Jess RosalesRuiz Major ProfessorJonathan Pinkston Committee Member - PDF document

APPROVED: Jesús RosalesRuiz, Major ProfessorJonathan Pinkston, Committee MemberManish Vaidya, Committee MemberRichard Smith, Chair of the Departmentof Behavior AnalysisThomas Evenson, Dean of the College of Public Affairs and Community ServiceJa

mes D. Meernik, Acting Dean of the Toulouse Graduate School A STIMULUS CONTROL ANALYSIS OF IMPRINTING IN A HUMANREAREDPIGEONChristopher A. Varnon, B.S. Thesis Prepared for the Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS August2011

Varnon, Christopher AA stimulus control analysis of imprinting in a human rearedpigeonDoctor of PhilosophyBehavioral Analysis), Augustpp., tables,23 figures,referencestitles. Events that occur early in the life of birds greatly influence social a

nd sexual preferences throughout the course of life. Traditionally, this is explained by a learning process known as imprinting. Young birds are thought to imprint to early stimuli, causing the development of permanent preferences for those stimuli

. In the present study, imprinting is examined with respect to behaviors of an adult humanreared pigeon in several conditions. The subject was either presented with no stimulus, a conspecific stimulus, a novel stimulus, a human stimulus, or the hum

an and novel stimuli simultaneously. Several phases within these conditions were employed to pinpoint the variables that produced the most social and sexual behavior. The results showed thatwhile some conditions produced unclear behavior, other con

ditions produced very clear indications of sexual preference for humans and fear of conspecifics. The results suggest that the concept of imprinting may not be needed to explain the sexual preference of the subject, and that operant contingencies m

ay play a large role in sexual behavior. ii ! Copyright 2011 By Christopher A. Varnon iii TABLE OF CONTENTSLIST OF TABLESLIST OF IGURES v INTRODUCTION 1 METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES iv LIST OF TABLES1. Repeating at

tern of rder of sessions 2. Number of uman sessions beginning with ecks and attacks . 3. Average atency to irst ehavior in uman essions4. Average ime pent ear timulus hambers across sessions v LIST OF FIGURES1. Diagram of the apparatus2. Image

of the apparatustaken from the attached camera3. Range of duration the subject spent in each area in the alone condition4. Range of duration the subject spent in Area 1 and Area 2 in the alone condition whenboth stimulus chambers were opened, each

chamber was opened individually, and when both stimulus chambers were closed.5. Range of duration the subject spent Area 1close and Area 2close in the alone condition when both stimulus chambers were opened,each chamber was opened individually, an

d when both stimulus chambers were closed6. Duration the subject spent near the conspecific stimulus in the conspecific condition7. Pecks and attacks occurring near the conspecific stimulus in the conspecific condition 8. Cumulative attacks of the

subject and the stimulus bird, and time the subject spent near the stimulus bird in Session 26 of the conspecific condition9. Cumulative attacks of the subject and the stimulus bird, and time the subject spent near the stimulus bird in Session 32

of the conspecific condition10. Duration the subject spent near the novel stimulus in the novel condition11. Pecks and attacks occurring near the novel stimulus in the novel condition12. Average and maximum duration of attacks in the novel conditio

n13. Average attack IRT in the novel condition14. Duration the subject spent near the human stimulus in the closedwire and face phases of the human condition15. Pecks and attacks occurring near the human stimulus in the closedwire and face phases o

f the human condition16. Duration of allopreening and mating solicitations in the closedwire and face phases of the human condition vi 17. Duration of attacks and allopreening in the closedwire and preening phases of the human condition18. Dura

tion the subject spent within 20 cm of the human stimulus and conspecific stimulus in the closedwire and face phases of the preference condition19. Duration the subject spent within 5 cm of the human stimulus and conspecificstimulus in the closedwi

re and face phases of the preference condition20. Duration the subject spent within 20 cm of the human stimulus and conspecific stimulus in the openwire and preening phases of the preference condition21. Pecks and attacks occurring near the conspec

ific stimulus in the closedwire and face phases of the preference condition22. Pecks and attacks occurring near the human stimulus in the closed wire and face phases of the preference condition23. Duration of allopreening and mating solicitations d

irected to the human stimulus in the closedwire and face phases of the preference conditioned ! 1 ! development of sharp distinction between imprinting and other types of ! 2 ! Although exby operant and respondent processes, the function of reinf

orcement in imprinting has been clearly demonstrated with the followingThe following-response was initially thought to be a key feature of filial 23). the topography of the responseInstead, tProximitythe imprinted stimulus actsdemonstratean arbitra

ry behavior, in this casewith presentEven behaviors that are incompatible with following can be reinforced with the presentation of the imprinted stimulus. Hoffman,Stratton(1969) later expanded on this work and demonstrated that the removal of the

imprinted stimwas punished in this experiment was the natural behavior of following. The birds undergoing this procedure remainedimprinted stimulus. Skinner innate is not the behavior, but the sensitivity to reinforcement in the form of proxthe im

printed stimulus187)Other researesponse is not an instinctively elicited reflex and suggest that the behaviors evoked by the imprinted stimulus are innately reinforced ( (Hoffman et al. (1969) appears to indicate that the seemingly innate following

-captured and maiproximity to the imprinted ! 3 ! pecificÓ behavior, in In addition to the behavior ! 4 ! flexible. Imme novel ! 5 ! Immeerm , Immelmann (methods ! 6 ! maintained by method ! 7 ! y to the amount of ! 8 ! understanding of the o

perant contingencies that play a role in the development and maintenancef distress call ( et al. 1969 to1960). Sexual imprinting typically follows the discrimination method described by Sluckin(abundance of data, many features of the behavior are s

area of study in which singlesimultaneously, certain individuals display stimulata from these individuals is often(Witte & Sawka,interest is the occurrence of Òdithering.Ó Several researchers described some individuals despite procedures intend

ed to produce imprinting to only one Cate & Bateson,1991,).of other variables that are not controlled. In addition to the outliers seen in group-may create additional unconSometo the imprinted stimulus in filial imprinting is enhanced by the presen

ce of a novel 1966; Pitz & Ross 1961; Sluckin & Salzen, 1961; Stettner & Tilds, 1966). research ! 9 ! on sexual imprinting pand a novel stimulus simultaneously, procedure enhance responding to the imprinted stimulus. individually, as well as simul

taneously, could alleviateissue.The outliers in grouppresenting a novel and the imcontrolling variables more closely. Single-controlled and changed as orderly behavior emergescontrol, coupled with additional conditions to test imprinting, would all

ow a functional analysis of imprinting to be conducted. Applied RelevanceIn addition to gaining a better understanding of sexual imprinting, single-designallow an understanding of individual behavior needed to solve bproblems. programs. Such variou

s ecological threats reintroduction into the wild is possibleScheuerlein, 2011). role in 25% of vertebrate species whose threat level was reduced 2010)a critical species ! 10 ! humanto humansever, no procedures currently ! 11 ! contribute to such

outliers. In this experiment, sexual imprinting is studied in a reared using a singleused to measure different aspects of behavior. In these conditionseither presented with no stimuli, a conspecificstimulus, In each of these conditionsaffectedbehav

ior. ! 12 ! Columbia livia ! 13 ! x x and lived twelve ! 14 ! mounted x ! 15 ! by ! 16 ! made in allo ! 17 ! Mating solicitationMeasurement greement ! 18 ! Inter-16%other observers each scored a selection of these sessions. The second

observers were trained using the precedingtions and video examples of behaviorobservers then usdata independently of the primary observer. Data files were then compared to determine -of the two measurements by th multiplying the result by 100. Av

erage a9393Area 1Area 2Average a76agreement between pecksobserver scored 0 pecks. Removal of these 4 sets of observations brings the average 91a80ProceduresSeveral understanding of behavior. multiple conditionseffects of individual stimuli on behav

ior in addition the preference measuresexual imprinting experiments. conditionseach session, st by placing them in the stimulus chamber and opening the door to that stimulus chamber. Location of the stimuli was ! 19 ! male ! 20 ! Human , a human

! 21 ! When the multi Only one mmediately after in the human ! 22 ! . The box plotmaximum, minimum ! 23 ! . They oc ! 24 ! within 20 cm oless than average time spent near an empty stimulus chamber in the alone condition reported in 4The topograp

hy of the subject also changed across sessions. In StGoodwin describes this posturing as a defensive-occurs when a pigeon is simultaneous compelled to escape and to attack, and is an indicator of fear (1983, pSreturned in resented with an opening i

n the wire barrier. Figure occurring near the stimulus birdin the the first closed the first openat around 10 each sessionfrequent a difference closedclosedAlthough the stimulus bird could not always be observed in the video of each session to all

ow a record of its behavior, several bouts of fighting between the stimulus ! 25 ! the area near the stimulus bird. The stimulus bird attacked ! 26 ! he subject frequently grip ! 27 ! of the human of the human ! 28 ! of the human the human h

and Mating may have of the human ! 29 ! lists the average latency in the amount of time the ! 30 ! human and the number ! 31 ! Mating ! 32 ! human stimulus. This greater than both the time spent near empty stimulus chambers in the alone co

nditionthe conspecific condition. The second set of averages reported for the alone condition, both chambers open, was conditionopened in the alone condition76 seconds within 20 cmand within 5 cm of the empty stimulus chambers. In the preference co

nditionsubject spent 66 seconds within 20 cm and 44 seconds within 5 cm of the conspecific stimulus. This is slightly lower than the time the subject spent near stimulus chambers in the alone condition. within 20 cm and 159 seconds within 5 cm of

the human stimulus in the preference condition empty stimulus chambers or near the conspecific stimulus. ! 33 ! DISCUSSIONGeneral ResultsThe general results show that empty stimulus chambers produced an effect on proximity. Generally, the s

ubject spent more time near occupied stimulus chambers than empty stimulus chambers, with two exceptions. The first exception was observed the conspec the novel occupied stimulus chambers, the subject stimulus, after Sleast time near the conspecifi

copenof imprinting,suggest that the subject was imprinted to the human stimulus, and became imprinted to as sessions otherwisePecks occurred in the highest frequency in the human occurred at a high frequency in the second half of the novel conditio

nin the first half. conspecific er rates than in human conditionpreference conditionthe human stimulusthe preference conditionclosedAlthough many of the pecks made contact with the wire, very few pecks occurred in the alone conditionther stimuli. I

f the number of pecks occurring near a stimulus was taken as a measure of imprinting, ! 34 ! novel ! 35 ! than the amount of time Witte ! 36 ! could be of great benefit, and potentially lead to better methods to test sexual preferenceanalysis

to locate the cause of area bia Aversive In was variable, and often very low. Additionally, some approaches to the conspecific in accompanied by a defensivedefensivedisplay occurring in earlier sessions, the reducedthe conspecific in the openin the

last two If the conspecific prevent social interaction from developing (Hess, 1959). To cultivate social interaction and the development of repertoirefirst need to be removed. suggest that filial behavior will emerge if fear of a stimulus is re

moved. Several researchers have produced this effect through prolonged exposure to a fear-stimulus . A similar emin sexual imprinting if fear of a stimulus is removed. did not produce such a change, Thus,the behavior of living ! 37 ! The Develop

ment and Mto a memberIf a human ! 38 ! not be easily extinguished. Parent-and sexual behaviorsThis interpretation suggests contingencies of reinforcement are important factorsocial and sexual behavior of an individual. Early contingencies may be es

pecially important, as they not only affect behavior, but the likelihood of encountering other contingencies of reinforcement (see Rosalesinitial contingencies strengthen approach behaviors, it may be more likelybehaviors can be reinforced in the f

uture and be further strengthened. Conversely, if initial contingencies strengthen avoidance behaviors, it would be less likely that the behavior occurring in the presence of a non-primarilyrelated to fear and operant contingencies. The concepts o

f imprinting and species Comparison of Behavior in Conspecific and Novel CsThe novel conditionconAlthough the conspecific was novel to the subject, there was likely some phylogenic The initial responses to the conspecific and novel stimuli showed

some similaritiesnovel conditionlittle time within 5 cm of each stimulus, and approaches andaccompanied with the defensive-conspecific and novel condition ! 39 ! notable amount of time within 5 cm of the conspecific stimulus much sooner than she be

gan spending time within 5 cm of the novel stimulus. However, r sessions of conspecific Conversely, in ime within 5 cm of the novel stimulus, this duration remained consistently high. The time spent near the conspecific in later sessions suggests

that although fear of the conspecific was overcome quickly, some degree of .due to the behavior of the stimulus bird. As the stimulus bird was able to move about in openthe stimulus bird possessed a much greater ability to reinforce and punish beh

avior than perspective,to determine the differences in response to the conspecific and novel stimuli. The differences may have been caused by the ability of the conspecific to change the In addition to the differences in the amount of time the sub

ject spent near the conspecific and novel stimuliof these differences was the occurrence of allothe novel conditiona complete lack of allothe conspecific condition-preening occurred a few times in later sessions, after attacks accompanied by the It

! 40 ! the novel ! 41 ! the human hand, tven with thisthe human the novel ! 42 ! isplay a full range of human method ! 43 ! methods ! 44 ! The persistence of these trends after face phaseeffect contextevocative effect of the Mechanisms of

PTwo reasons for the lack of preference in the openpreference in thepreference conditionFirst, the conspecific may be more aversive in the face phasein the wire. In the ween the closedopen Second, face phasethan in the openface phasevoke allo Data

from reversals between the closedface phase the face phase may be derived through some form of automatic reinforcement, or a natural reinforcer such as proximity. These types of reinforcers have been suggested by In every situationThe subject may

! 45 ! ment, ! 46 ! behavi very relevant to human time, the ! 47 ! ment of maintaining ! 48 ! With these concepts in mind, the word imprinting is not needed to explain sexual preference. This suggests that imprinting is better suited as a

description for these events while further research is conducted to discover the specific operant contingencies involved in the development and maintenance of social and sexual ! 49 ! Table 1 Repeating Pattern

of Order of Order Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 First Alone Alone Alone Alone Second Novel Novel Human Conspecific Third Human Conspecific Conspecific Human Fourth Conspecific Human Preference Preference

Fifth Preference Preference Novel Novel ! 50 ! Table 2 Number of Human Beginning with Pecks and Attacks Phase Sessions beginning with a peck Sessions beginning with an attack Closed - wire 20 7 Open - wire 3 5 Pr

eening 2 12 Face 4 13 ! 51 ! Table 3 Average Latency to First Behavior in Human Phase Average latency to the first peck Average latency to the first attack Closed - wire 43 16 Open - wire 10 8 Preening 10 8

Face 18 12 ! 52 ! Table 4 Within 20 cm Within 5 cm Condition Average SD Average SD Alone: One Chamber Open 161 62 115 67 Alone: Both Chambers Open 76 52 76 52 Conspecific 211 83 121 93 Novel:

Sessions 1 - 10 136 86 0 0 Novel: Sessions 11 - 20 247 46 211 50 Human 255 30 221 44 Preference: Conspecific Stimulus 66 79 44 62 Preference: Human Stimulus 188 92 159 93 ! 53 ! Figure 1. Diagr

am of the apparatus. ! 54 ! Figure 2. Image of the apparatus taken from the attached camera. ! 55 ! Figure . Range of duration the subject spent in each area in the alone conditionbox plots illustrate the median, upper quartile, lower quarti

le, maximum, minimum and outliers in the range of data collected. ! 56 ! Figure . Range of duration the subject spin the alone condition when both stimulus chambers were opened, each chamber was opened individually, and when both stimulus chamb

ers were closed. median, upper quartile, lower quartile, maximum, minimum and outliers in the range of data collected. ! 57 ! Figure f duration the subject spent Area 1alone condition when both stimulus chambers were opened, each chamber was ope

ned individually, and when both stimulus chambers were closed. The box plots illustrate the median, upper quartile, lower quartile, maximum, minimum and outliers in the range of ! 58 ! Duration within 20 cm of conspecific stimulus Duration with

in 5 cm of conspecific stimulus Figure . Duration the subject spent near the conspecific stimulus in the conspecific condition ! 59 ! Pecks occurring within 5 cm of conspecific stimulus Attacks occurring within 5 cm of conspecific stimulus Figur

e . Pecks and attacks occurring nethe conspecific condition ! 60 ! Subject attacksStimulus bird attacks Figure .S ! 61 ! Subject attacksStimulus bird attacks Figure .ession 32 of the conspecific condition. ! 62 ! Duration within 20 cm of no

vel stimulusDuration within 5 cm of novel stimulus Figure Duration the subject spent near the novel stimulus in the novel ! 63 ! Pecks within 5 cm of novel stimulusAttacks within 5 cm of novel stimulus the novel ! 64 ! Average attack durati

on y = Maximum attack duration y = Figure . ! 65 ! Average attack IRT y = 2.98 xR = 0.79 Figure 1. Average attack IRT in ! 66 ! human ! 67 ! Pecks within 5 cm of human stimulusAttacks within 5 cm of human stimulus . Pecks and attacks

occurring near the human stimulus in the closedface human ! 68 ! Allo Mating solicitations Figure 1. Duration of alloclosedphaseshuman ! 69 ! Attacks within 5 cm of human stimulusAllo . Duration of attacks and alloclosedphases of the human

! 70 ! Duration within 20 cm of human stimulus Duration within 20 cm of conspecific stimulus Figure . Duration the subject spent within 20 cm of the human stimulus and closedpreference ! 71 ! Duration within 5 cm of human stimulus Figure 1

. Duration the subject spent within 5 cm of the human stimulus and conspecific preference ! 72 ! Duration within 20 cm of human stimulus Duration within 20 cm of conspecific stimulus Figure openphasespreference ! 73 ! Pecks within 5 cm of con

specific stimulusAttacks within 5 cm of consp closedand face preference ! 74 ! Pecks within 5 cm of human stimulusAttacks within 5 cm of human stimulus . Pecks and attacks occurring near the human stimulus in the closedface preference ! 75 !

Allo-preening of the human stimulus . Duration of allo-preening and mating solicitations direct ! 76 ! Biological Reviews,Gallus gallus domesticusJournal of Comparative Psychology, 102Flamingo husbandry guidelinesof Comparative and Physiological Ps

ychology, 91Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 54platyrhynchos). Journal of Comparative and Journal of Comparative and Physiological ! 77 ! the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 33Penguin husbandry manualJournal of Comparative a

nd Physiological Psychology, 91Animal Behaviour, 9Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 52, ! 78 ! Psychological Review, 18Journal of Comparative Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 86,Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 9Jo

urnal of Comparative Psychology ! 79 ! Immelmann, of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 52Animal Behaviour, 50Comparative and Physiological ! 80 ! Animal Behaviour, 10,Journal of Comparative Journal of Comparative Ethology,SexualitŠt, F

ormen und fehlenwicklungeninforcement: A Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55. , W.Imprinting and Early LearningPsychonomic Science, 4,Journal of Comparative Psychology, 100 ! 81 ! Animal Behaviour, Animal Behaviour, 50Animal Behaviour, 11Animal