Human-based social interaction can reward a rat’s behavior

Davis, Hank; Pérusse, Rachelle

doi:10.3758/bf03209048

Cited by 61 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This is not to say that rats, or other laboratory/prey species, are not capable of forming meaningful bonds with humans. Indeed, we have previously demonstrated that laboratory rats will work in a Skinner box for petting by a preferred human in the absence of traditional reward such as food or water (Davis and Perusse 1988). It is unlikely, however, that romantic notions like friendship have much to do with the behavior demonstrated in our experiments.…”

Section: Preference Testingmentioning

confidence: 84%

Prediction and Preparation: Pavlovian Implications of Research Animals Discriminating Among Humans

Davis

2002

ILAR Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A growing body of evidence suggests that animals of various species can discriminate among the humans with whom they have regular contact. This discriminative ability has considerable implications for research. Because animal life is hedonistic, there is a strong incentive for animal subjects to predict the events that bring them pleasure and pain. Many research settings attempt to deliver hedonic stimuli under strictly regulated conditions without formal warning. Nevertheless, the possibility remains that the presence of a particular human may signal delivery of an important event, thus allowing the animal to prepare for its occurrence. In Pavlovian terms, humans become walking conditioned stimuli, eliciting measurable conditioned responses from animal subjects. These preparatory responses may take behavioral, physiological, and/or motivational forms and modulate the effects of the variables under study. The discussion addresses practical implications of knowing that discrimination among humans by animal subjects may affect one's research agenda.

show abstract

Section: Preference Testingmentioning

confidence: 84%

Prediction and Preparation: Pavlovian Implications of Research Animals Discriminating Among Humans

Davis

2002

ILAR Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It is not clear, however, whether human-based socialization is essentially positive, as the findings of Davis and Perusse (1988) suggest, or whether such contact serves to habituate neophobia. Although it is difficult to label the present experience in terms of conventional laboratory procedures, we believe the human contact offered in Experiments I, 3, and 4 allows for the formation of an association between a particular human CS and positive hedonic events.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Preference for familiar humans by rats

Davis

Taylor

Norris

1997

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many "higher" animals are commonly assumed to distinguish between individual humans. This belief is based largely on anecdotal reports; in reality, there is little empirical evidence to support human recognition in nonhuman species. Wereport that laboratory rats consistently chose a familiar human over an unfamiliar human following fourteen and five IO-min exposures and even following a single IO-min exposure. Furthermore, this preference was retained in the absence of additional contact for at least 5 months. These results confirm that laboratory rats can tell individual humans apart, a prerequisite for associating them with hedonic events. Such human-based conditioning, described by Pavlov and by Gantt, Newton, Royer,and Stephens (1966),may have important implications for animal research in a variety of settings.Can the ubiquitous laboratory rat recognize individual humans? There is evidence that, like many animals, rats can discriminate individuals within their own species (Halpin, 1980; Hopp, Owren, & Marion, 1985;Randall, 1989). Indeed, Thor and Holloway (1982) describe rats as "normally engaging in spontaneous learning of individual identity" (p. 1000). But can such individuals be of another species, and, more specifically, can they be human?The recognition by animals of individual humans is not without precedent. For example, there is evidence that dogs (Settle, Sommerville, McCormick, & Broom, 1994), sheep (Fell & Shutt, 1989), pigs (Tanida, Miura, Tanaka, & Yoshimoto, 1995), and prairie dogs (Slobodchikoff, Kiriazis, Fischer, & Creef, 1991) can tell humans apart. However, there is as yet no comparable evidence that rats can distinguish individual people.Whether rats can discriminate between humans may have implications beyond the study of animal cognition. If research animals, such as rats, can differentiate one human from another, and this human is repeatedly paired with significant hedonic events in the animal's life, Pavlovian conditioning is likely to occur. Most research entails the delivery of hedonic stimuli, either through daily care or experimental manipulation. Gantt, Newton, Royer, and Stephens (1966) recognized this human-based conditioning process and described it in terms of "person as CS." Davis and Balfour (1992) surveyed evidence that such an associative process may have motivational effects that raise methodological concerns for animal-based research.This research was supported in part by Grant A0673 to the first author from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada. All animals were cared for in accordance with the University of Guelph Animal Care Policy and Canadian Council on Animal Care guidelines. A portion of these data was reported at 1994 meetings ofthe Animal Behavior Society and the Psychonomic Society. The authors wish to thank Lill Svendsen and Susan Boehnke for their technical assistance. Correspondence should be addressed to H. Davis, Department of Psychology, University of Guelph, ON, Canada NIG 2WI (e-mail: hdavis@uoguelph.ca).Although it is not o...

show abstract

“…Handling can lead to a fearful relationship with humans (Davis and Pérusse, 1988;Hurst and West, 2010), making handling difficult, increasing the risk of injury for both handler and animal, and limiting both the internal and external validity of research data (Sherwin, 2004).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%