Familiarity interferes with filial imprinting

The present study was performed to investigate whether and how pre-exposure to an object affects subsequent filial imprinting to that object. In Experiment 1 junglefowl chicks ( Gallus gallus spadiceus) were first exposed to either a red object alone (control group), or a red and a yellow object sim...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Behavioural processes 1996-10, Vol.38 (1), p.55-65
Hauptverfasser: van Kampen, Hendrik S., de Vos, Gerrit J.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 65
container_issue 1
container_start_page 55
container_title Behavioural processes
container_volume 38
creator van Kampen, Hendrik S.
de Vos, Gerrit J.
description The present study was performed to investigate whether and how pre-exposure to an object affects subsequent filial imprinting to that object. In Experiment 1 junglefowl chicks ( Gallus gallus spadiceus) were first exposed to either a red object alone (control group), or a red and a yellow object simultaneously (experimental group; phase 1). Subsequently, all chicks were exposed to the yellow object in the presence of a black and blue one (phase 2). At the end of phase 1, most experimental chicks had developed a preference for the red object over the yellow one. At the end of phase 2, preferences of experimental chicks were shifted away from the yellow object towards the novel black and blue object, relative to preferences of control chicks. This shows that pre-exposure may interfere with imprinting. Experiment 2 revealed that when control chicks were tested with the yellow object at the end of phase 1, filial responses were as strong as in experimental chicks. This shows that the yellow object had not acquired control over filial behaviour during phase 1, and also that the relatively impaired imprinting on that object in phase 2 was not due to reduced generalization from the red object. One possible explanation why pre-exposure may interfere with imprinting is that familiarity alters the level of attention attracted by an object, a mechanism suggested to underlie ‘latent inhibition’ in conditioning.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/0376-6357(96)00011-3
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_15829958</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>0376635796000113</els_id><sourcerecordid>1534096645</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c420t-8a7492b038447534e3aec9ed3bdbd3448a37e356f5dc245738a8cebdf47a92f93</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqF0EtLxDAQB_Agiq6PbyCyB5H1UE0zaR4XQcRVQfCi55CmU430sSZdxW9vyq571FMI85tk5k_IcU4vcpqLSwpSZAIKOdPinFKa5xlskUmuJMsUULVNJhuyR_ZjfB-RomKX7DGutBRAJySb29Y33gY_fE99N2CoMWCcfvnhbVqPlWbq20VIJd-9HpKd2jYRj9bnAXmZ3z7f3GePT3cPN9ePmeOMDpmykmtWUlCcywI4gkWnsYKyKivgXFmQCIWoi8oxXkhQVjksq5pLq1mt4YCcrd5dhP5jiXEwrY8Om8Z22C-jyQvFtC5UgrN_IHCqheBFonxFXehjDFibtFVrw7fJqRkTNWNcZozL6HQZEzWQ2k7WPyzLFqtN02-ECZyugY3ONnWwnfNx44AlxMaVrlYMU26fHoOJzmPnsPIB3WCq3v89yA9wTpB-</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1534096645</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Familiarity interferes with filial imprinting</title><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals</source><creator>van Kampen, Hendrik S. ; de Vos, Gerrit J.</creator><creatorcontrib>van Kampen, Hendrik S. ; de Vos, Gerrit J.</creatorcontrib><description>The present study was performed to investigate whether and how pre-exposure to an object affects subsequent filial imprinting to that object. In Experiment 1 junglefowl chicks ( Gallus gallus spadiceus) were first exposed to either a red object alone (control group), or a red and a yellow object simultaneously (experimental group; phase 1). Subsequently, all chicks were exposed to the yellow object in the presence of a black and blue one (phase 2). At the end of phase 1, most experimental chicks had developed a preference for the red object over the yellow one. At the end of phase 2, preferences of experimental chicks were shifted away from the yellow object towards the novel black and blue object, relative to preferences of control chicks. This shows that pre-exposure may interfere with imprinting. Experiment 2 revealed that when control chicks were tested with the yellow object at the end of phase 1, filial responses were as strong as in experimental chicks. This shows that the yellow object had not acquired control over filial behaviour during phase 1, and also that the relatively impaired imprinting on that object in phase 2 was not due to reduced generalization from the red object. One possible explanation why pre-exposure may interfere with imprinting is that familiarity alters the level of attention attracted by an object, a mechanism suggested to underlie ‘latent inhibition’ in conditioning.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0376-6357</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1872-8308</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/0376-6357(96)00011-3</identifier><identifier>PMID: 24897630</identifier><identifier>CODEN: BPRODA</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Shannon: Elsevier B.V</publisher><subject>Animal ethology ; Biological and medical sciences ; Familiarity ; Filial imprinting ; Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology ; Gallus gallus spadiceus ; Junglefowl chicks ; Latent inhibition ; Mammalia ; Pre-exposure ; Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry ; Vertebrata</subject><ispartof>Behavioural processes, 1996-10, Vol.38 (1), p.55-65</ispartof><rights>1996</rights><rights>1996 INIST-CNRS</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c420t-8a7492b038447534e3aec9ed3bdbd3448a37e356f5dc245738a8cebdf47a92f93</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c420t-8a7492b038447534e3aec9ed3bdbd3448a37e356f5dc245738a8cebdf47a92f93</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0376-6357(96)00011-3$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,3536,27903,27904,45974</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&amp;idt=3263029$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24897630$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>van Kampen, Hendrik S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>de Vos, Gerrit J.</creatorcontrib><title>Familiarity interferes with filial imprinting</title><title>Behavioural processes</title><addtitle>Behav Processes</addtitle><description>The present study was performed to investigate whether and how pre-exposure to an object affects subsequent filial imprinting to that object. In Experiment 1 junglefowl chicks ( Gallus gallus spadiceus) were first exposed to either a red object alone (control group), or a red and a yellow object simultaneously (experimental group; phase 1). Subsequently, all chicks were exposed to the yellow object in the presence of a black and blue one (phase 2). At the end of phase 1, most experimental chicks had developed a preference for the red object over the yellow one. At the end of phase 2, preferences of experimental chicks were shifted away from the yellow object towards the novel black and blue object, relative to preferences of control chicks. This shows that pre-exposure may interfere with imprinting. Experiment 2 revealed that when control chicks were tested with the yellow object at the end of phase 1, filial responses were as strong as in experimental chicks. This shows that the yellow object had not acquired control over filial behaviour during phase 1, and also that the relatively impaired imprinting on that object in phase 2 was not due to reduced generalization from the red object. One possible explanation why pre-exposure may interfere with imprinting is that familiarity alters the level of attention attracted by an object, a mechanism suggested to underlie ‘latent inhibition’ in conditioning.</description><subject>Animal ethology</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Familiarity</subject><subject>Filial imprinting</subject><subject>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</subject><subject>Gallus gallus spadiceus</subject><subject>Junglefowl chicks</subject><subject>Latent inhibition</subject><subject>Mammalia</subject><subject>Pre-exposure</subject><subject>Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry</subject><subject>Vertebrata</subject><issn>0376-6357</issn><issn>1872-8308</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1996</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqF0EtLxDAQB_Agiq6PbyCyB5H1UE0zaR4XQcRVQfCi55CmU430sSZdxW9vyq571FMI85tk5k_IcU4vcpqLSwpSZAIKOdPinFKa5xlskUmuJMsUULVNJhuyR_ZjfB-RomKX7DGutBRAJySb29Y33gY_fE99N2CoMWCcfvnhbVqPlWbq20VIJd-9HpKd2jYRj9bnAXmZ3z7f3GePT3cPN9ePmeOMDpmykmtWUlCcywI4gkWnsYKyKivgXFmQCIWoi8oxXkhQVjksq5pLq1mt4YCcrd5dhP5jiXEwrY8Om8Z22C-jyQvFtC5UgrN_IHCqheBFonxFXehjDFibtFVrw7fJqRkTNWNcZozL6HQZEzWQ2k7WPyzLFqtN02-ECZyugY3ONnWwnfNx44AlxMaVrlYMU26fHoOJzmPnsPIB3WCq3v89yA9wTpB-</recordid><startdate>19961001</startdate><enddate>19961001</enddate><creator>van Kampen, Hendrik S.</creator><creator>de Vos, Gerrit J.</creator><general>Elsevier B.V</general><general>Elsevier</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>7QG</scope></search><sort><creationdate>19961001</creationdate><title>Familiarity interferes with filial imprinting</title><author>van Kampen, Hendrik S. ; de Vos, Gerrit J.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c420t-8a7492b038447534e3aec9ed3bdbd3448a37e356f5dc245738a8cebdf47a92f93</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1996</creationdate><topic>Animal ethology</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Familiarity</topic><topic>Filial imprinting</topic><topic>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</topic><topic>Gallus gallus spadiceus</topic><topic>Junglefowl chicks</topic><topic>Latent inhibition</topic><topic>Mammalia</topic><topic>Pre-exposure</topic><topic>Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry</topic><topic>Vertebrata</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>van Kampen, Hendrik S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>de Vos, Gerrit J.</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><jtitle>Behavioural processes</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>van Kampen, Hendrik S.</au><au>de Vos, Gerrit J.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Familiarity interferes with filial imprinting</atitle><jtitle>Behavioural processes</jtitle><addtitle>Behav Processes</addtitle><date>1996-10-01</date><risdate>1996</risdate><volume>38</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>55</spage><epage>65</epage><pages>55-65</pages><issn>0376-6357</issn><eissn>1872-8308</eissn><coden>BPRODA</coden><abstract>The present study was performed to investigate whether and how pre-exposure to an object affects subsequent filial imprinting to that object. In Experiment 1 junglefowl chicks ( Gallus gallus spadiceus) were first exposed to either a red object alone (control group), or a red and a yellow object simultaneously (experimental group; phase 1). Subsequently, all chicks were exposed to the yellow object in the presence of a black and blue one (phase 2). At the end of phase 1, most experimental chicks had developed a preference for the red object over the yellow one. At the end of phase 2, preferences of experimental chicks were shifted away from the yellow object towards the novel black and blue object, relative to preferences of control chicks. This shows that pre-exposure may interfere with imprinting. Experiment 2 revealed that when control chicks were tested with the yellow object at the end of phase 1, filial responses were as strong as in experimental chicks. This shows that the yellow object had not acquired control over filial behaviour during phase 1, and also that the relatively impaired imprinting on that object in phase 2 was not due to reduced generalization from the red object. One possible explanation why pre-exposure may interfere with imprinting is that familiarity alters the level of attention attracted by an object, a mechanism suggested to underlie ‘latent inhibition’ in conditioning.</abstract><cop>Shannon</cop><pub>Elsevier B.V</pub><pmid>24897630</pmid><doi>10.1016/0376-6357(96)00011-3</doi><tpages>11</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0376-6357
ispartof Behavioural processes, 1996-10, Vol.38 (1), p.55-65
issn 0376-6357
1872-8308
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_15829958
source Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals
subjects Animal ethology
Biological and medical sciences
Familiarity
Filial imprinting
Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology
Gallus gallus spadiceus
Junglefowl chicks
Latent inhibition
Mammalia
Pre-exposure
Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry
Vertebrata
title Familiarity interferes with filial imprinting
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-21T14%3A01%3A25IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Familiarity%20interferes%20with%20filial%20imprinting&rft.jtitle=Behavioural%20processes&rft.au=van%20Kampen,%20Hendrik%20S.&rft.date=1996-10-01&rft.volume=38&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=55&rft.epage=65&rft.pages=55-65&rft.issn=0376-6357&rft.eissn=1872-8308&rft.coden=BPRODA&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/0376-6357(96)00011-3&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1534096645%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1534096645&rft_id=info:pmid/24897630&rft_els_id=0376635796000113&rfr_iscdi=true