Jealousy, competition, or a contextual cue for reward?

Emotions are difficult to assess, even in humans. The attribution of jealousy in an animal like a dog is especially difficult because performance of a particular behavior in the context of another animal receiving a reward may not be easily distinguishable from intra-species competition or simply a response to a contextual cue for the availability of reward. The authors provide distinguishing evidence in the form of fMRI data to show that in the presence of a “fake” dog being fed, there is bilateral activation in the amygdala, an area associated with anxiety, anger, fear, and even jealousy in humans

Jealousy, competition, or a contextual cue for reward?

Emotions are difficult to assess, even in humans. The attribution of jealousy in an animal like a dog is especially difficult because performance of a particular behavior in the context of another animal receiving a reward may not be easily distinguishable from intra-species competition or simply a response to a contextual cue for the availability of reward. The authors provide distinguishing evidence in the form of fMRI data to show that in the presence of a “fake” dog being fed, there is bilateral activation in the amygdala, an area associated with anxiety, anger, fear, and even jealousy in humans

Cognitive dissonance or contrast?

According to Festinger (1957), cognitive dissonance occurs when one’s behavior or belief is inconsistent with another belief and one modifies one of the beliefs in an attempt to reduce the dissonance. In nonhuman animals, we have examined a version of human cognitive dissonance theory called justification of effort, according to which the value of reward following more difficult tasks increases, presumably to justify (to oneself or to others) performing the more difficult task. We have examined the justification of effort effect in animals and found a pattern similar to the one in humans but we propose a simpler underlying mechanism: contrast between the greater effort and the resulting reward that follows. The contrast model predicts that any relatively aversive event will result in a preference for a reward (or for the signal of a reward) that follows. Much evidence supports this model: Signals for reward are preferred if they are preceded by having to make a greater number of responses, encountering a longer delay, or experiencing the absence of food (when food is presented on other trials). Contrast has also been found when the signals are associated with greater rather than less food restriction. We have also found a shift toward the preference of a food location that requires greater effort to obtain. Analogous effects have been found in humans (both children and adults) using similar procedures

Animals Represent the Past and the Future

It has been proposed by some that only humans have the ability to mentallytravel back in time (i.e., have episodic memory) and forward in time (i.e., have the ability to simulate the future). However, there is evidence from a variety of nonhuman animals (e.g., primates, dolphins, scrub jays, rats, and pigeons) that they have some ability to recover personal memories of what-where-when an event occurred (an earlier requirement of the ability to recover an episodic memory) and answer unexpected questions (another requirement to distinguish between semantic and episodic memory). Also, perhaps more critically, according to Tulving’s more recent definition of mental time-travel, several animals (primates and scrub jays) have been shown to be able to pass the spoon test. That is, they are able to plan for the future. Thus, although humans show an advanced ability to mentally travel backward and forward in time, there is growing evidence that nonhuman animals have some of this capacity as well

Cognition, movement and morality

Each of the criteria for determining which should be given moral standing has its shortcomings. The criterion of cognitive is especially weak. That research on comparative cognition may default to the simplest account is not grounds for abandoning this scientific practice. Instead, we should dissociate scientific evidence of cognitive ability from moral obligation. In addition to the criteria suggested by Mikhalevich & Powell for including species in welfare protections, I would suggest a very old one — the ability to physically move

Basic Behavioral Processes Involved in Procrastination

Procrastination involves an irrational putting off of engaging in a course of action, in spite of expecting to be worse off for the delay. I suggest that to understand the processes underlying procrastination one should examine its relation to several behavioral procedures that have been studied in humans and other animals. For example, in delay discounting, smaller rewards that come sooner are often preferred over larger rewards that come later. In the context of delay discounting, procrastination can be viewed as the preference for an immediate competing activity over the delay to work on a required task. Another process similar to procrastination can be seen in free operant, temporal avoidance (or Sidman avoidance) in which an animal will receive a shock (a deadline not met) if an interval passes without a specified response (task completion). Once animals learn about the interval, they often procrastinate by waiting until the interval has almost passed before responding. Finally, research with animals suggests that the persistence of procrastination may involve a form of negative reinforcement associated with the sudden decline in anxiety or fear (relief) when the task is completed prior to the deadline. Research with animals suggests that the mechanisms responsible for human procrastination may involve systems that derive from several procedures known to produce similar behavior animals

Effect of Environmental Enrichment on the Brain and on Learning and Cognition by Animals

The humane treatment of animals suggests that they should be housed in an environment that is rich in stimulation and allows for varied activities. However, even if one’s main concern is an accurate assessment of their learning and cognitive abilities, housing them in an enriched environment can have an important effect on the assessment of those abilities. Research has found that the development of the brain of animals is significantly affected by the environment in which they live. Not surprisingly, their ability to learn both simple and complex tasks is affected by even modest time spent in an enriched environment. In particular, animals that are housed in an enriched environment are less impulsive and make more optimal choices than animals housed in isolation. Even the way that they judge the passage of time is affected by their housing conditions. Some researchers have even suggested that exposing animals to an enriched environment can make them more “optimistic” in how they treat ambiguous stimuli. Whether that behavioral effect reflects the subtlety of differences in optimism/pessimism or something simpler, like differences in motivation, incentive, discriminability, or neophobia, it is clear that the conditions of housing can have an important effect on the learning and cognition of animals

Associative Concept Learning in Animals

Nonhuman animals show evidence for three types of concept learning: perceptual or similarity-based in which objects/stimuli are categorized based on physical similarity; relational in which one object/stimulus is categorized relative to another (e.g., same/different); and associative in which arbitrary stimuli become interchangeable with one another by virtue of a common association with another stimulus, outcome, or response. In this article, we focus on various methods for establishing associative concepts in nonhuman animals and evaluate data documenting the development of associative classes of stimuli. We also examine the nature of the common within-class representation of samples that have been associated with the same reinforced comparison response (i.e., many-to-one matching) by describing manipulations for distinguishing possible representations. Associative concepts provide one foundation for human language such that spoken and written words and the objects they represent become members of a class of interchangeable stimuli. The mechanisms of associative concept learning and the behavioral flexibility it allows, however, are also evident in the adaptive behaviors of animals lacking language

Gambling-Like Behavior in Pigeons: \u27Jackpot\u27 Signals Promote Maladaptive Risky Choice

Individuals often face choices that have uncertain outcomes and have important consequences. As a model of this environment, laboratory experiments often offer a choice between an uncertain, large reward that varies in its probability of delivery against a certain but smaller reward as a measure of an individual’s risk aversion. An important factor generally lacking from these procedures are gambling related cues that may moderate risk preferences. The present experiment offered pigeons choices between unreliable and certain rewards but, for the Signaled group on winning choices, presented a ‘jackpot’ signal prior to reward delivery. The Unsignaled group received an ambiguous stimulus not informative of choice outcomes. For the Signaled group, presenting win signals effectively blocked value discounting for the large, uncertain outcome as the probability of a loss increased, whereas the Unsignaled group showed regular preference changes similar to previous research lacking gambling related cues. These maladaptive choices were further shown to be unaffected by more salient loss signals and resistant to response cost increases. The results suggest an important role of an individual’s sensitivity to outcome-correlated cues in influencing risky choices that may moderate gambling behaviors in humans, particularly in casino and other gambling-specific environments