Repetitive feather pecking (FP) where birds peck and pull out feathers of conspecifics could reflect motor impulsivity through a lack of behavioural inhibition. We assessed motor impulsivity in female chickens (n = 20) during a Go/No-Go task where birds had to peck (Go) or inhibit pecks (No-Go) appropriately to obtain a food reward, depending on visual cues in an operant chamber. Birds were selected to show divergent fp performance based on their genotype (high predisposition for fp or unselected control line) and phenotype (peckers or non-peckers). Genotype, phenotype, and its interaction did not affect the number of pre-cue responses, percentage of responses during No-Go cues (false alarms), or efficiency (number of rewards over number of responses). We present the first documentation of a Go/no-Go task to measure the ability of birds genetically and phenotypically selected for fp activity to inhibit a prepotent motor response. Results indicate that the repetitive motor action of FP does not reflect impulsivity and is not genetically linked to a lack of behavioural inhibition as measured in a Go/no-Go task.Chickens use pecking as their main action for manipulation of objects, which include e.g., the handling of food, foraging, and exploring or moving items 1 . A similar pattern is seen in feather pecking (FP) -a behaviour where a bird reaches out to peck at the feather of conspecifics, which may or may not result in plucking of feathers and occasionally the consumption of feathers 2,3 . This damages the feather cover of conspecifics which in some cases can lead to cannibalism and ultimately death of the victim 3 . FP is a common behaviour in birds kept for egg-laying with a reported prevalence ranging from 15% to 95% on commercial farms 4-7 . This disruptive behaviour can be induced by adverse, stressful environments 8-10 and is associated with neurobiological changes, such as alterations within the monoaminergic system 11 . This potential link to permanent neurobiological alterations, together with its apparent heritability 12,13 , makes FP difficult to treat and often irreversible 14 . Theoretically, neurobiological alterations can reduce behavioural control, and would explain functionless pecking by birds that engage in this behaviour during operant tasks [15][16][17] . Given the repetitive nature of FP, FP may be more akin to similarly described repetitive behaviour seen in human psychiatric disorders, such as attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) 18 . Impulsivity is part of normal behaviour 19 . It is considered a favourable trait when decision making needs to be completed quickly, enabling the individual to seize fleeting opportunities, and when the outcomes of such decisions are positive. However, impulsivity can be detrimental when it is a persistent or a dominant trait (e.g., in people with psychological disorders such as ADHD) 20 . Impulsivity is a multifaceted construct that encompasses quick decision-making fuelled by a lack of forethought, decreased ability to pay attention, and decreased...