Social factors in the facilitation of feeding in chickens: Effects of imitation, arousal, or disinhibition?

Rajecki, D. W.; Kidd, Robert F.; Wilder, David A.; Jaeger, James

doi:10.1037/h0077065

Cited by 28 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This exact same phenomenon has been replicated in pigs (Hsia & Wood-Gush, 1984). The general phenomenon of social facilitation of eating has subsequently been demonstrated in a large variety of species from chickens (Tolman, 1964;Tolman & Wilson, 1965;Rajecki et al 1975), fish (Welty, 1934), rats (Harlow, 1932;Hoyenga & Aeschleman, 1969), gerbils (Forkman, 1991), puppies (James, 1960), to primates (Harlow & Yudin, 1933).…”

mentioning

confidence: 74%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Socio-cultural determinants of meal size and frequency

Castro

1997

Br J Nutr

119

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Total energy intake and the frequency and size of meals are profoundly influenced by the sociocultural context in which it occurs. Simply eating with one other person increases the average amount ingested in meals by 44% and with more people present the average meal size grows even larger. The impact of social facilitation of energy intake on the individual appears to result from genetic effects both on the individuals' sensitivity to the presence of other people and also on the number of other people an individual tends to eat with. Culture markedly affects the choice of foods in the diet and the pattern of meals over the day. However, many of the social, psychological and physical variables that influence intake are similar across cultures.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 74%

“…Social facilitation might operate by producing disinhibition; the presence of a companion relaxing the individual, thereby releasing behaviour from inhibition (Rajecki et al 1975). Observing someone else eating may remove constraints on eating that otherwise would limit the amount ingested.…”

Section: Inhefutance Of Social Facilitation Of Eatingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Socio-cultural determinants of meal size and frequency

Castro

1997

Br J Nutr

119

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In an extensive program of research, Tolman (1968) has pointed out the importance for social facilitation of unrestricted contact between the subject and the companion, implying thereby that such contact may increase the number of directive cues available to the subject. A number of other investigators have shown that a companion may enhance the behavior of a subject animal by reducing emotionality that would otherwise inhibit the emission of an operant (e.g., Rajecki et al, 1975;Tolman, 1965). Such a conclusion has been supported by independent evidence that introduction of a conspecific produces lowered fear in open-field settings (Latane, 1969;Latane & Glass, 1968).…”

Section: Learning Versus Performancementioning

confidence: 94%

“…This difference in approach taken by human and animal researchers does more than make difficult a summary review of social facilitation research across species. It also raises questions, at the present time, concerning the relevance for human social psychology of animal experiments that pit one or more theories of social facilitation against another (Rajecki, Kidd, Wilder, & Jaeger, 1975;Strobel, 1972). The human analogue of an experiment in which, for example, a perceptual-attentional explanation of social facilitation in rats is compared with a motivational one would be a study in which the presence of an audience is compared with the example of a model in changing the behavior of a human.…”

Section: Learning Versus Performancementioning

confidence: 99%

Drive theory of social facilitation: Twelve years of theory and research.

Geen¹,

Gange²

1977

Psychological Bulletin

208

114

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research on social facilitation over the 12 years since 196S is reviewed. It is concluded that the drive-theory analysis proposed by Zajonc in 1965 still provides the best overall theoretical framework for explaining social facilitation, but that Cottrell's elaboration, which emphasizes learned drives as the motivational basis of the phenomenon, appears justified. The main tenet of the drivetheory approach, that the presence of conspecific organisms is arousing, has received additional support from studies not based on Zajone's Hullian assumptions. The secondary motive state associated with social facilitation is probably aversive in nature and is describable in terms such as learned fear of failure, anxiety, or anticipatory frustration. Alternative explanations for social facilitation based on current cognitive views of behavior may ultimately shed light on important mediating processes but as yet do not possess the economy of constructs offered by the drive-theory approach.The study of social facilitation is as old as experimental social psychology itself. In the first social psychological laboratory investigation, Triplett (1898) found that speed on a simple motor task was greater among members of coacting pairs than among subjects performing alone. In the decades that followed, several investigators continued to report effects on performance of not only coactors but also passive audiences. The effects, however, were not always facilitative; often social settings produced performance decrements, thereby creating a paradox that remained essentially unsolved until the mid-1960s. Nonetheless, the collection of data on the problem proceeded at a brisk pace, peaking in the decade from 1925 to 1935. The early studies have been reviewed elsewhere (Cottrell, 1968(Cottrell, , 1972Dashiell, 1935) and will not be discussed here.Interest in social facilitation eventually waned. By 1954, Kelly and Thibaut could conclude that "these phenomena [i.e., audience and coaction effects], which were once thought to be basic to the study of social Requests for reprints should be sent to

show abstract

“…Given that eating is a very simple behavior, social facilitation is expected to result in an individual consuming more food if eating in the presence of other allogeneic individuals. The general phenomenon of social zfeeding facilitation has been demonstrated in a wide variety of species, including chickens, fish, rats, gerbils, puppies, and primates [27–32]. However, whether mice show such social facilitation under different food allocations has not been determined.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Feeding Behavior of Mice under Different Food Allocation Regimens

Ueno

Suemitsu

Murakami

et al. 2019

Behavioural Neurology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Social interaction, a basic survival strategy for many animal species, helps maintain a social environment that has limited conflict. Social dominance has a dramatic effect on motivation. Recent evidence suggests that some primate and nonprimate species display aversive behavior toward food allocation regimens that differ from their peers. Thus, we examined the behaviors displayed by mice under different food allocation regimens. We analyzed changes in food intake using several parameters. In the same food condition, the mice received the same food; in the quality different condition, the mice received different foods; in the quantity different condition, one mouse did not receive food; and in the no food condition, none of the mice received food. To test differences based on food quality, one mouse received normal solid food as a less preferred reward, and the other received chocolate chips as a high-level reward. No behavioral change was observed in comparison to the same food condition. To test differences based on food quantity, one mouse received chocolate chips while the other received nothing. Mice who received nothing spent more time on the other side of the reward throughout the experiment. Interestingly, highly rewarded mice required more time to consume the chocolate chips. Thus, under different food allocation regimens, mice changed their behavior by being more hesitant. Moreover, mice alter food intake behavior according to the social environment. The findings help elucidate potential evolutionary aspects that help maintain social cohesion while providing insights into potential mechanisms underlying socially anxious behavior.

show abstract

Social factors in the facilitation of feeding in chickens: Effects of imitation, arousal, or disinhibition?

Cited by 28 publications

References 40 publications

Socio-cultural determinants of meal size and frequency

Socio-cultural determinants of meal size and frequency

Drive theory of social facilitation: Twelve years of theory and research.

Feeding Behavior of Mice under Different Food Allocation Regimens

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About