Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T13:19:07.476Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Measuring preferences and the problems of identifying proximate needs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2018

A. B. Lawrence  and
A. W. Illius
A. B. Lawrence
Affiliation:
Genetics and Behavioural Sciences Department, Scottish Agricultural College, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG
A. W. Illius
Affiliation:
Institute of Cell, Animal and Population Biology, University of Edinburgh, King’s Buildings, Edinburgh EH9 3JT
Get access

Abstract

Current methodologies for measuring choices are the product of early psychological research into behavioural mechanisms, particidarly learning. In applied behaviour studies, much of the emphasis has been on the use of preference tests to assess animals’ motivation, and hence proximate need for, various forms of stimulation. Preference tests are based on a modular view of animal behaviour, where animals are presented with physical compartments each containing different resources such as food or social partners. An obvious limitation of the approach is that simple preference tests may do little justice to the complexity of animals’ behavioural organization and environmental preferences. Variability of choice behaviour also poses a considerable problem, as it may prevent us understanding and interpreting short-term choices and consequently describing the proximate needs of the animal. We also believe that the approach of applying consumer economics to quantify the value of resources to animals is increasingly moving preference testing away from measuring proximate to measuring ultimate need. This shift in emphasis does not appear to have been recognized. The risk is that the approach will only identify basic needs (e.g. related to growth and reproduction) but be insensitive to the proximate behavioural needs that it set out to quantify. In general, the focus of welfare-related preference testing should shift from the measurement and description of preferences to the more strategic task of understanding the rules governing short-term choices. We will be unable to measure proximate need unless we can develop a theoretical framework better able to interpret short-term behavioural choices.

Type
Research Article
Information
BSAP Occasional Publication , Volume 20: Animal Choices , 1997 , pp. 19 - 26
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

Blom, H. J. M., Baumans, V., Vorstenbosch, C. J. A. van, Zutphen, L. F. M. van and Beynen, A. C. 1993. Preference tests with rodents to assess housing conditions. Animal Welfare 2: 81–87.Google Scholar
Buhot-Averseng, M.-C. 1981. Nest-box choice in the laboratory mouse: preferences for nest-boxes differing in design (size and/or shape) and composition. Behavioural Processes 6:337–384.Google Scholar
Cabanac, M. 1992. Pleasure: the common currency. Journal of Theoretical Biology 155:173–200.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clark, C. W. 1987. The lazy, adaptable lions: a Markovian model of group foraging. Animal Behaviour 35: 361–368.Google Scholar
Dawkins, M. S. 1980. Animal suffering, the science of animal welfare. Chapman and Hall.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.Google Scholar
Dawkins, M. S. 1990. From an animal’s point of view: motivation, fitness, and animal welfare. Behavioural and Brain Sciences 13:1–61.Google Scholar
Dawkins, M. S. and Beardsley, T. 1986. Reinforcing properties of access to litter in hens. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 15:351–364.Google Scholar
Duncan, I. J. H. 1978. The interpretation of preference tests in animal behaviour. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 4: 197–200.Google Scholar
Dwyer, C. M. and Lawrence, A. B. 1997. Social relationships between ewes of two breeds. 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. 92–93.Google Scholar
Emmarts, G. C. 1991. Diet selection by animals: theory and experimental design. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 50: 59–64.Google Scholar
Emmans, G. C., 1997. A method to predict the food intake of domestic animals from birth to maturity as a function of time. Journal of Theoretical Biology In press.Google Scholar
Faure, J. M. 1986. Operant determination of the cage and feeder size preferences of the laying hen. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 15:325–336.Google Scholar
Forbes, J. M. and Kyriazakis, I. 1995. Food preferences in farm animals: why don’t they always choose wisely? Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 54:429–440.Google Scholar
Fraser, D. 1985. Selection of bedded and unbedded areas by pigs in relation to environmental temperature and behaviour. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 14:117–126.Google Scholar
Godin, J.-G. J. and Briggs, S. E. 1996. Female choice under predation risk in the guppy. Animal Behaviour 51: 117–130.Google Scholar
Hazlett, B. A. 1996. Assessments during shell exchanges by the hermit crab Clibanarius vittatus: the complete negotiator. Animal Behaviour 51:567–573.Google Scholar
Hinde, R. 1982. Ethology. Fontana Paperbacks, Glasgow.Google Scholar
Hirshleifer, J. 1984. Price theory and application, third edition. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.Google Scholar
Horvath, G. 1996. Non-linear dynamic models of the temporal organisation of behaviour: a brief review. M.Sc. thesis, Unviersity of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Houston, A., Clark, C. W., McNamara, J. and Mangel, M. 1988. Dynamic models in behavioural and evolutionary ecology. Nature 332:29–34.Google Scholar
Hughes, B. O. 1976. Preference decisions of domestic hens for wire and litter floors. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 2: 155–165.Google Scholar
Jensen, M. B., Kyriazakis, I. and Lawrence, A. B. 1993. The activity and straw directed behaviour of pigs offered foods with different crude protein contents. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 37: 211–221.Google Scholar
Kacelnik, A. and Todd, I. A. 1992. Psychological mechanisms and the Marginal Value Theorem: effect of variability in travel time on patch exploitation. Animal Behaviour 43: 313–322.Google Scholar
Krebs, J. R. 1983. From skinner box to the field. Nature 304: 117.Google Scholar
Krebs, J. R. and Davies, N. B. 1984. Behavioural ecology: an evolutionary approach, second edition. Sunderland, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Krebs, J. R., Erichsen, J. T., Webber, M. I. and Charnov, E. L. 1977. Optimal prey selection in the great tit (Parus major) . Animal Behaviour 25: 30–38.Google Scholar
Kyriazakis, I. 1997. Nutritional choices in farm animals: to eat or what to eat? 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. 55–65.Google Scholar
Lawrence, A. B. 1986. Consumer demand theory and the assessment of animal welfare. Animal Behaviour 35: 291–293.Google Scholar
McNamara, J. M. and Houston, A. I. 1986. The common currency for behavioural decisions. The American Naturalist 127: 358–378.Google Scholar
McNamara, J. M., Mace, R. H. and Houston, A. I. 1987. Optimal daily routines of singing and foraging in a bird singing to attract a mate. Behavioural Ecology and Sociology 20: 399–405.Google Scholar
Matthews, L. R. and Chandler, J. H. 1996. Assessing behavioural demand functions: issues. Proceedings of the 30th international congress of the International Society for Applied Ethology (ed. Duncan, I. J. H., Widowski, T. M. and Haley, D. H.), p. 54. The Colonel Campbell Centre for the Study of Animal Welfare, Guelph, Canada.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
Mench, J. A. 1996. Social preferences in laying hens. Proceedings of the 30th international congress of the International Society for Applied Ethology (ed. Duncan, I. J. H., Widowski, T. M. and Haley, D. H.), p. 38. The Colonel Campbell Centre for the Study of Animal Welfare, Guelph, Canada.Google Scholar
Newman, J. A., Parsons, A. J., Thornley, J. H. M., Penning, P. D. and Krebs, J. R. 1995. Optimal diet selection by a generalist grazing herbivore. Functional Ecology 9: 255–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicol, C. J. 1986. Non-exclusive spatial preference in the laying hen. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 15: 337–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicol, C. J. 1997 Environmental choices of farm animals. 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. 35–43.Google Scholar
Petherick, J. C. and Rutter, S. M. 1990. Quantifying motivation using a computer-controlled push-door. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 27: 159–167.Google Scholar
Phillips, P. A., Thompson, B. K. and Fraser, D. 1989. Preference tests of ramp designs for young pigs. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 68: 41–48.Google Scholar
Rapport, D. J. 1991. Myths in the foundations of economics and ecology. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 44: 185–202.Google Scholar
Rooijen, J. van and Metz, J. H. M. 1987. A preliminary experiment on T-maze choice tests. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 19: 51–56.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.Google 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
Silverman, P. 1978. Animal behaviour in the laboratory. Chapman and Hall, London.Google Scholar
Stephens, D. B., Bailey, K. J., Sharman, D. F. and Ingram, D. L. 1985. An analysis of some behavioural effects of the vibration and noise components of transport in pigs. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Physiology 70: 211–217.Google Scholar
Thuijsman, F., Peleg, B., Amital, M. and Shmida, A. 1995. Automata, matching and foraging behaviour of bees. Journal of Theoretical Biology 175: 305–316.Google Scholar
Toates, F. M. 1980. Animal behaviour: a systems approach. John Wiley, Chichester.Google Scholar
Young, R. J., Macleod, H. A. and Lawrence, A. B. 1994. Effect of manipulandum design on Operant responding in pigs. Animal Behaviour 47: 1488–1490.Google Scholar