Species-specific defense reactions and avoidance learning.

Bolles, Robert C.

doi:10.1037/h0028589

Cited by 1,569 publications

(963 citation statements)

References 50 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

898

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Such circumstances are not readily compatible with associative learning. Examples of associative learning from single occasions are few and seemingly connected to species-speciWc predispositions such as innate defense behaviors (Bolles 1970) or preparedness (Seligman 1970) (like the development of fear of snakes or speciWc food avoidance when being nauseated). It appears invalid to assume these, or similar, mechanisms to be at work in this series of experiments.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) and orangutan (Pongo abelii) forethought: self-control and pre-experience in the face of future tool use

Osvath¹,

Osvath²

2008

Anim Cogn

309

253

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Planning for future needs has traditionally been considered to be restricted to human cognition. Although recent studies on great ape and corvid cognition challenge this belief, the phylogenesis of human planning remains largely unknown. The complex skill for future planning has not yet been satisfactorily established in any other extant primate species than our own. In humans, planning for future needs rely heavily on two overarching capacities, both of which lie at the heart of our cognition: self-control, often deWned as the suppression of immediate drives in favor of delayed rewards, and mental time travel, which could be described as a detached mental experience of a past or future event. Future planning is linked to additional high complexity cognition such as metacognition and a consciousness usually not attributed to animals. In a series of four experiments based on tool use, we demonstrate that chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) and orangutans (Pongo abelii) override immediate drives in favor of future needs, and they do not merely rely on associative learning or semantic prospection when confronted with a planning task. These results suggest that great apes engage in planning for the future by out competing current drives and mentally pre-experiencing an upcoming event. This suggests that the advanced mental capacities utilized in human future planning are shared by phylogenetically more ancient species than previously believed.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) and orangutan (Pongo abelii) forethought: self-control and pre-experience in the face of future tool use

Osvath¹,

Osvath²

2008

Anim Cogn

309

253

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Response in different individuals of the same species under similar conditions may also dichotomize to freezing or fleeing, as seen in voles exposed to a silhouette of hawk [13,16]. This dichotomy was also observed in the same individual animals under different circumstances: woodmice (Apodemous mystacinus) either freeze or leap when exposed to stoats (Mustela ermina), [14] but scamper away when exposed to other predators [5,25]. Freezing or fleeing may also vary with age: young white-tailed deer tend to freeze when exposed to a predatory risk, whereas adults typically flee [40].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…In the face of life threat, the immediate behavioral responses of a prey animal may include: (i) freezingremaining immobile, typically while crouching and sometimes also relying on camouflage, in order to evade the attention of the predator [6,20,21,35,42]; (ii) fleeing-galloping away from the vicinity of the predator [5,8]; and (iii) fighting (or defensive threat)-heading toward the predator in agonistic display. Defensive fighting occurs only when the prey cannot avoid the predator [30].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Protean behavior under barn-owl attack: voles alternate between freezing and fleeing and spiny mice flee in alternating patterns

Edut

Eilam

2004

Behavioural Brain Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When attacking a spiny mouse in an experimental arena, a barn owl launched a few attacks from distant perches, made repetitive short-distance swoops in each attack and remained in the vicinity of the prey while chasing it. The spiny mouse fled in response, and typically oriented to face the owl whenever it stopped. When attacking a vole, the barn owl performed a greater number of attacks from distant perches, and left the vicinity of the prey after a few short-distance chases or capture attempts. Voles responded to these attacks in unspecific combinations of freezing and fleeing, and did not turn to face the owl when they stopped. Four conclusions are drawn from these encounters. First, two strategies characterized these predator-prey interactions; in one, both predator and prey continuously maintained awareness of each other's location; whereas in the other they continuously attempted to avoid the attention of the other. Second, responses of spiny mice and voles were a manifestation of protean behavior, with spiny mice fleeing in an alternating pattern and voles alternating between running and freezing. Third, locomotor response to owl attack comprised behavior that is an augmentation of normal behavior, with voles clinging to the walls and spiny mice running with frequent and irregular changes in direction. Fourth, the different defensive responses accord with the motor capacities and habitat of each rodent species. All in all, these results demonstrate the dynamic and multidimensional nature of predator-prey interactions.

show abstract

“…In these discussions of the methods of the experimental and applied analysis of behavior, not (Bolles, 1970;Seligman, 1970). Thus, the particular stimuli and responses chosen for laboratory study and their interactions with the subject's phyletic characteristics become critical limitations of whatever principles may emerge.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Place of the Human Subject in the Operant Laboratory

Baron

Perone

1982

BEHAV ANALYST

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although laboratory study of human behavior seems an obvious vehicle for strengthening the scientific base of behavior analysis, the place of the human subject within the operant laboratory remains problematic. The prevailing research strategy has been to link principles developed with animals to human affairs, either through interpretation of naturally occurring human behaviors or through application of the principles to the solution of human problems. The paucity of laboratory research on human operant behavior derives from several misconceptions: the possibility that experimental demand characteristics and pre-experimental behavioral dispositions of human subjects contaminate the results; that ethical considerations place undue constraint on research topics and experimental designs; and that uncontrollable variation in subjects' histories and other relevant personal characteristics prevents observation of reliable functional relations. We argue that these problems do not pose insurmountable obstacles to the experimental analysis of human behavior; that adequate methods of control and analysis are available; and that operant techniques, by emphasizing experimentally imposed contingencies, are well suited for the laboratory study of human behavior.Behavior analysis originated in the laboratory and discussions of the research methods developed there naturally emphasized experimental work with animals, usually rats and pigeons (Ferster, 1953;Sidman, 1960;Skinner, 1938). Descriptions of specific apparatuses were accompanied by explanations and justifications of the rationale of the characteristic methods, including free-operant procedures rather than instrumental ones, close experimental control rather than statistical analysis, and extended observations of individual subjects rather than brief study of large numbers of subjects.Subsequently, attention turned toward extending these methods to the analysis of human behavior, in particular the socially important behaviors involved in retardation, crime, mental illness, and education (Baer, Wolfe, & Risley, 1968;Hersen & Barlow, 1976;Sidman, 1962

show abstract

Species-specific defense reactions and avoidance learning.

Cited by 1,569 publications

References 50 publications

Chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) and orangutan (Pongo abelii) forethought: self-control and pre-experience in the face of future tool use

Chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) and orangutan (Pongo abelii) forethought: self-control and pre-experience in the face of future tool use

Protean behavior under barn-owl attack: voles alternate between freezing and fleeing and spiny mice flee in alternating patterns

The Place of the Human Subject in the Operant Laboratory

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About