An experimental analysis of “empathic” response: Effects of pain reactions of pigeon upon other pigeon's operant behavior.

Behawoural Processes,

13 (1986) 269-277

269

Elsevler

AN EXPERIMENTAL ANALYSIS PAIN REACTIONS OF PIGEON

OF "EMPATHIC" RESPONSE: EFFECTS OF UPON OTHER PIGEON'S OPERANT BEHAVIOR.

Shlgeru WATANABE and Kunlhlko ON0 Department of Psychology, Kelo Unlverslty Mlta 2-15-45, Minato-ku, JAPAN (Accepted

5 May 1986)

ABSTRACT Watanabe, S. and Cno, K., 1986. An experimental Effects

analysis of "empathic" reponse. of piqeon upon other mgeon's operant behavior. Behav.

of pain reactions

Processes

13: 269-277

Suppression of operant behavior by exposure to pain reactions of conspeclflcs was examined with plgeons. Three groups of pigeons were trained on a VI schedule, and were then exposed to the pain reactions of an ad]olnlng bird to electric shocks. Although every subject showed suppression of responding, the suppression decreased with repeated exposures. Following this assessment, a condltlonlng group received condltloned suppression tralnlng In which the pain reactlon of the adlolnlng bird was the CS and an electric shock was the US; a shock exposure group received the electric shock without any explicit CS; and, a no-shock group did not receive any shock. After these treatments, every group was exposed to the pain reactions of the adlolnlng bird (test 1). The condltlonlng group and the shock exposure group showed clear suppression in responding, but the no-shock group did not. The no-shock group then received the shock exposure treatment and the condltloned suppression tralnlng succeslvely, and the shock exposure group received the condltloned suppression tralnlng. Results of tests with the pain reaction of the adlolnlng bird supported the results of the testl, however, suppression caused by the shock exposure was not so clear In the no-shock group. The present results demonstrated that conspecific behavior can become a CS by condltloned suppression tralnlng, and, the behavior to an aversive stimulus can acquire aversive properties for other consepeclflcs when they have shared the exposure to the same aversive stimulus. INTRODUCTION Does an animal

feel a pain

reaction

of another

aversive

If so, does

it imply

that

stimulus?

lnfrahuman

1981;

altruism

Boorman

individual

basis

1980).

of an lndlvldual

individual.

of animal

"Empathy"

to the pain

Psychological

meaning value

has aversive

in animal

should

topic

In

and Hamilton, of altrusm for another

property

give

for

psychological

altruism.

experiment

reaction

no other

1972; Axelrod

has relnforclng

of an lndlvidual

reported

if a rat had had experience

nately

has been an interesting

(Hamilton,

and Levitt,

and danger

An early that

in animals

of socloblology

1s that benefit

another

as an

animals?

Recently the field

animal

"empathy" exists in

of another

experiments

The purpose

of the present

experiment,

but with

pigeon

by Church with

(1959) demonstrated

electric

shock

rat to electric

has explored experiment

this

it showed

shock.

Unfortu-

lnterestlng

is to reevaluate

as sublects.

0376-6357/86/%03 50 @ 1986ElsevlerSclence Pubhshers B V (Blomedlcal Dlvlslon)

fear

results.

Church's

270

METHOD Sublects Eight

experimentally

Two of them were

training.

80 percent

of their

The other

ment

had a pecking

hopper.

key

The key was

the distance chamber

chamber

weights

were

maintained

and were used

used. any

at about

for behav-

(diameter,

The adjacent plexiglass

continuously

lit during

Electric generator

shock

(Tosoku,

electrodes

was arranged Procedure Every

under

except

a VI 60sec

in the right

compartment. The house

training

Phase

of successive

during

until

during

which

a

training

were

trained

the dally

to

then

consltedof session

3sec

consisted

bird was retained

was effective

the birds

for the

was lit several

training

session.

did not show any change

of the house

compartment

One shock

and turned

every

was turned

off when the bird

received

period

shock was given

lamp of the left chamber

when

stainless

lamp.

to the pain reactlonoftheshocked-bird):

VI training.

began

shock

The experiment

approxlmatlon,

a shocked

by presentation

dally

period

which

No schedule

during

shock period,

through

bones.

Reinforcement

One dally

in the right

100msec

lamp

was

by an electric

lamp of the left chamber

1 (adaptation

The shocked-bird

house

compartment

for two shocked-birds,

one mln,

produced

the pubis

schedule.

continued

in responding

was

had a small

was generated

and during

lasting

for the

II computer.

hopper.

shocked-bird. each

The right

of the two compartments

under

an Apple

to the grain

(DC 24V) and

and was used

morczl-k501) and was given

pigeon,

lamp 21cm.

The lamp of the right

implanted

with

of a grain

the experiment.

(DC 2.8mA)

of 30 reinforcements

times,

by a miniature

wall

the key by the method

access

3cm) and an opening

and each compartment

of the

of the left compart-

the key and the floor was

(DC 24V) on its celling.

trained

of two compartments

did not have a key and a hopper,

shocked-bird.

steel

consisted

lllumlnated

between

transparent

shock

were

and did not receive

The front panel

(30 x 30 x 27cm).

size

house

llvla)

training.

same

This

(Columba

six birds

free feeding

Apparatus The experimental

peck

pigeons

used as a shocked-bird

behavioral

ioral

naive

lasted

electric

fourth

sec.

The

on one mln before

the shock

period

shocks

for one mln,

ended.

in the left chamber

showed

the The less

271

than a five percent successive

min.

shocked-bird

change

in response

The dally

received

training

four

shock

rate

in preceding

session

periods.

finished This

three

when

training

the continued

for five days. Phase pigeons days.

2:

The sublects

each,

and received

During

grain

hopper

this phase,

after

the pecking

group

30sec

shock

received

by a two set intershock

compartment.

seem as CS for the electric

mln

In each dally

not receive sublects

group

shock.

Phase group

In the

to the right

four times,

bird

separated

by

shock

compartment CS.

as

did

The

in the left compart-

in the right to either

compartment

for

pigeon.

VI training

for five days with

that only one shock

presenta-

session.

exposure

the former

the same electric

retained

bird

dally

for two sessions

2:

Two groups

group

received

and the no-shock

the condltloned

and the latter

received

3:

treated

as in Test

Only

4:

the condltlonlng Test

100msec

to the left bird.

in the right

1 except

in each

the shock

Now,

sessions

Phase The birds

Only

(duration

to the shock-bird

was no explicit

were

received

as phase

used.

shock

was exposed

suppres to the

shock.

Test training

is, there

to the shocked

was given

slon training electric

received

group

Each group

3:

were

of the

and no VI traln-

(duration

presentaion

but the bird

That

the same procedure tion period

period

shock

but no shock was delivered 1:

an electric

was repeated

group

In the no-shock

Test

covered

of two for two

session.

exposure

and exposed

ten min,

is, shock

procedure

the condltlonlng

ment

That

condltlonlng

The shock

below

key and the opening

period)

could

three

groups

described

were

presentation

right

This

into three

out.

The condltlonlng

separated

divided

in the left compartment

lng was carried 100msec)

were

the treatments

the subjects

3 received

In the no-shocked

the same condltloned

group

in the phase

The no-shock

ing as the Test

In phase

five VI

1.

group

group

suppression

were

training

used. as

2.

received

five days of VI train-

1 and 2.

Pair of the left and right experimental

period, l.e.,

shocked-bird

and the pigeons

birds

the pigeons

was fixed

throughout

Al,A2,A3,

observed

Bl, B2 and B3 the other

the one

shocked-bird.

272

RESULTS Figure

1 presents

was calculated responses

results

by dividing

In the minutes

of phase

before

period shock

(P - S) by the number period

presentation showed

(P). Every

adaptation

Results

showed

3.

in suppression

of responses showed

shock

suppresslon

to its paired

suppression. The shock ratio

1 are presented

exposure Fig.

exposure

of

and in the shock

in one mln before

group

in figure

birds.

2.

The sublectz

On the other

and the condltionlng results

(phase

2).

hand,

group

of the test 2

did not show much

by the conditioning

by

and they also

of the other

3 presents group

the

of key pecking

bird,

did not show suppression.

in the shock

clear

and test

group

period

ratio

the number

Fig. 2. Results of test 1. SubJects Al and Bl had had no experience of electric shock (no shock group), A2 and B2 had been exposed to the shock (shockexposure group), and A3 and B3 had received condltloned suppression tralnlng (condltlonlnggroup).

to the pain reactions

of the test

in the no-shock the birds

bird

of electric

between

the shock

Fig. 1. Adaptation to pain reaction of the adJoIning shockedbird. The lower panel represents lndlvldual response rate during the shock period and the upper panel suppresslon ratlo. P lndicates response rate in one min prior to the shock period and S that in the shock period.

The suppression

1.

the difference

increase

On the other

273

hand,

the no-shock

ratio

by the condltloning

the shock

group

exposure

showed

a clear

(phase

(phase

increase

of suppression

3), but no clear

increase

after

2).

Fig. 3 Results of the test 2 and 3. Open circle and closed mrcle mdlcate the subJects Al and Bl In the no shock group and open triangle and closed triangle A2 and B2 In the shock exposure group respectively.

DISCUSSION The present

results

1) the pain

reaction

suppression

procedure

an aversive

stimulus

electric

could

2) the pain

for another

point

behavior

an aversive

stimulus.

Husted

means

bird

become

of Church(1959).

a CS in condltloned

reaction

of a bird

became

that had been exposed

natural

or absence

that visual stimulus

(1966)

concept

1976).

periments,

except

point

found

of a second

to the

Lander,

natural

for Trillmlch's,

properties

of

the behavior

as

dlscrlml-

rat in avoidance experiments

of conspecific

(Pooleand

In these

stimulus concerns

that one rat could

dlscrlmination

stimulus

class

Trillmich,

a dlscrlmlnatlve

and the second

and Mackena

the presence

and many

native

and,

study

shock.

The first

strated

the earlier

of an animal

conspecific

nate

support

functioned

1971; Ryan,

concept

as dlscrlmi-

1982;

dlscrlmlnatlon

the visual

training,

have demon-

stimulus

was

ex-

274

a static

image

stimulus

was a visual

Millard a high

rate key pecking

that behavior

through

respondent

Humphreys

and Einon,

experiments

of visual 1967;

showed

Furthermore,

shock and those

exposure

to aversive

There

stlmull

have been also

1978).

without

stimulus

animal

However, behavior

some reports

there

has been

as a nagatlve

in avoidance

between with

experience.

reinfew reln-

of one rat

tralnlng

training

experiment

1964;

as a positive

was not necessary

shock

of con-

that distress

aversive

in their

not by the electric

of other the rats

usual Thus,

the

to establish

was caused

by sus-

and they did not employed

adap-

phase. the pain reaction

had a suppressive

of an adlolnlng repeated

pigeon

exposure,

of the pain

non-specific Does

vlously

(phase

reaction effects

the experience

stimulus? pointed

the suppression

with There

ratlo

upon

1).

of shocked

food-reinforced

The effect

in the phase

of being another

by the pain reaction

by the presentation

bird

from other

shock

that 1s recelvlng explanations

the same as pre-

is sensltizatlon,

of the adlolnlng

sensitization.

through

out the specific

to the electric

are two possible The first

lnl-

key pecking

1.

exposed animal

pigeon

decreased

to single

of the conspecific

out by Church.

from non-specific

pression

effect

and it 1s lmposslble

sensory

in "empathy"

aversive

result

the

of avoidance

The distress

In our experiment,

result

have demonstrated

they did not find differences

electric

aspect

a CS

et al, 1981; Thompson,

reinforcer

had had an experience

tially

demon-

become

(1962) reported

rat.

tation

and Creed,1970)

of key pecking

could

or auditory

conspeclflc

and Gainer

which

pension

(Danson

as a

bird.

bird

conspeclflc

Denl,

as a negative

"altruism".

function

of another

in oar experiment

which

Haraway

1981).

1981;

which

Rice

functioned

studies

to demonstrate

(Linton,

forcer.

of a conspeclfic

properties (Stevenson,

failed

could

behavior

The suppression training

of a pigeon,

condltlonlng.

specifics

forcer

1983).

have been many

reinforcing

and not its behavior. behavior

with monkeys

suppression

strated

which

for the operant

(Hake et al.,

There

of a conspeclflc that a specified

were obtained

condltloned

ls, the dlscrlmlnatlve

or a low rate pecking,

stimulus

results

and rats after

image

(1979)reported

dlscrlmlnatlve Similar

That

that did not move.

Fig.

bird might

4 presents

of the house

and

the sup-

lamp of the left

275

No plgeon

chamber. change

increase cannot

showed

of the suppressron In rate.

explain

Joining

Thus,

a clear except

suppression

for pigeon

the sensltlzatlon

the suppression

or systematrc

B2, which

showed

to any stimulus

by the pain

reaction

an

change

of the ad-

bird.

80.

p---d

1

3

2

1

2

TEST Fig. 4. Suppression of responding by presentation of the house light during the tests. P lndlcates the response rate in one min before the shock period, and L the rate rn the light presentation period. The left panel shows mdivldual results In the no shock group, the middle those IIIthe shock-exposure group, and the right those in the condltlonlng group. The

second

response

explanation

of an organism

propertles

of parn

reaction

to four additional video-tape

was weak

shock.

wing-flapping

IOOmsec)

plgeons during ]umping

was

shock given

mostly

behavior

was up-down

the chamber

every

showed

shock

four

up-down

When

was given on a

of head

then they

and showed

showed

the inter-shock

Intervals,

at the shock

presentations.

strong

and ]umpingatthe (2.8mA)

When

strong

corresponded

the shock

set, as In the experiment, movement

ar-

the shock

the birds

for the experiment

In this observation.

shock

and stop-motion

movement

wall

in which the stimulus

was recorded

results.

and vocalization,

used

electric

slow play-back

At the moderate

scratching

The intensity

to the strong

and their

response

To clarify

of the plgeon

with

was rare.

wing-flapping,

on condltlonlng CS.

illustrates schematic

Frg.5

dominant

vocalization moderate

birds

and examined

rangements.

1s based

constitutes

(2.SmA, the

of head and vocalization

and strong

wing-flapping

No numerical

evaluation

and was

276

done of these reaction

observations common Thus,

obsevations,

was quite

suggest

stimulus

in which

the pain

stimulus

that a pain with

to aversive reaction

reaction

in which

reaction

difference

stimulus

shock.

of one bird

a pain reaction

bird

In other an original

for the concerned

individual

for the strong

of pain These

should

conditioning caused

can be explained

in terms

words,

means

"empathy"

stimulus

shar

of conspecific.

permits

is the CS, and the suppression

of other

generalization.

generalization perties

however, at least

elements

the exposure

by the pain

small

has emotional

of

stimulu: pro-

subject.

y4wPtig weak

strong

Fig. 5 Upper picture shows pain reaction of birds when intensity of electric shock changed. Lower picture shows responses of birds when the shock (2.8mA, 100msec) was given every fourth sec.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors L. Gollub

wish

to express

for his comments

their

gratitude

to Professor

and corrections.

REFERENCES Axelrod, Science,

R. & Hamilton, 211; 1390-1396.

Boorman, Academic

S. A. Press

W. D. 1981 The evolution

& Levitt, {New York)

of cooperation.

P. R. 1980 The genetics

of altruism

Church,R.M. 1959 Emotional reactions of rats to the pain of others. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 52; 132-134. Danson, C. , & Creed, T. 1970 Rate of response as a visual social stimulus. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 13; 233-242.

Deni, R. 1978 Response-contingent visual exposure to conspecifics and social influence on key pecking in Japanese quail. Psychological Record, 28, 375-382. 1983. Analysis of Hake, D. F. Donaldson, T. , & Hyten, C. Journal discriminative contorol by social behavioral stimuli. the Experimental Analysis of Behavior. 39; 7-23. Hamilton, W. D. 1972 Altruism and related social insects. Annual Review of Ecology

phenomena, mainly and Systematics.

of

in 3;

193-232.

Haraway, M. M., Maples, E. G. & Tolson, S. 1981 Taped vocalization as a reinforcer of vocal behavior in a siamang gibbon. Psychological Record, 49; 995-999. Humphreys, A. P. & Einon, maze-learning in juvenile

Play as a reinforcer for D. F. 1981 Animal Behaviour, 29; 259-270 rats.

The use of rats as Husted, J. R. & Mckenna, F. S. 1966. Journal of the Experimental Analysis discriminative'stimuli. Behavior, 9; 677-679.

of

Linton, S. J. 1981 A failure to establish key pecking for social reinforcement. Journal of General Psychology, 104; 307-308. Millard, W. J. 1979 Stimulus properties of conspecific behavior. Journal of Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 32; 283-296. Poole, J. & Lander, D. G. 1971 The pigeon's Psychonomic Science, 25; 157-158. Rice, J. E. , & Gainer, P. 1962 Altruism Journal of Comparative and Physiological

concept

of pigeon.

in albino rats. Psychology,55; 123-125.

Ryan, C. M. E. 1982 Concept formation and individual recognition Behaviour Analysis Letters, in the domestic chicken. 2; 213-220. Stevenson, J. G. Animal Behaviour,

1967 Reinforcing 15; 427-432.

effects

of chaffinch

song.

Visual reinforcing in fighting cocks. Thompson, T. I. 1964 Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 7; 45-49. Learning Trillmich, F. 1976 Zeitschrift in budgerigars.

experiments of individual recognition fiir Tierpsychologie, 41; 372-395.