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...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Behavioural processes 1996-10, Vol.38 (1), p.55-65 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , |
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>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=3263029$$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 |