Imprinting in older ducklings: Some tests of a reinforcement model

Gaioni, Stephen J.; Hoffman, Howard S.; DePaulo, Peter; Stratton, Valerie N.

doi:10.3758/bf03211997

Cited by 20 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The presently found persistence of the acquired approach response in the MS group replicates earlier work (Eiserer et al, 1975;Gaioni et al, 1978), and at first thought might seem to be inconsistent with classical conditioning theory. According to this theory, the sessions of exposure to the stationary stimulus represented repeated presentations of the CS without further pairings with the US; in conventional Pavlovian conditioning, such a procedure generally leads to relatively quick extinction of the acquired response.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 72%

“…It has also been found, however, that such attachment-after it has developed via the operation of visual movement-does not weaken or "extinguish" if visual movement is subsequently withheld and the subjects receive prolonged exposure to the features by themselves (Eiserer, Hoffman, & Klein, 1975;Gaioni, Hoffman, DePaulo, & Stratton, 1978). In short, once the initially neutral features acquire behavioral control, that control subsequently persists even under conditions that were insufficient for the initial acquisition.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Development of filial attachment to static visual features of an imprinting object

Eiserer

1980

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 72%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Development of filial attachment to static visual features of an imprinting object

Eiserer

1980

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…If a young bird is socially isolated during this period, then the bird will typically flee and give distress calls when either a sibling or an imprinting stimulus is presented, rather than following and giving calls of contentment (Hoffman, Ratner, Eiserer, & Grossman, 1974). Furthermore, ducklings will learn an operant response to gain access to either a sibling or an imprinting stimulus (Bateson & Reese, 1969;Gaioni, Hoffman, DePaulo, & Stratton, 1978;Peterson, 1960), and in both cases the pattern of responding is quite similar, with responses occurring in bursts, rather than at a steady rate (Gaioni et al, 1978;Hoffman & Kozma, 1967). Thus, while much more needs to be known about sibling imprinting, an important process which has received little investigation (Shapiro, 1980;Storey & Shapiro, 1979), there is presently no evidence to support the contention that our results can be explained in terms of differences between filial and sibling imprinting.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Distress calling induced by reductions in group size in ducklings reared with conspecifics or imprinting stimuli

Gaioni

Ross

1982

Animal Learning & Behavior

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Peking ducklings were reared for 1-2weeks with either 9 or 12 companions, which were either conspecifics or imprinting stimuli (blocks of foam rubber). They were then tested for their tendency to distress call as the number of companions was reduced systematically. Consistent with prior research, ducklings reared with conspecifics modulated their distress calling as a function of both the number of companions with which they were reared and the number of companions with which they were tested. In contrast, ducklings reared with moving imprinting stimuli gave few if any distress calls, regardless of the number of stimuli with which they were reared or tested, as long as at least one imprinting stimulus was present. The difference in responding did not reflect just a lack of attachment to the imprinting stimuli, since when all stimuli were removed these ducklings gave as many distress calls as the ducklings that had all their conspecifics removed. Finally, ducklings reared with stationary imprinting stimuli displayed an erratic pattern of distress calling when the number of test stimuli was manipulated. These latter ducklings appeared to be less strongly imprinted than the ducklings reared with either conspecifics or moving imprinting stimuli. Implications for understanding duckling perception of brood size and the nature of sibling vs. filial imprinting are examined. Lorenz's (1935) pioneering work on the development of social attachments in young birds (imprinting) marked the beginning of an extensive research effort that continues to the present time. This research has focused largely on filial and sexual imprinting, that is, the processes by which a young bird learns the features of its mother and the species with which it will subsequently mate, respectively (

show abstract

“…Such studies have demonstrated that precocial avian neonates will indeed work to be exposed to such stimuli (e.g., Bateson & Reese, 1968;Campbell & Pickleman, 1961;Eacker & Meyer, 1967;Gaioni, Hoffman, DePaulo, & Stratton, 1978;Hoffman, Schiff, Adams, & Searle, 1966;Meyer, 1968;Peterson, 1960). Relatively few studies, on the other hand, have examined the effects of contingency on the formation of filial preferences.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Interactive and vicarious acquisition of auditory preferences in Northern bobwhite (Colinus virginianus) chicks.

Harshaw

Lickliter

2007

Journal of Comparative Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Studies examining the effects of stimulus contingency on filial imprinting have produced inconsistent findings. In the current study, day-old bobwhite chicks (Colinus virginianus) received individual 5-min sessions in which they were provided contingent, noncontingent, or vicarious exposure to a variant of a bobwhite maternal assembly call. Chicks given contingent exposure to the call showed a significant preference for the familiar call 24 hr following exposure and significantly greater preferences than chicks given noncontingent exposure. Chicks given vicarious exposure to recordings of another chick interacting with the maternal call showed significant deviations from chance responding; however, the direction of chick preference (toward the familiar or unfamiliar) depended on the particular call used. These results indicate that both direct and indirect (vicarious) exposure to stimulus contingency can enhance the acquisition of auditory preferences in precocial avian hatchlings. Precocial avian hatchlings thus likely play a more active role in directing their own perceptual and behavioral development than has typically been thought. Keywordsfilial imprinting; contingency; interactive stimulation; vicarious learning; Northern bobwhite Social interaction and contingency are known to have potent influences on learning across a wide range of organisms and contexts. Grey parrots (Psittacus erithacus), for example, have been shown to learn the proper use of referential labels only when provided interactive sessions with live tutors (e.g., Pepperberg, 1994Pepperberg, , 1998. Human infants have also been found to produce more sophisticated vocalizations when their mothers respond to their babbling in a contingent manner (Goldstein, King, & West, 2003). In contrast to such findings, filial imprinting has traditionally been viewed as a special type of learning that occurs largely independent of contingent interaction or overt reinforcement (e.g., Lorenz, 1935Lorenz, , 1937.A number of studies have directly examined the effects of stimulus contingency on the behavior of precocial hatchlings, the majority of which have focused on whether imprinting stimuli are capable of functioning as reinforcers. Such studies have demonstrated that precocial avian neonates will indeed work to be exposed to such stimuli (e.g., Bateson & Reese, 1968;Campbell & Pickleman, 1961;Eacker & Meyer, 1967;Gaioni, Hoffman, DePaulo, & Stratton, 1978;Hoffman, Schiff, Adams, & Searle, 1966;Meyer, 1968;Peterson, 1960). Relatively few studies, on the other hand, have examined the effects of contingency on the formation of filial preferences. Some of these studies have reported enhanced acquisition of filial preferences under conditions of stimulus contingency (e.g., Bateson & Reese, 1969;Evans, 1991;Johnson, Bolhuis, & Horn, 1985; ten Cate, 1989b), whereas others have found little or no difference in the level of filial preference between chicks provided with contingent versus noncontingent exposure to stimuli (Bolhuis & Johnson, 1988; ten Cate...

show abstract

Imprinting in older ducklings: Some tests of a reinforcement model

Cited by 20 publications

References 11 publications

Development of filial attachment to static visual features of an imprinting object

Development of filial attachment to static visual features of an imprinting object

Distress calling induced by reductions in group size in ducklings reared with conspecifics or imprinting stimuli

Interactive and vicarious acquisition of auditory preferences in Northern bobwhite (Colinus virginianus) chicks.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About