Reconsideration on primacy effect of imprinting in ducklings

TETSUMI MORIYAMA

doi:10.4992/psycholres1954.33.18

Author information

Keywords: imprinting, primacy effect, operant response, artificial stimulus, conspecific, ducklings, small-N experimental design

JOURNAL FREE ACCESS

1991 Volume 33 Issue 1 Pages 18-29

DOI https://doi.org/10.4992/psycholres1954.33.18

Details

Published: February 25, 1991 Received: October 31, 1989 Available on J-STAGE: February 24, 2009 Accepted: September 08, 1990 Advance online publication: - Revised: -
Correction information
Date of correction: February 24, 2009 Reason for correction: - Correction: ABSTRACT Details: Wrong : Three experiments were carried out to determine whether initial imprinting to an artificial object wears off when a Peking duckling (Anal plalyrhynchos) is later exposed to a conspecific. Two groups of ducklings (groups I and P) were studied. The ducklings in group I had no social contact except during experimental sessions, whereas those of group P did. Experiment 1 showed that the effect of social contact on the ducklings' subsequent responses to the original object was not significant. Experiment 2 showed that the shaped and maintained operant response rate to the imprinting object decreased sharply in ducklings from both groups when the conspecific was used as a contingent event. Experiment 3 showed that ducklings from both groups preferred the imprinting object over the conspecific in a simultaneous choice situation. Furthermore, when the imprínting object was not presented, the ducklings from group I avoided the conspecific, while those from group P approached it. These results indicated that the initial imprinting to an artificial object does not wear off even if ducklings are later exposed to the natural conspecific and establish some preference for it, supporting the primacy effect in imprinting.
Right : Three experiments were carried out to determine whether initial imprinting to an artificial object wears off when a Peking duckling (Anas platyrkynchos) is later exposed to a conspecific. Two groups of ducklings (groups I and P) were studied. The ducklings in group I had no social contact except during experimental sessions, whereas those of group P did. Experiment 1 showed that the effect of social contact on the ducklings' subsequent responses to the original object was not significant. Experiment 2 showed that the shaped and maintained operant response rate to the imprinting object decreased sharply in ducklings from both groups when the conspecific was used as a contingent event. Experiment 3 showed that ducklings from both groups preferred the imprinting object over the conspecific in a simultaneous choice situation. Furthermore, when the imprinting object was not presented, the ducklings from group I avoided the conspecific, while those from group P approached it. These results indicated that the initial imprinting to an artificial object does not wear off even if ducklings are later exposed to the natural conspecific and establish some preference for it, supporting the primacy effect in imprinting.

Date of correction: February 24, 2009 Reason for correction: - Correction: CITATION Details: Wrong : Boakes, R., & Panter, D. 1985 Secondary imprinting in the domestic chick blocked by previous exposure to a live hen. Animal Behaviour, 33, 353-365.
Bolhuis, J. J., Johnson, M. H., & Horn, G. 1989 Interacting mechanisms during the formation of filial preferences: The development of a predisposition does not prevent learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 15, 376-382.
Bolhuis, J. J., & Trooster, W. J. 1988 Reversibility revisited: Stimulus-dependent stability of filial preference in the chick. Animal Behaviour, 36, 668-674.
Campbell, B. A.. & Pickleman, J. R. 1961 The imprinting object as a reinforcing stimulus. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 54, 592-596.
Cherfas, J., & Scott, A. 1981 Impermanent reversal of filial imprinting. Animal Behaviour, 30, 301.
Einsiedel, A. A., Jr. 1975 The development and modification of object preferences in domestic White Leghorn chicks. Developmental Psychobiology, 8, 533-540.
Gottlieb, G. 1976a Early development of species-specific auditory perception in birds. In G. Gottlieb (Ed.), Neural and behavioral specificity. Vol. 3. Studies on the development of behavior and the nervous system. New York: Academic Press. Pp. 237-280.
Gottlieb, G. 1976b The roles of experience in the development of behavior and the nervous system. In G. Gottlieb (Ed.), Development of neural and behavioral specificity. New York: Academic Press. Pp. 25-54.
Hess, E. H. 1973 Imprinting. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Hoffman, H. S. 1968 The control of distress vocalization by an imprinted stimulus. Behaviour, 30, 175-191.
Hoffman, H. S. 1987 Imprinting and the critical period for social attachments: Some laboratory investigations. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Sensitive periods in development: Interdisciplinary perspectives. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Pp. 99-121.
Hoffman, H. S., & Kozma, F., Jr. 1967 Behavioral control by an imprinted stimulus: Long-term effects. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 10, 495-501.
Hoffman, H. S., Searlc, J. L., Toffey, S., & Kozma, F., Jr. 1966 Behavioral control by an imprinted stimulus. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 9, 177-189.
Hoffman, H. S., & Segal, M. 1983 Biological factors in social attachments: A new view of a basic phenomenon. In M. D. Zeiler & P. Harzem (Eds.), Biological factors in learning. Vol. 3. Advances in analysis of behaviour. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. Pp. 41-61.
Johnston, T. D., & Gottlieb, G. 1981 Development of visual species identification in ducklings: What is the role of imprinting? Animal Behaviour, 29, 1082-1099.
Johnston, T. D., & Gottlieb, G. 1985 Effects of social experience on visually imprinted maternal preferences in Peking ducklings. Developmental Psychobiology, 18, 261-271.
Lickliter, R., & Gottlieb, G. 1985 Social interaction with siblings is necessary for visual imprinting of species-specific maternal preferences in ducklings (Anas platyrhynchos). Journal of Comparative Psychology, 99, 371-379.
Lickliter, R., & Gottlieb, G. 1986 Visually imprinted maternal preference in ducklings is redirected by social interaction with siblings. Developmental Psychobiology, 19, 265-277.
Lorenz, K. 1937 The companion in the bird's world. Auk, 54, 245-273.
Moltz, H., & Rosenblum, L. A. 1958 Imprinting and associative learning: The stability of the following response in Peking ducks (Anas playrhynchos). Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 51, 580-583.
Peterson. N. 1960 Control of behavior by presentation of an imprinted stimulus. Science, 132, 1395-1396.
Salzen, E. A., & Meyer, C. C. 1968 Reversibility of imprinting. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 66, 269-275.
Sidman, M. 1960 Tactics of scientific research. New York: Basic Books, Inc.
Zajone, R. B., Reimer, D. J., & Hausser, D. 1973 Imprinting and the development of object preference in chicks by mere repeated exposure. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 83, 434-440.

Right : Boakes, R., & Panter, D. 1985 Secondary imprinting in the domestic chick blocked by previous exposure to a live hen. Animal Behaviour, 33, 353-365.
Bolhuis, J. J., Johnson, M. H., & Horn, G. 1989 lntcracting mechanisms during the formation of filial preferences: The development of a predisposition does not prevent learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 15, 376-382.
Bolhuis, J. J., & Trooster, W. J. 1988 Reversibility revisited: Stimulus-dependent stability of filial preference in the chick. Animal Behaviour, 36, 668-674.
Campbell, B. A., & Pickleman, J. R. 1961 The imprinting object as a reinforcing stimulus. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 54, 592-596.
Cherfas, J., Sc. Scott, A. 1981 Impermanent reversal of filial imprinting. Animal Behaviour, 30, 301.
Einsiedel, A. A., Jr. 1975 The development and modification of object preferences in domestic White Leghorn chicks. Developmental Psychobiology, 8, 533-540.
Gottlieb, G. 1976a Early development of species-specific auditory perception in birds. In G. Gottlieb (Ed.), Neural and behavioral specificity. Vol.3. Studies on the development of behavior and the nervous system. New York: Academic Press. pp.237-280.
Gottlieb, G. 1976b The roles of experience in the development of behavior and the nervous system. In G. Gottlieb (Ed.), Development of neural and behavioral specificity. New York: Academic Press. pp.25-54.
Hess, E. H. 1973 Imprinting. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Hoffman, H. S. 1968 The control of distress vocalization by an imprinted stimulus. Behaviour, 30, 175-191.
Hoffman, H. S. 1987 Imprinting and the critical period for social attachments: Some laboratory investigations. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Sensitive periods in development: Interdisciplinary perspectives. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. pp.99-121.
Hoffman, H. S., & Kozma, F., Jr. 1967 Behavioral control by an imprinted stimulus: Longterm effects. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 10, 495-501.
Hoffman, H. S., Searle, J. L., Tolley, S., & Kozma, E., Jr. 1966 Behavioral control by an imprinted stimulus. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 9, 177-189.
Hoffman, H. S., & Segal, M. 1983 Biological factors in social attachments: A new view of a basic phenomenon. In M. D. Zeiler & P. Harzem (Eds.), Biological factors in learning. Vol.3. Advances in analysis of behaviour. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. pp.41-61.
Johnston, T. D., & Gottlieb, G. 1981 Development of visual species identification in ducklings: What is the role of imprinting? Animal Behaviour, 29, 1082-1099.
Johnston, T. D., & Gottlieb, G. 1985 Effects of social experience on visually imprinted maternal preferences in Peking ducklings. Developmental Psychobiology, 18, 261-271.
Lickliter, R., & Gottlieb, G. 1983 Social interaction with siblings is necessary for visual imprinting of species-specific maternal preferences in ducklings (Anas filatyrhynchos). Jornal of Comparative Psychology, 99, 371-379.
Lickliter, R., & Gottlieb, G. 1986 Visually imprinted maternal preference in ducklings is rcdirected by social interaction with siblings. Developmental Psychobiology, 19, 265-277.
Lorenz, K. 1937 The companion in the bird's world. Auk, 54, 245-273.
Moltz, H., & Rosenblum, L. A. 1958 Imprinting and associative learning: The stability of the following response in Peking ducks (Arms platyrhynchos). Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 51, 580-583.
Peterson. N. 1960 Control of behavior by presentation of an imprinted stimulus. Science, 132, 1395-1396.
Salzen, E. A., & Meyer, C. C. 1968 Reversibility of imprinting. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 66, 269-275.
Sidman, M. 1960 Tactics of scientific research. New York: Basic Books, Inc.
Zajonc, R. B., Reimer, D. J., & Hausser, D. 1973 Imprinting and the development of object preference in chicks by mere repeated exposure. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 83, 434-440.

Date of correction: February 24, 2009 Reason for correction: - Correction: PDF FILE Details: -

Date of correction: February 24, 2009 Reason for correction: - Correction: CITATION Details: Wrong : Boakes, R., & Panter, D. 1985 Secondary imprinting in the domestic chick blocked by previous exposure to a live hen. Animal Behaviour, 33, 353-365.
Bolhuis, J. J., Johnson, M. H., & Horn, G. 1989 lntcracting mechanisms during the formation of filial preferences: The development of a predisposition does not prevent learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 15, 376-382.
Bolhuis, J. J., & Trooster, W. J. 1988 Reversibility revisited: Stimulus-dependent stability of filial preference in the chick. Animal Behaviour, 36, 668-674.
Campbell, B. A., & Pickleman, J. R. 1961 The imprinting object as a reinforcing stimulus. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 54, 592-596.
Cherfas, J., Sc. Scott, A. 1981 Impermanent reversal of filial imprinting. Animal Behaviour, 30, 301.
Einsiedel, A. A., Jr. 1975 The development and modification of object preferences in domestic White Leghorn chicks. Developmental Psychobiology, 8, 533-540.
Gottlieb, G. 1976a Early development of species-specific auditory perception in birds. In G. Gottlieb (Ed.), Neural and behavioral specificity. Vol.3. Studies on the development of behavior and the nervous system. New York: Academic Press. pp.237-280.
Gottlieb, G. 1976b The roles of experience in the development of behavior and the nervous system. In G. Gottlieb (Ed.), Development of neural and behavioral specificity. New York: Academic Press. pp.25-54.
Hess, E. H. 1973 Imprinting. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Hoffman, H. S. 1968 The control of distress vocalization by an imprinted stimulus. Behaviour, 30, 175-191.
Hoffman, H. S. 1987 Imprinting and the critical period for social attachments: Some laboratory investigations. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Sensitive periods in development: Interdisciplinary perspectives. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. pp.99-121.
Hoffman, H. S., & Kozma, F., Jr. 1967 Behavioral control by an imprinted stimulus: Longterm effects. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 10, 495-501.
Hoffman, H. S., Searle, J. L., Tolley, S., & Kozma, E., Jr. 1966 Behavioral control by an imprinted stimulus. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 9, 177-189.
Hoffman, H. S., & Segal, M. 1983 Biological factors in social attachments: A new view of a basic phenomenon. In M. D. Zeiler & P. Harzem (Eds.), Biological factors in learning. Vol.3. Advances in analysis of behaviour. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. pp.41-61.
Johnston, T. D., & Gottlieb, G. 1981 Development of visual species identification in ducklings: What is the role of imprinting? Animal Behaviour, 29, 1082-1099.
Johnston, T. D., & Gottlieb, G. 1985 Effects of social experience on visually imprinted maternal preferences in Peking ducklings. Developmental Psychobiology, 18, 261-271.
Lickliter, R., & Gottlieb, G. 1983 Social interaction with siblings is necessary for visual imprinting of species-specific maternal preferences in ducklings (Anas filatyrhynchos). Jornal of Comparative Psychology, 99, 371-379.
Lickliter, R., & Gottlieb, G. 1986 Visually imprinted maternal preference in ducklings is rcdirected by social interaction with siblings. Developmental Psychobiology, 19, 265-277.
Lorenz, K. 1937 The companion in the bird's world. Auk, 54, 245-273.
Moltz, H., & Rosenblum, L. A. 1958 Imprinting and associative learning: The stability of the following response in Peking ducks (Arms platyrhynchos). Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 51, 580-583.
Peterson. N. 1960 Control of behavior by presentation of an imprinted stimulus. Science, 132, 1395-1396.
Salzen, E. A., & Meyer, C. C. 1968 Reversibility of imprinting. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 66, 269-275.
Sidman, M. 1960 Tactics of scientific research. New York: Basic Books, Inc.
Zajonc, R. B., Reimer, D. J., & Hausser, D. 1973 Imprinting and the development of object preference in chicks by mere repeated exposure. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 83, 434-440.

Right : Boakes, R., & Panter, D. 1985 Secondary imprinting in the domestic chick blocked by previous exposure to a live hen. Animal Behaviour, 33, 353-365.
Bolhuis, J. J., Johnson, M. H., & Horn, G. 1989 Interacting mechanisms during the formation of filial preferences: The development of a predisposition does not prevent learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 15, 376-382.
Bolhuis, J. J., & Trooster, W. J. 1988 Reversibility revisited: Stimulus-dependent stability of filial preference in the chick. Animal Behaviour, 36, 668-674.
Campbell, B. A., & Pickleman, J. R. 1961 The imprinting object as a reinforcing stimulus. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 54, 592-596.
Cherfas, J., Sc. Scott, A. 1981 Impermanent reversal of filial imprinting. Animal Behaviour, 30, 301.
Einsiedel, A. A., Jr. 1975 The development and modification of object preferences in domestic White Leghorn chicks. Developmental Psychobiology, 8, 533-540.
Gottlieb, G. 1976a Early development of species-specific auditory perception in birds. In G. Gottlieb (Ed.), Neural and behavioral specificity. Vol.3. Studies on the development of behavior and the nervous system. New York: Academic Press. Pp.237-280.
Gottlieb, G. 1976b The roles of experience in the development of behavior and the nervous system. In G. Gottlieb (Ed.), Development of neural and behavioral specificity. New York: Academic Press. Pp.25-54.
Hess, E. H. 1973 Imprinting. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Hoffman, H. S. 1968 The control of distress vocalization by an imprinted stimulus. Behaviour, 30, 175-191.
Hoffman, H. S. 1987 Imprinting and the critical period for social attachments: Some laboratory investigations. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Sensitive periods in development: Interdisciplinary perspectives. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Pp.99-121.
Hoffman, H. S., & Kozma, F., Jr. 1967 Behavioral control by an imprinted stimulus: Longterm effects. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 10, 495-501.
Hoffman, H. S., Searle, J. L., Tolley, S., & Kozma, E., Jr. 1966 Behavioral control by an imprinted stimulus. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 9, 177-189.
Hoffman, H. S., & Segal, M. 1983 Biological factors in social attachments: A new view of a basic phenomenon. In M. D. Zeiler & P. Harzem (Eds.), Biological factors in learning. Vol.3. Advances in analysis of behaviour. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. Pp.41-61.
Johnston, T. D., & Gottlieb, G. 1981 Development of visual species identification in ducklings: What is the role of imprinting? Animal Behaviour, 29, 1082-1099.
Johnston, T. D., & Gottlieb, G. 1985 Effects of social experience on visually imprinted maternal preferences in Peking ducklings. Developmental Psychobiology, 18, 261-271.
Lickliter, R., & Gottlieb, G. 1983 Social interaction with siblings is necessary for visual imprinting of species-specific maternal preferences in ducklings (Anas filatyrhynchos). Jornal of Comparative Psychology, 99, 371-379.
Lickliter, R., & Gottlieb, G. 1986 Visually imprinted maternal preference in ducklings is redirected by social interaction with siblings. Developmental Psychobiology, 19, 265-277.
Lorenz, K. 1937 The companion in the bird's world. Auk, 54, 245-273.
Moltz, H., & Rosenblum, L. A. 1958 Imprinting and associative learning: The stability of the following response in Peking ducks (Arms platyrhynchos). Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 51, 580-583.
Peterson. N. 1960 Control of behavior by presentation of an imprinted stimulus. Science, 132, 1395-1396.
Salzen, E. A., & Meyer, C. C. 1968 Reversibility of imprinting. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 66, 269-275.
Sidman, M. 1960 Tactics of scientific research. New York: Basic Books, Inc.
Zajonc, R. B., Reimer, D. J., & Hausser, D. 1973 Imprinting and the development of object preference in chicks by mere repeated exposure. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 83, 434-440.

Abstract

Three experiments were carried out to determine whether initial imprinting to an artificial object wears off when a Peking duckling (Anas platyrkynchos) is later exposed to a conspecific. Two groups of ducklings (groups I and P) were studied. The ducklings in group I had no social contact except during experimental sessions, whereas those of group P did. Experiment 1 showed that the effect of social contact on the ducklings' subsequent responses to the original object was not significant. Experiment 2 showed that the shaped and maintained operant response rate to the imprinting object decreased sharply in ducklings from both groups when the conspecific was used as a contingent event. Experiment 3 showed that ducklings from both groups preferred the imprinting object over the conspecific in a simultaneous choice situation. Furthermore, when the imprinting object was not presented, the ducklings from group I avoided the conspecific, while those from group P approached it. These results indicated that the initial imprinting to an artificial object does not wear off even if ducklings are later exposed to the natural conspecific and establish some preference for it, supporting the primacy effect in imprinting.

Corresponding author

Correction information

Register with J-STAGE for free!