Food Preference, Keeper Ratings, and Reinforcer Effectiveness in Exotic Animals: The Value of Systematic Testing

Abstract

Food preference describes the behavior of selecting between items for consumption; reinforcer effectiveness is the functional effect of that item in controlling behavior. Food preference and reinforcer effectiveness were examined in giant pandas (Ailuropoda melanoleuca) and African elephants (Loxodonta africana). A pairwise comparison between food items was used to assess food preference. High-, moderate-, and low-preference items were selected and tested for reinforcer effectiveness. High-preference items controlled behavior more effectively than less-preferred items. Caregiver ratings of food preferences were also collected for each subject, but these reports did not necessarily coincide with actual subject preferences. Caregiver ratings correlated with the food preferences of only 1 individual of each species; thus, preferences of 1 nonhuman animal may be falsely generalized to all animals of that species. Results suggest that food choice and reinforcer effectiveness should be investigated empirically and not rely on anecdotal reports.

An assessment of touchscreens for testing primate food preferences and valuations

“…For example, laboratory-housed mice will exert effort to obtain additional space in their home cage (Sherwin & Fig. 4 Screenshots of trials in Experiment 2 showing the 3-cost protocol as the example, in which the subject had to select an image of a food reward three times before receiving that reward (in this case, a piece of turnip) Nicol, 1996); zoo-housed animals perform better in operanttraining sessions when rewarded with preferred foods (Gaalema et al, 2011); and captive primates will walk farther to obtain preferred foods than they will for lower-valued foods (Hopper et al, 2015;Stevens, Rosati, Ross, & Hauser, 2005). In our study, as the cost to obtain the four foods increased, the subject's willingness to complete the required number of touchscreen presses to obtain the food rewards decreased.…”

Systematic assessment of food item preference and reinforcer effectiveness: Enhancements in training laboratory-housed rhesus macaques

“…In humans, the majority of preference research has been conducted to determine effective reinforcers in clinical settings for children with developmental disabilities (e.g., Carr et al, 2000; Pace et al, 1985) or in educational settings (e.g., Mintz et al, 2007). In animals, food preference assessments have been conducted for a variety of reasons, including nutritional/palatability assessments (e.g., Tobie et al, 2015), comparative studies (e.g., Remis, 2002), measurements of cognitive capacity (e.g., Benz et al, 1992), pest control (e.g., Morgan, 1990), and a few assessments aimed at determining possible training reinforcers in applied animal settings (e.g., Clay et al, 2009; Fernandez et al, 2004; Gaalema et al, 2011). These preference assessments can be broadly categorized based on how the items are presented to the subject; whether they are presented one at a time, in pairs, or in groups.…”

“…Fisher et al (1992) found that this forcedchoice procedure resulted in greater differentiation among stimuli and also was a better predictor of which stimuli would subsequently serve as effective reinforcers. Paired-choice procedures are widely used to determine food, toy, or activity preferences in humans with developmental disorders (e.g., DeLeon et al, 2001; Fisher et al, 1992; Piazza et al, 1996) and have also been used to determine food preferences for a variety of animal species, ranging from great apes to possums (e.g., Benz et al, 1992; Cameron et al, 2013; Clay et al, 2009; Fernandez et al, 2004; Gaalema et al, 2011; Harlow & Myer, 1952; Mehrkam & Dorey, 2014; 2015; Polidora & Schneider, 1964; Remis, 2000; Vicars et al, 2014). …”

“…In the few studies that have investigated this, the tasks involved have been relatively basic. For example, Gaalema et al (2011) show that items identified as highly preferred during a paired-choice procedure were also differentially selected during a subsequent concurrent choice task (i.e. touching or pushing various stimuli) in giant pandas ( Ailuropoda melanoleuca ) and African elephants (Loxodonta Africana ).…”

Advancing Behavior Analysis in Zoos and Aquariums

“…This journal joins three other scientific periodicals focused on zoo and aquarium research, International Zoo Yearbook (f. 1960), Der Zoologisches Garten (f. 1859), and Zoo Biology (f. 1982). Applied behavior analytic research has been published in specialized zoo journals (e.g., Bloomsmith et al 2003;Chang et al 1997;ForthmanQuick 1984;Holden et al 2006), and other animal behavior and welfare-oriented journals have also accepted papers from behavior analysts and their zoo-based collaborators (Clay et al 2009;Elmore et al 2012;Gaalema et al 2011;Jensen et al 2013;Laule 1993;Lukas 1999;Marranzino 2013;Pomerantz and Terkel 2009;Savastano et al 2003).…”