The effects of training and effortfulness on rats’ choice behavior in a modified T-maze

Larson, Lynn; Tarte, Robert D.

doi:10.3758/bf03337265

Cited by 7 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Analogous to our findin gs, Larson and Tarte (1976) showe d th at rats can be trained to prefe r the longer of two arms in a T-maze if the rat s receive asymmetrical training favoring the longer arm . Also Mitchell , Fish , and Calica (1982) demonstrated that rats ' preference in a choice situation can be influenced by th e relat ive efficiency with which the y can acquire food from the barpress container versus the free-food container.…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 87%

“…The least-effort hypothesis, contained in many learning theories (e.g., Hull, 1943 ;Keller & Schoenfeld, 1950), suggests that animals have a propensity to maximize reward while minimizing effort. Several researchers have commented on the apparent contradiction between contrafreeloading and the least-effort hypothesis (Kleinman et aI., 1976;Larson & Tarte, 1976 ;Neuringer, 1970;Osborne, 1977;Singh, 1970). That is, if animals conform to the least-effort hypothesis, then why do they choose to barpress for food when free food is available?…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The effect of training on consumption time and preference

Wolford

Lustick

1984

Bull. Psychon. Soc.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two experiments were carried out to examine the influence and limits of training on rats' preference. In the first experiment, rats' preference for barpress food versus freely available food was alternated between the two choices via interspersed training. The second experiment demonstrated that the preference could not be alternated indefinitely but eventually remained constant, with a strong free-food preference. Consumption rates during training sessions with barpressing and with free food showed that the number of pellets an animal consumed per minute increased with training. Both choice alternatives yielded similar learning curves. Free food demonstrated a slight initial advantage over and reached a higher asymptote than did the barpress. Preference during training could be predicted on the basis of which alternative was more efficient at that time.Since Jensen's (1963) initial experiment, a number of experimenters have documented and explored the "contrafreeloading" or "free food" phenomenon. Jensen found that when rats were given a choice between barpressing for food or eating it directly from a bowl of freely available food, the percentage of food obtained via the barpress increased monotonically with increases in the amount of barpress training prior to the test. Much of the research since 1963 has been directed toward examining the variables that affect whether animals prefer to barpress for food or eat "response-independent and continuously available food ," often referred to as free food (Osborne , 1977, p. 222).A range of training procedures has been utilized in preparation for the choice situation. Some evidence indicating that training procedures may contribute to the animal's preference has emerged. One such procedure was utilized by Carder and Berkowitz (1970), who gave rats 3 days of free-food training and then 6 days of barpress training. Each choice day began with 25 earned food pellets prior to the insertion of free food into the Skinner box. This procedure resulted in an overwhelming preference for food obtained through barpressing.Using the same training schedule, Tarte and Snyder (1973) replicated the results achieved by Carder and Berkowitz (1970). However, when Tarte and Snyder provided equal amounts of counterbalanced training, a clear preference for free food was observed. In his review article, Osborne (1977) suggested that animals seem to prefer barpress food only after they have received asymmetrical training. He defines asymmetrical training as the absence of prechoice training with freely Requests for reprints should be sent to: George Wolford, Psychology Department, Dartmouth College, Hanover, New Hampshire 03755. 57 available food and/or unequal pretraining experience with the choice alternatives.A number of other researchers have examined the effects of training on the choice situation. Jensen (1963) found that the percentage of food obtained via the barpress increased monotonically with increases in the amount of barpress training prior to the preference test. On the basis of...

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 87%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The effect of training on consumption time and preference

Wolford

Lustick

1984

Bull. Psychon. Soc.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Optimal foraging theory ( Stephens & Krebs, 1986 ) predicts that animals should preferentially forage on patches offering the highest net rate of energy intake. Paradoxically, in many species including humans, animals sometimes choose to forage in patches in which effort is required to exploit the food resource despite the existence of alternative patches containing identical food available for minimum effort ( Coulton, Waran, & Young, 1997; Inglis, Forkman, & Lazarus, 1997; Larson & Tarte, 2013; Lindqvist & Jensen, 2008; Neuringer, 1969; Ogura, 2011; Robertson & Anderson, 1975; Vasconcellos, Harumi, & Ades, 2012 ). This behaviour whereby animals work for food even when the same food is freely available is known as contrafreeloading (CFL).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Early life adversity increases foraging and information gathering in European starlings, Sturnus vulgaris

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Animals can insure themselves against the risk of starvation associated with unpredictable food availability by storing energy reserves or gathering information about alternative food sources. The former strategy carries costs in terms of mass-dependent predation risk, while the latter trades off against foraging for food; both trade-offs may be influenced by an individual's developmental history. Here, we consider a possible role of early developmental experience in inducing different mass regulation and foraging strategies in European starlings. We measured the body mass, body condition, foraging effort, food consumption and contrafreeloading (foraging for food hidden in sand when equivalent food is freely available) of adult birds (≥10 months old) that had previously undergone a subtle early life manipulation of food competition (cross-fostering into the highest or lowest ranks in the brood size hierarchy when 2–12 days of age). We found that developmentally disadvantaged birds were fatter in adulthood and differed in foraging behaviour compared with their advantaged siblings. Disadvantaged birds were hyperphagic compared with advantaged birds, but only following a period of food deprivation, and also spent more time contrafreeloading. Advantaged birds experienced a trade-off between foraging success and time spent contrafreeloading, whereas disadvantaged birds faced no such trade-off, owing to their greater foraging efficiency. Thus, developmentally disadvantaged birds appeared to retain a phenotypic memory of increased nestling food competition, employing both energy storage and information-gathering insurance strategies to a greater extent than their advantaged siblings. Our results suggest that subtle early life disadvantage in the form of psychosocial stress and/or food insecurity can leave a lasting legacy on foraging behaviour and mass regulation even in the absence of food insufficiency during development or adulthood.

show abstract

“…Larson and Tarte (1976) assessed the effects of prechoiee training when the choiee responses involved topographically similar operants. They found that rats initially preferred the longer of two paths to a goalbox in a T-maze if they were given more prechoice training with the longer path.…”

Section: Food Training Proceduresmentioning

confidence: 99%

The free food (contrafreeloading) phenomenon: A review and analysis

Osborne

1977

Animal Learning & Behavior

205

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Anima1s will perform an operant response to obtain food when abundant free food is availab1e. These data have implications for current 1earning theories, especial1y in terms of the motivationa1 variables associated with such behavior. The present paper reviews the literature and provides an analysis that suggests that responding for food in the presence of free food is importantly controlled by stimulus change attendant upon response-dependent food presentation. This apparent stimulus-reinforcer effect on behavior is compared to that observed in other areas of anima1 1earning research that include preference between schedu1es of responsedependent and response-independent reinforcement, preference between schedu1es of signa1ed and unsigna1ed reinforcement, autoshaping and automaintenance, and self-reinforcement in anima1s.When an animal is provided a choice between making an operant response to obtain food or by eating it from a source of continuously available free food, a curious thing happens. Animals not only acquire and continue to make the operant response, but they often appear to "prefer" the responsedependent food. That animals respond for food in the presence of identical free food is by now a wellestablished finding in the experimentalliterature.

show abstract

The effects of training and effortfulness on rats’ choice behavior in a modified T-maze

Cited by 7 publications

References 9 publications

The effect of training on consumption time and preference

The effect of training on consumption time and preference

Early life adversity increases foraging and information gathering in European starlings, Sturnus vulgaris

The free food (contrafreeloading) phenomenon: A review and analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About