1995
DOI: 10.1037/0735-7036.109.4.384
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Diet preference in rats (Rattus norvegicus) as a function of odor exposure, odor concentration, and conspecific presence.

Abstract: The relative contributions of social and stimulus factors in development of rat dietary preferences were examined. Investigation of odor-alone effects revealed that weak odors resulted in preference for familiar-odor diets, but only at longer exposure times. Shorter exposure to strong odors also produced differences in diet preference. When odor and conspecific presence were manipulated simultaneously, odors produced no diet preference at low intensities, whereas high-intensity odors did so regardless of consp… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
2
0
1

Year Published

1999
1999
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 14 publications
0
2
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…A naive observer Norway rat (Rattus norvegicus) offered a choice between two foods after interacting with a conspecific demonstrator fed one of those foods will increase its relative intake of whichever food its demonstrator ate (Chou & Richerson, 1992;Galef & Wigmore, 1983;Posadas-Andrews & Roper, 1983;Richard, Grover & Davis, 1987;Stetter et al, 1995;Strupp & Levitsky, 1984). Such demonstrator influence on observers' food selections is surprisingly robust (Galef, Kennett & Wigmore, 1985) and can reverse not only palatability-based food preferences (Galef, 1986(Galef, , 1989Galef & Whiskin, 1998), but also food preferences resulting from learned aversions or sodium appetites (Galef, 1986, Heyes & Durlach, 1990.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A naive observer Norway rat (Rattus norvegicus) offered a choice between two foods after interacting with a conspecific demonstrator fed one of those foods will increase its relative intake of whichever food its demonstrator ate (Chou & Richerson, 1992;Galef & Wigmore, 1983;Posadas-Andrews & Roper, 1983;Richard, Grover & Davis, 1987;Stetter et al, 1995;Strupp & Levitsky, 1984). Such demonstrator influence on observers' food selections is surprisingly robust (Galef, Kennett & Wigmore, 1985) and can reverse not only palatability-based food preferences (Galef, 1986(Galef, , 1989Galef & Whiskin, 1998), but also food preferences resulting from learned aversions or sodium appetites (Galef, 1986, Heyes & Durlach, 1990.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Características do alimento podem contribuir para o processo motivacional alimentar. Outros mecanismos, além da trans-missão de informação social e ambiental, afetam a preferência alimentar, e a exposição ao odor também influencia a preferência pela dieta 34 . Experimentalmente isto pode refletir em uma situação em que o animal simplesmente prefere uma dieta com algum odor familiar em relação a uma dieta completamente nova.…”
Section: P R O C E S S O S S E N S O R I a I Sunclassified
“…In experimental studies, different kinds of smell influence the preference for type of diet. Olfactory and taste sensations help control of appetite and regulate the quantity and quality of foods that will be chosen 9 .…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%