Consistency, transitivity and inter-relationships between measures of choice in environmental preference tests with chickens

Behavioural Processes

Volumn 83, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 72-78

  Browne, William J ^a   Caplen, Gina ^a   Edgar, Joanne ^a   Wilson, Lorna R ^b   Nicol, Christine J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL   (United Kingdom)

^b BRASENOSE COLLEGE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Chicken; Choice; Rationality; Transitivity; Welfare

Indexed keywords

BIRD; DECISION MAKING; PREFERENCE BEHAVIOR;

ANIMAL BEHAVIOR; ANIMAL EXPERIMENT; ANIMAL WELFARE; ARTICLE; CHICKEN; CONTROLLED STUDY; DECISION MAKING; DOMESTIC ANIMAL; INTERNAL CONSISTENCY; MATHEMATICAL PHENOMENA; MAZE TEST; NONHUMAN; PLACE PREFERENCE; TRANSITIVITY;

ANIMALS; BEHAVIOR, ANIMAL; CHICKENS; CHOICE BEHAVIOR; ENVIRONMENT; MODELS, THEORETICAL; RANDOM ALLOCATION; SOCIAL BEHAVIOR;

ANIMALIA; AVES; GALLUS GALLUS;

EID: 72649104494     PISSN: 03766357     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.beproc.2009.10.004     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Abeyesinghe S.M., Nicol C.J., Wathes C.M., and Randall J.M. Development of a raceway method to assess aversion of domestic fowl to concurrent stressors. Behav. Process. 56 (2001) 175-194
2. Abeyesinghe S.M., Nicol C.J., Hartnell S.J., and Wathes C.M. Can domestic fowl, Gallus gallus domesticus, show self-control?. Anim. Behav. 70 (2005) 1-11
3. Bateson M. Mechanisms of decision-making and the interpretation of choice tests. Anim. Welf. 13 (2004) S115-S120
4. Bateson M., Healy S.D., and Hurly T.A. Irrational choices in hummingbird foraging behaviour. Anim. Behav. 63 (2002) 587-596
5. Cooper J.J., and Albentosa M.J. Behavioural priorities of laying hens. Avian Poult. Biol. Rev. 14 (2003) 127-149
6. Dawkins M. Towards an objective method for assessing welfare in domestic fowl. Appl. Anim. Ethol. 2 (1976) 245-254
7. Dawkins M.S. Elusive concept of preferred group-size in domestic hens. Appl. Anim. Ethol. 8 (1982) 365-375
8. Dawkins M.S. From an animals point of view-motivation, fitness, and animal-welfare. Behav. Brain Sci. 13 (1990) 1-61
9. Duncan I.J.H. The interpretation of preference tests in animal welfare. Appl. Anim. Ethol. 4 (1978) 197-200
10. Fraser, D., Nicol, C.J. Preference and Motivation Research. In: Appleby, M.C. (Ed.), Animal Welfare, 2nd ed., CABI Wallingford, in press.
11. Houston A.I., McNamara J.M., and Steer M.D. Do we expect natural selection to produce rational behaviour?. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B, Biol. Sci. 362 (2007) 1531-1543
12. Kacelnik A. Meanings of rationality. In: Hurley S., and Nudds M. (Eds). Rational Animals? (2006), OUP, Oxford 87-106
13. Lindberg A.C., and Nicol C.J. Space and density effects on group size preferences in laying hens. Br. Poult. Sci. 37 (1996) 709-721
14. McNamara J.M., and Houston A.I. Partial preferences and foraging. Anim. Behav. 35 (1987) 1084-1099
15. Mendl M. Performing under pressure: stress and cognitive function. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 65 (1999) 221-244
16. Myung J.I., Karabatsos G., and Iverson G.J. A Bayesian approach to testing decision making axioms. J. Math. Psychol. 49 (2005) 205-225
17. Nicol C.J. Nonexclusive spatial preference in the laying hen. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 15 (1986) 337-350
18. Nicol C.J., Caplen G., Edgar J., and Browne W.J. Associations between welfare indicators and environmental choice in laying hens. Anim. Behav. 78 (2009) 413-424 10.1016/j.anbehav.2009.05.016
19. Pajor E.A., Rushen J., and de Passille A.M.B. Aversion learning techniques to evaluate dairy cattle handling practices. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 69 (2000) 89-102
20. Rasbach J., Browne W.J., Healy M., Cameron B., and Charlton C. The MLwiN Software Package Version 1.10 (2000), Institute of Education, University of London, London
21. Rushen J. Using aversion learning techniques to assess the mental state, suffering, and welfare of farm animals. J. Anim. Sci. 74 (1996) 1990-1995
22. Rutter S.M., Orr R.J., Yarrow N.H., and Champion R.A. Dietary preference of dairy cows grazing ryegrass and white clover. J. Dairy Sci. 87 (2004) 1317-1324
23. Schuck-Paim C., Pompilio L., and Kacelnik A. State-dependent decisions cause apparent violations of rationality in animal choice. PLoS Biol. 2 (2004) 2305-2315
24. Shafir S., Waite T.A., and Smith B.H. Context-dependent violations of rational choice in honeybees (Apis mellifera) and gray jays (Perisoreus canadensis). Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 51 (2002) 180-187
25. Shields S.J., Garner J.P., and Mench J.A. Dustbathing by broiler chickens: a comparison of preference for four different substrates. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 87 (2004) 69-82
26. Spinka M., Duncan I.J.H., and Widowski T.M. Do domestic pigs prefer short-term to medium-term confinement?. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 58 (1998) 221-232
27. Stephens D.W. How important are partial preferences. Anim. Behav. 33 (1985) 667-669
28. Stephens D.W., and McLinn C.M. Choice and context: testing a simple short-term choice rule. Anim. Behav. 66 (2003) 59-70
29. Sumpter C.E., Temple W., and Foster T.M. The transitivity of choices between different response requirements. J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 72 (1999) 235-249
30. Tversky A. Intransitivity of preferences. Psychol. Rev. 76 (1969) 31-36
31. Waite T.A., and Passino K.M. Paradoxical preferences when options are identical. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 59 (2006) 777-785