Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-hfldf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-15T16:16:15.063Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Models of motivational decision-making and how they affect the experimental assessment of motivational priorities

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2018

G. Mason ,
J. Cooper  and
J. Garner
G. Mason
Affiliation:
Animal Behaviour Research Group, Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3PS
J. Cooper
Affiliation:
Animal Behaviour Research Group, Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3PS
J. Garner
Affiliation:
Animal Behaviour Research Group, Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3PS
Get access

Abstract

Measuring motivation has recently become a key issue in animal welfare, yet it can be difficult to implement in practice and even more difficult to apply validly to the specific animals whose welfare it is hoped to improve. Ethologists have modelled motivation in a number of ways. Here, we review these models (along with consumer demand approaches) to identify some of the factors that need to be controlled to conduct experiments with maximum internal and external validity. They indicate that to conduct experiments that make valid assessments of animals’ priorities, bouts of behaviour should not be curtailed, measurements should not be restricted to only one period or context and subjects should be kept in closed economies; time spent with resource should not be used as the only measure of consumption, as rate can vary with motivation and if demand curves are desired, the cost paid and amount of opportunity ‘bought’ must co-vary. Having avoided these pitfalls, further factors must be taken into account to ensure external validity. Animals’ priorities are affected by many aspects of their internal state and external environment, including the presence of eliciting stimuli, the number of behavioural opportunities available and the size of their time and energy budgets. A well fed animal in an enriched enclosure with excess energy but only limited time to allocate to many different activities would thus be likely to have quite different priorities from an under-fed animal with excess time available, housed in a barren environment. Hence studies of the former could not validly be applied to improve the welfare of the latter.

Type
Research Article
Information
BSAP Occasional Publication , Volume 20: Animal Choices , 1997 , pp. 9 - 17
Copyright
Copyright © The British Society of Animal Science 1997

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Archer, J. 1988. The behavioural biology of aggression. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Bannock, G., Baxter, R. E. and Davis, E. 1992. The Penguin dictionary of enconomics, fifth edition. Penguin, London.Google Scholar
Bradshaw, J. 1992. The behaviour of the domestic cat. CAB International, Wallingford.Google Scholar
Cabanac, M. 1979. Sensory pleasure. Quarterly Review of Biology 54: 1–29.Google Scholar
Cooper, J. J. and Appleby, M. C. 1995. Nesting behaviour of hens: effects of experience on motivation. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 42: 283–295.Google Scholar
Cooper, J. J. and Mason, G. J. 1997. Tine effect of cost of access on consumption of environmental resources in mink. In Animal choices (ed. Forbes, J. M., Lawrence, T. L. J., Rodway, R. G. and Varley, M. A.), British Society of Animal Science occasional publication no. 20, pp. 129–130.Google Scholar
Davis, W. J., Mpitsos, G. J., Pinneo, J. M. and Rau, J. L. 1977. Modification of the behavioural hierarchy of Pleurobranchea. I. Satiation and feeding mechanisms. Journal of Comparative Physiology 117: 99–125.Google Scholar
Dawkins, M. S. 1983. Battery hens name their price; consumer demand theory and the measurement of ethological ‘needs’. Animal Behaviour 31: 1195–1205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawkins, M. S. 1990. From an animal’s point of view; motivation, fitness and animal welfare. Behaviour and Brain Science 13: 1–61.Google Scholar
Faure, J. M. and Lagadic, H. 1994. Elasticity of demand for food and sand in laying hens subjected to variable windspeed. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 42: 49–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hinde, R. A. 1970. Animal behaviour, second edition. McGraw-Hill, New York.Google Scholar
Hoist, E. von and Mittelstaedt, H. 1950. Das Reafferenzprinzip. Naturwiss 37:464–476.Google Scholar
Houston, A. I. and McFarland, D. J. 1980. Behavioural resilience and its relation to demand functions. In Limits to action; the allocation of individual behaviour (ed. Staddon, J. E. R.), pp. 177–203. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Houston, A. I. and McNamara, J. M. 1989. The value of food: effects of open and closed economies. Animal Behaviour 37: 546–562.Google Scholar
Hughes, B. O. and Duncan, I. J. H. 1988. The notion of ethological ‘need’, models of motivation and animal welfare. Animal Behaviour 36: 1696–1707.Google Scholar
Hursh, S. R. 1984. Behavioral economics. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behaviour 42: 435–452.Google Scholar
Hutson, G. D. 1984. Animal welfare and consumer demand theory: are preference tests a luxury we can’t afford? Animal Behaviour 32: 1260–1261.Google Scholar
Jensen, P. and Toates, F. M. 1993. Who needs behavioural needs? Motivational aspects of the needs of animals. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 37: 161–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, K. G. and Cabanac, M. 1982. Homeostatic competition between food intake and temperature regulation in the rat. Physiology and Behavior 28: 675–679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, K. G. and Cabanac, M. 1983. Analysis of a conflict between palatability and cold exposure in rats. Physiology and Behavior 31: 249–253.Google Scholar
Keeling, L. J. 1994. Inter-bird distances and behavioural priorities in laying hens: the effect of spatial restriction. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 39: 131–140.Google Scholar
Lea, S. G. 1978. The psychology and economics of demand. Psychological Bulletin 85: 441–466.Google Scholar
Lorenz, K. 1950. The comparative method in studying innate behaviour patterns. Symposium of the Society of Experimental Biology 4: 221–268.Google Scholar
McFarland, D. 1971. Feedback mechanisms in animal behaviour. Academic Press, London.Google Scholar
McFarland, D. 1989. Problems of animal behaviour. Longman Scientific and Technical, Harlow.Google Scholar
McFarland, D. 1993. Animal behaviour, second edition. Longman Scientific and Technical, Harlow.Google Scholar
McFarland, D. and Sibly, R. M. 1975. The behavioural final common path. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, B 270: 265–293.Google Scholar
Mason, G., McFarland, D. and Garner, J. 1997. A demanding task: using economic techniques to assess animal priorities. Animal Behaviour In press.Google Scholar
Matthews, L. R. and Ladewig, J. 1994. Environmental requirements of pigs measured by behavioural demand functions. Animal Behaviour 47: 713–719.Google Scholar
Passille, A. M. B. de, Metz, J. M., Mekking, P. and Wiepkema, P. R. 1992. Does drinking milk stimulate sucking in voung calves? Applied Animal Behaviour Science 34: 23–36.Google Scholar
Petherick, J. C., Waddington, D. and Duncan, I. J. H. 1990. Learning to gain access to a foraging and dustbathing substrate by domestic fowl: is it out of sight out of mind? Behavioural Processes 22: 213–226.Google Scholar
Rachlin, H., Green, L., Kagel, J. H. and Battalio, R. C. 1976. Economic demand theory and psychological studies of choice. Psychology of Learning and Motivation 10: 129–154.Google Scholar
Roper, T. J. 1975. Nest material and food as reinforcers for fixed ratio responding in mice. Learning and Motivation 6: 327–343.Google Scholar
Sherwin, C. M. and Nicol, C. J. 1995. Changes in meal patterning by mice measure the cost imposed by natural obstacles. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 43: 291–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sherwin, C. M. and Nicol, C. J. 1996. Reorganisation of behaviour in laboratory mice (Mus musculus) with varying cost of access to resources. Animal Behaviour 51: 1087–1093.Google Scholar
Toates, F. 1980. Animal behaviour: a systems approach. John Wiley and Sons, Chichester.Google Scholar
Vestergaard, K. 1980. The regulation of dustbathing and other behaviour patterns in the laying hen: a Lorenzian approach. In The laying hen and its environment (ed. Moss, R.), pp. 101–113. Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague.Google Scholar