[in Japanese]

View full abstract

Two experiments were performed to examine how the “avoidance” response of goldfish in a shuttlebox is controlled by two kinds of contingencies, namely stimulus-reinforcer contingency and response-reinforcer contingency.
In Experiment I, two groups were trained under avoidance conditions with or without CS termination by response. The occurrence of CSs and shocks for subjects of two yoked control groups were determined by the responses of subjects of avoidance groups. In the first phase of experiment, response rates of avoidance groups were higher than those of yoked groups (Fig. 1). It seems to show that response-reinforcer contingency is more effective than stimulus-reinforcer contingency. But in the second phase of experiment, where they were tested in classical conditioning situations, responses of all groups were maintained at a high level. It supports the notion that “avoidance” response of goldfish is controlled by stimulus-reinforcer contingency.
In Experiment II, two avoidance groups and two yoked control groups were tested in punishment situations. Response rate of an avoidance group (A4) and its yoked group (Y4) differed significantly after the shifts to punishment situations (Fig. 2). It indicates that avoidance response is acquired partly by response-reinforcer contingency. But as response rate of avoidance group (A4) did not go down to zero, responses should also be controlled by stimulus-reinforcer contingency. Response rate of another avoidance group (A3) did not change significantly after the shift. It might be due to the CS termination condition common to both phase 1 and phase 2.
Thus, “avoidance” response of goldfish contains both respondent and operant components. It is thought to be comparable to autoshaped key pecking response in pigeons or leg flexion in dogs. Future directions of research to distinguish two kinds of components are discussed.

View full abstract

Nature of rod-touching behavior of cats was studied in two experiments. In Experiment 1, one of the four cats showed frequent flank/head rubbing behavior to the slender vertical rod in the cage when a human observer was present but it did not when the observer she was absent. The second cat “played” with the rod with its forepaws but rubbing behavior occurred mostly to the front net-wall of the cage. Remaining two cats sat immobile in a rear corner of the cage. In Experiment 2, it was observed that the first two cats tended to move their positions in accordance with the change of positions of the observer, thus keeping the closest distance with the observer. The last two cats again were little affected by the observer's position. The present study then showed that cats' pole-pressing behavior, interpreted by Guthrie & Horton (1946) as instrumental behavior, was an innate species-typical behavior of cats elicited by the presence of human observer and that the affectionate relationship of cat with the observer was one of the important determinants for the appearance of pole-pressing behavior.

View full abstract

Female mice construct nests of two general types depending upon the reproductive status of the animal. During pregnancy female mice build large, enclosed nests with multiple tunnels. This has been called the brood nest as opposed to the sleeping nest of the nonpregnant mice (2, 3). Also pseudopregnant mice displayed maternal nest building behavior (1). Their nests were smaller but qualitatively identical to those constructed by pregnant animals. Progesterone apparently is responsible for the maternal nest building in female mice, since the administration of progesterone can induce construction of brood nest in nonpregnant females (2, 4, 5).
The present study was planned to clarify whether high levels of progesterone are necessary for appearance of the maternal nest building behavior by measuring simultaneously plasma progesterone levels and the amount of nest built in pseudopregnant and pregnant mice.

View full abstract