Determinants of Animal Behaviour

Jo Anne Cartwright

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2002
• eBook ISBN: 9781134556601
• Topic: Psicología
• Subtopic: Historia y teoría en psicología

Are animals intelligent? How do they learn to solve everyday survival problems? Can they be intentionally deceptive? The investigation of animal behaviour is an important and fascinating aspect of comparative psychology. Determinants of Animal Behaviour thoroughly covers the section on determinants of animal behaviour in the AQA (A) comparative psychology module and deals with the three main topics featured in the syllabus. Firstly the evolutionary explanations of animal behaviour are discussed, including the biological explanations of apparent altruism. Secondly the nature of classical and operant conditioning in animal behaviour is considered and finally the role of social learning in animals is investigated. Real life examples are used throughout the book to illustrate the arguments presented.
Determinants of Animal Behaviour is an ideal introductory text to the subject, full of real life examples and both traditional and cutting-edge research. It will be of interest to all students new to comparative psychology and highly accessible to anyone wishing to know more about the diversity and ingenuity of animal behaviour.

1

Introduction

What is non-human animal behaviour?

Why study animal behaviour?

How do we study animal behaviour?

Summary

What is non-human animal behaviour?

Simply defined, non-human animal behaviour is anything an animal does—its feeding habits, its reproductive conduct, the way it rears its young, and a host of other activities. Behaviour is the whole animal’s adjustment to changes inside its body or in its environment and is always an organised action.

The group activities of non-human animals (hereafter referred to as animals) are an important aspect of animal behaviour. For example, bees communicate with each other about sources of food, and birds may flock during migratory flights. Group activities are often adaptations to a new set of circumstances; without adaptation (any structural or behavioural change that increases the probability that an animal will survive) a species could not survive in their ever-changing environment.

Behaviour can also be thought of as a response to a stimulus (something which stimulates the senses), whether it involves a change in the body or a change in the environment. All animals, even those too small to be seen without a microscope, respond to stimuli.

Why study animal behaviour?

One very good reason for studying animal behaviour is because the creatures we share our planet with are fascinating in their own right. Indeed, people have studied animals for thousands of years. Ancient humans studied animals, and while this was primarily to hunt and domesticate them they also studied them because they were curious about them. Nevertheless there are much more serious reasons for studying animal behaviour and, for some, it has become a scientific speciality to try to find out why animals behave the way that they do; and how their behaviour may help them and their offspring survive in their particular environmental niche (corner).

Just like humans, animals use their freedom to move and interact with their environment and with one another in a bid to try to solve their survival problems—for example, in finding and obtaining food; in avoiding becoming another animal’s meal; in finding, obtaining and keeping a suitable mate and a suitable ‘home’; and in rearing viable offspring. These are just a few of the survival problems faced by animals and humans.

The role of evolution in animal behaviour

Evolution appears to have forged each species’ behaviour, resulting in distinct species adopting different strategies for solving their survival problems and, to some extent, each individual adopting their own ways of solving their survival problems. Animals are therefore studied in a bid to understand how they adapt to their environment and in order to recognise what strategies they have evolved (developed) to solve their survival problems. This, of course, includes human animals, and if we accept Darwin’s proposal in his theory of evolution that all living organisms evolved from the same simple organisms then, to some extent, animals and humans must have a number of shared behaviours. Furthermore, many scientists claim that humans and modern apes shared the same common ancestor. If we accept what biologists tell us—that is, that the DNA difference between humans and our chimpanzee cousins is only 1.4 (meaning that chimpanzees share 98.6 per cent of the human genome)—then there must be a great number of similarities between humans and chimpanzees than there are differences.

Through studying animals it may be possible to determine what we humans have in common with our animal (evolutionary) ancestorsand what we do not have in common. For example, we may learn a route from our house to a given location and back again. Similarly, some animals must learn the route from their home and back again when they go on foraging trips; or, more astounding, when they migrate over thousands of miles and return to precisely the same place that they left months or years before.

These considerations raise a number of questions that should be addressed. Are humans qualitatively different from animals or simply quantitatively different? For example, do humans have some qualities (e.g. language, intelligence and consciousness) that animals do not? Or are the differences between humans and animals simply quantitative, whereby we share the same qualities (e.g. intelligence) but in different amounts? These, in turn, raise many more questions about behaviour; for example, do animals and humans learn things in the same way and, if not, how do they differ? Were our closest evolutionary ancestors (Homo habilis, an ancient form of ape) intelligent in similar ways to us humans but simply had less of ‘it’? Or did they have a very different kind of intelligence to humans? These and the multitude of questions raised by considering whether humans and animals are qualitatively or quantitatively different can only truly be answered by studying animal behaviour.

Benefits gained from studying animal behaviour

Another good reason for studying animal behaviour is because it can result in benefits for both humans and animals. For example, research on animals’ sensory systems has led to practical applications that have benefited human and animals— consider the examples which follow.

Griffin’s (1992) research on bats’ sonar abilities indirectly led to the development and use of sonar techniques to benefit both humans and animals. For example, the ultrasound scanner used to detect the development of foetuses in the womb and to spot any problems long before birth. Sonar systems have also been developed to enable large shipping to detect schools of dolphins in order to avoid them.

Pavlov’s pioneering research on classical conditioning (covered in Chapter 3), that established many principles of learning, has led to the application of learning principles in human medicine, such as overcoming the detrimental consequences of chemotherapy or radiation treatment for patients being treated for cancer (Bernstein, 1991). Oneof the unfortunate side effects of these treatments is nausea and vomiting. This particular side effect occurs because not only does the treatment kill the rapidly dividing cancer cells but it also kills the rapidly dividing cells that line the digestive system, consequently resulting in nausea and vomiting. Pavlov’s pioneering research has led to the knowledge that if a cancer patient is given a particular food just prior to receiving treatment they unconsciously associate the food with the nausea and vomiting, even though they consciously know it is the treatment that is causing it. This unconscious association formed between the food and the sickness causes patients to develop an aversion to the food eaten prior to treatment. As a nutritious diet is vital for aiding recovery, knowledge of this inappropriate association has resulted in these patients being given only non-nutritious food prior to the treatment; the result is that patients develop an aversion to the non-nutritious food and not to the nutritious food.

Pavlov’s pioneering research has also led to other benefits for animals, as the same taste-aversion principles found in cancer patients have been employed for saving endangered species. For example, some species of turtle have been endangered because mongooses have been eating their eggs. However, putting an emetic (i.e. something that makes the animal vomit) in some of the turtles’ eggs and letting the mongooses eat these has led to them avoiding these turtles’ eggs; this has resulted in a significant increase in these turtle populations (Nicolaus and Nellis, 1987).

Animals may also be studied for other reasons—for example, when it would be unethical and/or impractical to use humans, such as in experimental research involving the effects of early loss of the mother, or the effect of permanent damage to the brain or other vital organs. Animals are also used because they reproduce and develop much faster than humans do, making it easier to study genetic inheritance and environmental effects. Consequently it can be seen that there are a number of valid reasons for studying animal behaviour.

How do we study animal behaviour?

When we study animal behaviour we look at what animals do in different circumstances and we try to find explanations for particular behaviour patterns. There are a number of methods for studying animal behaviour. It can be studied by systematically observing and recordingtheir behaviour in a natural setting (normal habitat). On the other hand, it can be observed in a highly controlled laboratory setting where some things can be held constant (such as temperature, light) while systematically changing others (such as hormone levels)—or by a combination of these two, therefore observing animals in a natural setting but systematically changing aspects of their environment.

The ethological method of studying animal behaviour

The systematic observation of an animal’s behaviour in its natural setting is called ethology. The ethological method of research is mainly used to establish the function (purpose) of an animal’s behaviour. Ethology stresses the importance of studying behaviour in its natural setting, involving systematically observing and recording the ways in which animals solve their survival problems in their natural environment; for example, systematically observing and recording nest-building and egg-laying behaviour in birds.

Ethologists also carry out simple experiments which involve systematically changing aspects of the animals’ natural environment; for example, systematically observing and recording nest-building and egg-laying behaviour in birds and also placing another bird’s egg in some of these birds’ nests but not others. These simple experiments are called field experiments, and are usually carried out to make the relationship between a specific behaviour and the behaviour’s apparent function (purpose) or functions clear.

The ethological method of research has an advantage over the experimental method in that it will usually observe behaviour that represents the animal’s normal actions because the animal is in its natural habitat. Nevertheless, because the researcher has no real control over the situation it is not possible to establish precisely what caused the animal’s behaviour. Consequently, this lack of control of the situation may result in an inappropriate conclusion being drawn about the relationship between a specific behaviour and the behaviour’s apparent function (purpose) or functions.

The laboratory experimental method of studying animal behaviour

In contrast to the ethological method, the laboratory approach to studying animal behaviour involves systematically observing it in ahighly controlled laboratory setting to try to establish the precise cause of the behaviour. This method allows the researcher to have explicit control over the situation, enabling all aspects of the environment to be kept the same, apart from those which are required to be changed. Clearly then, if what is changed results in a change in the animal’s behaviour, and everything else remains the same, the researcher can be more sure that what was changed in the animals environment was the cause of the change in behaviour. Furthermore, because of the highly controlled, precise nature of the laboratory the experiment can easily be replicated to see whether findings are reliable (highly similar each time); this is not the case when using the ethological method.

Consequently, the use of the experimental method (unlike the ethological method) means that researchers can be more confident about the conclusions of the causes of behaviours. Nevertheless, because these animals are being studied in a highly unnatural situation, then findings gained using this method may not represent animals’ behaviour in its natural environment. This may therefore render the conclusions about the cause and/or function of the animals’ behaviour inappropriate in relation to the real world.

However, while these two methods are very different ways of studying animal behaviour they are not independent of each other. Instead, comparative psychologists adopt both methods in order to establish the functions of behaviour and the causes of behaviour, therefore gaining a more complete understanding of animal behaviour.

Points to note when studying animal behaviour

Before we consider what research into animal behaviour has taught us about human and animal behaviour there are three important points that should be noted:

• The problem of anthropomorphism.
• Avoiding taking information at face value.
• The Law of Parsimony (Lloyd Morgan’s canon).

The problem of anthropomorphism

Over the years a great deal of fanciful animal folklore has arisen. This has often led to the mistaken belief that animals behave in particular ways for the same reasons that humans do—for example, because they are angry, frustrated, puzzled, happy, etc. Adopting such a stance is to commit the ‘sin’ of anthropomorphism; that is, attributing animals with the same qualities as humans. Anthropomorphism can clearly be seen in the passage written in the first century by the famous Roman author Pliny the Elder:

The largest land animal is the elephant. It is the nearest to man in intelligence; it understands the language of its country and obeys orders, remembers duties that it has been taught, is pleased by affection and by marks of honor, nay more it possesses virtues rare even for man, honesty, wisdom, justice, also respect for the stars and reverence for the sun and moon.

While most animal researchers and lay people would never deny that the elephant could be taught to perform certain tasks, no one today would seriously believe that all of Pliny’s other claims are true.

Anthropomorphism is still seen today; for instance, a present-day example of anthropomorphism is clearly apparent on the website of the Hawaii Whale Research Foundation where it discusses breaching behaviour (see below) in humpback whales. Some of the information on this web page can be used to show how anthropomorphism can easily influence a researcher’s thoughts and muddy once impartial observations and interpretations.

A breach refers to the whale breaking through the surface of the water and leaping vertically into the air, out of its natural element. It is probably the most hoped-to-be-seen behaviour among whale watchers. Other whale species breach more often, but none so dramatically as the humpback. A full breach involves the humpback whale leaping completely (or almost completely) out of the water. It can rise above the water almost as high as it is long—up to 45 feet. As it falls, the whale usually assumes a horizontal position so that it hits the water laid out flat (a belly flop). Now consider the following comments made by a researcher on the Hawaii Whale Research Foundation’s web page:

Sometimes a whale that has just become active (after apparently resting), has just left a social group, or is excited or irritated will perform a series of breaches. Breaching is often interpreted as a show of playfulness by a whale. Such an interpretation is likely incorrect and an example of anthropomorphism, where human characteristics are attributed to animals. In fact, while we do not know why a breach is performed, it may signal that the whale is anything but playful.

As the researcher quite rightly points out, referring to breaching as a show of playfulness is anthropomorphism; however, the researcher’s previous comments also suffer from anthropomorphism when she or he states ‘is excited or irritated’.

Anthropomorphism is therefore easily attributed without conscious thought and is often very difficult to avoid. The trend regarding anthropomorphism is that researchers should try to avoid it at all costs as it may lead to inappropriate conclusions about animal behaviour. Anthropomorphism may also prevent us from becoming aware that animal experience may be very different to human experience, and may result in us overlooking aspects of their behaviour. Nevertheless, some researchers argue that this extreme stance on avoidance of anthropomorphism may result in researchers drawing inappropriate conclusions about animal behaviour because they are denying animals some behaviours that they may well possess.

The following quote from Sue Savage-Rumbaugh (1994) clearly sums up the need for unbiased, valid and reliable animal research:

We do not realise how deeply our starting assumptions affect the way we go about looking for and interpreting the data we collect. We should recognize that non-human organisms need not meet every new definition of tool use, mind or consciousness in order to have versions of their own that are worthy of serious study. We have set ourselves too much apart, grasping for definitions that...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Illustrations
• Preface
• Acknowledgements
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• Glossary
• Bibliography