Pair foraging degrades socially transmitted food preferences in rats
Following presentation of a novel food odor on the breath of a conspecific, naïve rats will exhibit a preference for that food, a form of learning called social transmission of food preference (STFP). When tested in isolation, STFPs are robust, persisting for up to a month and overcoming prior aversions. This testing protocol, however, does not account for rats’ ecology. Rats and other rodents forage in small groups, rather than alone. We allowed rats to forage in pairs and found that, following social foraging, they no longer displayed a food preference, i.e., that STFPs degrade during social foraging. Non-foraging rats exposed to the same foods for the same amount of time in isolation maintained their preferences. We also examined whether individual differences between rats affect STFP. Neither boldness nor sociability predicted initial STFP strength, but bolder rats’ preferences degraded more following social foraging. Shyer rats were more likely to eat at the same time as their partner. By tracking rats’ interactions during social foraging, we show that they use complex rules to combine their own preferences with socially acquired information about foods in their environment. These results situate STFP within the behavioral ecology of foraging and suggest that individual traits and the interactions between them modulate how social learning is maintained, modified, or lost.
KeywordsSocial transmission of food preference (STFP) Foraging Behavioral syndromes Information sharing Exploration Rat
We thank Eden Kleinhandler, Mackenzie Schultz, and members of the Collective Cognition Lab for assistance in running the experiment, David White for helpful comments and discussion, and Kelley Putzu for animal care.
All authors designed the experiment. CD ran the experiment, CD and NM analyzed the data, and all authors wrote the manuscript.
This work was supported by a National Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) Grant No. RGPIN-2016-06138 (to NM).
Compliance and ethical standards
Conflict of interest
Chelsey C. Damphousse declares that she has no conflict of interest. Diano F. Marrone declares that he has no conflict of interest. Noam Miller declares that he has no conflict of interest.
Statement on welfare of animals
All applicable international, national, and/or institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed. The procedures used followed the Canadian Council on Animal Care guidelines and were approved by the Wilfrid Laurier University Animal Care Committee.
- Barnett SA (1963) The rat: A study in behavior. Transaction Publishers, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Beauchamp G (2013) Social predation: how group living benefits predators and prey. Academic Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
- Everitt BS (1981) A Monte Carlo investigation of the likelihood ratio test for the number of components in a mixture of normal distributions. Multivar Behav Res 16(2):171–180Google Scholar
- Galef BG (2002) Social learning of food preferences is rodents: rapid appetitive learning. Curr Protoc Neurosci 8(8):5DGoogle Scholar
- Galef BG (2012) Social learning in rats: historical context and experimental findings. In: Zentall T, Wasserman E (eds) Oxford handbook of comparative cognition. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 803–818Google Scholar
- Galef BG Jr, Whiskin EE (2001) Interaction of social and individual learning in food preferences of Norway rats. Anim Behav 62:41–46Google Scholar
- Galef BG, Whiskin EE (2003) Socially transmitted food preferences can be used to study long-term memory in rats. Anim Learn Behav 31(2):160–164Google Scholar
- Galef BG, Wigmore SW (1983) Transfer of information concerning distant foods: a laboratory investigation of the ‘information-centre’ hypothesis. Anim Behav 31(3):748–758Google Scholar
- Galef BG, Kennett DJ, Wigmore SW (1984) Transfer of information concerning distant foods in rats: a robust phenomenon. Learn Behav 12(3):292–296Google Scholar
- Galef BG Jr, McQuoid LM, Whiskin EE (1990b) Further evidence that Norway rats do not socially transmit learned aversions to toxic baits. Anim Learn Behav 18:199–205Google Scholar
- Gosling SD (2001) From mice to men: what can we learn about personality from animal research? Psych Bull 127(1):45Google Scholar
- Inglis IR, Shepherd DS, Smith P, Haynes PJ, Bull DS, Cowan DP, Whitehead D (1996) Foraging behaviour of wild rats (Rattus norvegicus) towards new foods and bait containers. Appl Anim Behav Sci 47(3–4):175–190Google Scholar
- Krause J, Ruxton GD (2002) Living in groups. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
- Kurvers RH, Eijkelenkamp B, van Oers K, van Lith B, van Wieren SE, Ydenberg RC, Prins HH (2009) Personality differences explain leadership in barnacle geese. Anim Behav 78(2):447–453Google Scholar
- Marler P, Dufty A, Pickert R (1986) Vocal communication in the domestic chicken: II. Is a sender sensitive to the presence and nature of a receiver? Anim Behav 34:194–198Google Scholar
- Posadas-Andrews A, Roper TJ (1983) Social transmission of food-preferences in adult rats. Anim Behav 31(1):265–271Google Scholar
- Real LA (1992) Information processing and the evolutionary ecology of cognitive architecture. Am Nat 140:S108–S145Google Scholar
- Rook AJ, Penning PD (1991) Synchronisation of eating, ruminating and idling activity by grazing sheep. Appl Anim Behav Sci 32(2):157–166Google Scholar
- Steiniger F (1950) Beiträge zur soziologie und sonstigen biologie der wanderratte. Ethology 7(3):356–379Google Scholar