Talk:Coolidge effect

message: Does the effect not apply to women? Adambisset 21:01, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Not particularly.  This effect is based on evolutionary propagation of the species.  Once a woman has had intercourse, it is of little advantage to have intercourse with other males, while the more females a male mates with, the more his genes will propagate. --Thoric 20:48, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: It does apply to females too. The opening blurb needs to reflect this. reference: http://www.reuniting.info/science/coolidge_effect . Secondly, the statement "all species" is wrong. It should read "all mammals" as this is the class that contains all the species that have been experimentally tested 202.72.159.82 (talk) 09:39, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Applies to women?

message: I'm uncomfortable relying on one 2000 book for a term that allegedly originates in 1955. I can't find the 2000 edition of "Volume 4". There is a 2008 edition of Volume 4, with a sole author of Michael Wertheimer. There is a 2006 edition, Volume 6, Portraits of Pioneers in Psychology, Volume 6 by Donald A. Dewsbury and Michael Wertheimer. It has the same (or a revised) chapter, "Frank Beach: Master Teacher." The reference there to Coolidge appears on page 286, where it refers back to a 1981 book by Dewsbury. Oddly, the 2006 book goes on to quote a 1984 (1984, p.249) passage by Kimble, Garmezy and Zigler (perhaps refering to their textbook, Principles of Psychology?).
I added the reference to the 1978 book (A New Look at Love, by Elaine Hatfield and G. William Walster, p.75), citing an earlier source (footnote 19, Chapter 5), as an indication that more work is needed to nail down the exact origins of this joke. (E.g., is it possible the joke predates Coolidge? Is there any confirmed link to him?) For an encyclopedia article on this specific phrase, one would think we'd nail down the earliest known origins and etymology of the phrase. Teeparty (talk) 04:59, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Origin of the term

message: "The Coolidge effect is attributed to an increase in dopamine levels and the subsequent effect upon an animal's limbic system.[8]"
this doesn't explain anything.  it's sort of like saying that light comes on or goes off in your living room because of the electricity in the wires in the wall.  the lights go on and off because you flip a switch, and you flip a switch because you desire to see in the room or because you want it to be dark or because you don't want to waste electricity.
why does a novel female trigger the rise in dopamine levels, other than that mammals who left mated more and had more offspring with more females?  what goes on in the male rat or human's head?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.23.224.120 (talk) 03:28, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  confusion of material (physiological) cause with psychological cause. 

message: "Human males experience a post-ejaculatory refractory period after sex. They are temporarily incapable of engaging in sex with the same female after ejaculation".
Kind of sounds like you're implying he can have sex immedeatly afterwards, but only with another woman. The later part makes this okay, and it's immature of me to notice and joke about it, but maybe it needs a rephrasing. I'm so sorry  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.22.113.223 (talk) 06:54, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: "Implying"

message: I also am finding that the physiological explanation for the effect a little lacking. 
"The Coolidge effect is attributed to an increase in dopamine levels and the subsequent effect upon an animal's limbic system.[8]" is very shallow and doesn't really delve into the underpinnings of the limbic system, for one. Are there any implications for the reward pathways of the brain where novel vs. old sexual partners are concerned? Are there other neurotransmitters at play that help explain this effect? Any other observed brain structures implicated? Furthermore, are there physiological sex differences observed (even if the Coolidge effect is less prominent in female animals as a whole)? Or, if the effect is only of interest from a behavioral point of view, is there a reason for that, or are there motivations of current bodies of research as to why understanding the biological underpinnings would be useful for 'x' set of reasons. Definitely think more can be done with this section! Rehewitt (talk) 23:57, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: You did a great job on your article! I just learned about this effect in class this week and some of the questions that I had after class were addressed in this article. The information described was all very relevant and seemed to be pretty neutral. There don't seem to be any comments made with a bias and you mentioned that some animals do not show the effect. I liked that you didn't frame it in a biased way and represented the different views on the effect. It would have been even greater if you spent more time on the animals that didn't show the effect as I feel that part may have been underrepresented. The links also work well and they all seem to come from relieable sources (journals, textbooks, etc.) which are neutral. You did a great job referencing your facts. The references were great overall. Your information also seems to be quite current. I also am happy with the professionalism within the comments and the discussions there. I enjoyed that people were talking about the possible causes for the effect and where it could be seen. Although I was unable to see the rating I can see that your article is part of an educational course objective and I think that's great. Overall, the article was very similar to how it was discussed in class although there was more detail and more questions were covered within the article. Ejb850 (talk) 04:06, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: Seeing this discussion page, it seems this article once had an explanation on how/whether this applies to humans, too?
This seems to be removed.
But it would IMHO really be good to add this (back). Even it is is just a „whether this effect also applies to humans, is not clear yet and has not been extensively studied.".
--rugk (talk) 12:21, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does this affect apply to humans, too?