Cross-modality transfer effects in conditioning-enhanced neophobia in chicks (Gallus domesticus): Evidence for the separability of novelty from specific stimulus characteristics

Franchina, Joseph J.; Dyer, Antoinette B.

doi:10.3758/bf03207643

Cited by 6 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 16 publications

(24 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Aversive conditioning also potentiates neophobia. In an experiment with chicks (Franchina and Dryer, 1989), novel visual (red water) or taste (vinager) simuli were paired with an injection of lithium chloride, a toxin that induces sickness, or a saline injection. In subsequent neophobia tests, animals were tested with either green water (visual novelty) or saline water (taste novelty).…”

Section: Avian Fearmentioning

confidence: 99%

Avian Emotions: Comparative Perspectives on Fear and Frustration

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Emotions are complex reactions that allow individuals to cope with significant positive and negative events. Research on emotion was pioneered by Darwin’s work on emotional expressions in humans and animals. But Darwin was concerned mainly with facial and bodily expressions of significance for humans, citing mainly examples from mammals (e.g., apes, dogs, and cats). In birds, emotional expressions are less evident for a human observer, so a different approach is needed. Understanding avian emotions will provide key evolutionary information on the evolution of related behaviors and brain circuitry. Birds and mammals are thought to have evolved from different groups of Mesozoic reptiles, theropod dinosaurs and therapsids, respectively, and therefore, their common ancestor is likely to be a basal reptile living about 300 million years ago, during the Carboniferous or Permian period. Yet, birds and mammals exhibit extensive convergence in terms of relative brain size, high levels of activity, sleep/wakefulness cycles, endothermy, and social behavior, among others. This article focuses on two basic emotions with negative valence: fear and frustration. Fear is related to the anticipation of dangerous or threatening stimuli (e.g., predators or aggressive conspecifics). Frustration is related to unexpected reward omissions or devaluations (e.g., loss of food or sexual resources). These results have implications for an understanding of the conditions that promote fear and frustration and for the evolution of supporting brain circuitry.

show abstract

Section: Avian Fearmentioning

confidence: 99%

Avian Emotions: Comparative Perspectives on Fear and Frustration

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It is interesting to consider whether diverse experiences in general have an influence on food neophobia. Franchina and Dyer (1989) have argued that novelty is a general stimulus property separable from the specific characteristics of a stimulus, and several studies with animals have shown cross-modal transfer of responses to novelty (Hennessy, Hershberger, Bell, & Zachman, 1976;Hennessy, Smotherman, & Levine, 1977). In humans, evidence for cross-domain novelty seeking is provided by the significant correlations between the number of foods and activities tried and willingness to try foods and activities.…”

Section: A Theory Of Neophobiamentioning

confidence: 99%

Individual differences in approach to novelty: The case of human food neophobia.

Frank¹,

Raudenbush²

1998

Viewing Psychology as a Whole: the Integrative Science of William N. Dember.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

n the early to mid-1950s, the findings of several studies challenged the I idea that homeostatic processes were responsible for all learned and motivated behavior. Sheffield and coIleagues showed that rats would consume large quantities of nonnutritive saccharin solutions and work to copulate without sex drive reduction (Sheffield & Roby, 1950;Sheffield, Wulff, & Backer, 1951). Olds and Milner (1954) demonstrated that rats would work to electrically stimulate certain brain regions. In another elegant study published in 1956, William Dember demonstrated that rats were motivated to approach novelty. These studies made it clear that organisms would seek out environmental stimulation and that drive reduction was not the only mechanism by which motivated behavior was regulated.Although 17 of 20 rats made the choice for a novel over a familiar arm of a T-maze in Dr. Dember's study, he recognized that individuals differ in their preferences for novel stimuli. This is clear from the emphasis that individual differences are given in Dember and Earl's (1957) theory of exploration and curiosity. Dember and Earl proposed that individual differences in experience influence an organism's capacity to process infor-227

show abstract