Social influences on the identification of toxic foods by Norway rats

In the present experiments, a naive “observer” rat first interacted with a “demonstrator” rat previously fed a diet unfamiliar to the observer. The observer then sampled two unfamiliar diets, one of which was the diet its demonstrator had eaten. The observer was then injected with LiCl and, following recovery from toxicosis, was offered a choice between the two diets it sampled prior to toxicosis induction. It was found that: (1) each observer rat formed an aversion to whichever diet its demonstrator had not eaten, (2) effects of demonstrators on aversion learning by observers were present even if there was a 7- or 8-day delay between interaction of a demonstrator and observer and diet sampling by the observer, and (3) observers interacting with 3 demonstrators, each fed a different diet, subsequently exhibited a reduced tendency to form an aversion to each of the diets eaten by their demonstrators. Taken together, the results indicate that information acquired from conspecifics as to the diets they have eaten can play an important role in determining the foods to which otherwise naive rats will learn aversions.     

Open-field behavior of wild and domestic Norway rats

The open-field behavior of wild and domestic Norway rats was compared in 15-min tests administered over 5 successive days. Wild rats exhibited more ambulation, jumping, grooming, and time inactive than domestic rats and spent more time along the arena wall. Within- and between-trial changes in behavior were generally greater for wild rats. Factor analyses revealed major loadings on factors identified as “locomotor behavior” and “grooming.” Support was obtained for the hypothesis that domestication has raised the threshold for avoidance-escape behavior in response to a novel environment.     

Familiarity and relatedness: Effects on social learning about foods by Norway rats and Mongolian gerbils

In recent experiments in which the social influences on feeding in Mongolian gerbils were investigated, observer gerbils acquired food preferences from conspecific demonstrators only if the demonstrators and observers were either related or familiar. Even then, the effects of demonstrator gerbils on observers’ food choices lasted less than 24 h. In similar experiments with Norway rats, the familiarity/relatedness of demonstrators and observers had little effect on social learning, and the demonstrators’ influence on observers’ food choices lasted many days. We examined the causes of these differences and found that, after observer gerbils interacted with either unfamiliar or familiar conspecific demonstrators that had been fed using procedures typically used to feed demonstrator rats, they showed long-lasting social learning about foods, whereas observer rats interacting with conspecific demonstrators that had been fed as demonstrator gerbils normally are fed showed effects of familiarity/relatedness to demonstrators on their social learning about foods. Procedural differences, rather than species differences, seem to be responsible for reported inconsistencies in social learning about foods by rats and gerbils.     

Some behavioral differences between wild and domestic Norway rats: Gnawing and platform jumping

Thirty-six wild and 36 domestic Norway rats were compared in two experiments that were designed to investigate behaviors associated with gnawing and platform jumping. Domestic rats exhibited more “spontaneous” gnawing than their wild counterparts. Both stocks increased gnawing activity to gain access to a narrow tunnel. When confined in the tunnel, wild rats were more likely to gnaw their way back to the horne cage. Platform jumping was confined almost exclusively to the wild stock. These findings are discussed in terms of domestication and its effect on the behavior of the Norway rat.     

Necessary and sufficient conditions for communication of diet preferences by Norway rats

Rats that (1) either ate a small sample of one or two foods (Diet A or Diet B) or interacted with a demonstrator that had eaten either Diet A or Diet B, (2) ate both Diets A and B in succession, and (3) were made ill preferred whichever of the two foods they or their respective demonstrators had eaten. Although eating a food and interacting with a demonstrator that had eaten that food were each sufficient to enhance preference for the food, eating particles of food clinging to the fur of a demonstrator was not necessary for enhancement of preference for the food that a demonstrator ate. Subjects exposed to demonstrators they could not physically contact still exhibited enhanced preference for the food that their demonstrator had eaten. The data were discussed as indicating that although smelling a diet, eating a diet, and interacting with a demonstrator that had eaten a diet can each enhance preference for that diet, it cannot be inferred that eating a food, smelling a food, and interacting with a demonstrator that has eaten a food each affect diet preference via the same process.