

    (1978)
  • T.J. Carew

    Behavioral Neurobiology: The Cellular Organization of Natural Behavior

    (2000)
  • W. Craig

    Appetites and aversions as constituents of instincts

    Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.

    (1917)
  • W. Craig

    Appetites and aversions as constituents of instincts

  • M. Domjan et al.

    Determinants of social proximity in Japanese quail (Coturnix coturnix japonica): male behavior

    J. Comp. Psychol.

    (1986)
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text