Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T19:18:54.684Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Control and Complexity in Novel Object Enrichment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

T D Sambrook  and
H M Buchanan-Smith
T D Sambrook*
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, University of Durham, 43 Old Elvet, Durham DH1 3HN, UK
H M Buchanan-Smith
Affiliation:
Scottish Primate Research Group, Department of Psychology, University of Stirling, Stirling FK9 4L A, UK
*
† Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

We discuss the properties of controllability and complexity in novel object enrichment, their definition and present a critique of previous work related to them. We address the relationship between control and complexity, the evolutionary basis of their attractiveness and suggest that the acquisition of control may be a more enriching process than its execution. We propose that, although little work has been directed at separating their relative contributions to enrichment, controllability appears more important than complexity. We discuss the ways in which objects can be responsive both in terms of the predictability of the response and the ‘grade’ of actor-object interaction.

Keywords

animal welfarecontrolcomplexityenrichmentnovel objectresponsive
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 6 , Issue 3 , August 1997 , pp. 207 - 216
Copyright
© 1997 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Adams, B W, Adair, E R, Olsen, M C and Fritz, M S 1992 Two squirrel monkey toys. Laboratory Primate Newsletter 31(4): 11–12Google Scholar
Alferink, L A, Crossman, E K and Cheney, C D 1973 Control of responding by a conditioned reinforcer in the presence of free food. Animal Learning and Behaviour 1: 38–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, J R and Chamove, A S 1983 Allowing captive primates to forage. In: Standards of Laboratory Animal Management pp 253–256. Universities Federation for Animal Welfare: Potters Bar, UKGoogle Scholar
Bayne, K A L, Dexter, S L, Hurst, J K, Strange, G M and Hill, EE 1993 Kong toys for laboratory primates: are they really an enrichment or just fomites? Laboratory Animal Science 43: 78–85Google ScholarPubMed
Biederman, I 1987 Recognition by components: a theory of human image understanding. Psychological Review 94: 115–147CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bloomsmith, M A, Finlay, T W, Merhalski, J J and Maple, T L 1990 Rigid plastic balls as enrichment devices for captive chimpanzees. Laboratory Animal Science 40: 319–322Google ScholarPubMed
Box, H O 1984 Primate Behaviour and Social Ecology. Chapman & Hall: London, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Box, H O 1988 Behavioural responses to environmental change. Observations on captive marmosets and tamarins (Callitrichidae). Animal Technology 39: 9–16Google Scholar
Box, H O 1991 Primate Responses to Environmental Change. Chapman & Hall: London, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bryant, C E, Rupniak, N M J and Iverson, S D 1988 Effects of different environmental enrichment devices on cage stereotypies and autoaggression in captive cynomolgous monkeys. Journal of Medical Primatology 17: 257–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butler, R A 1954 Incentive conditions which influence visual exploration. Journal of Experimental Psychology 48: 19–23CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Caine, N G 1984 Visual scanning by tamarins: a description of the behaviour and tests of two derived hypotheses. Folia Primatologica 43: 59–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caine, N G and Marra, S L 1988 Vigilance and social organisation in two species of primates. Animal Behaviour 34: 208–220Google Scholar
Chaitin, G J 1970 On the difficulty of computations. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Transactions on Information Theory IT 16: 5–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chamove, A S 1983 Role or dominance in macaque response to novel objects. Motivation and Emotion 7: 213–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chamove, A S 1989 Enrichment in chimpanzees: unpredictable ropes and tools. Journal of the Association of British Wild Animal Keepers 16: 139–141Google Scholar
Champoux, M, DiGregorio, G, Schneider, M L and Suomi, S J 1990 Inanimate environmental enrichment for group-housed rhesus macaque infants. American Journal of Primatology 22: 61–67CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chmiel, D J and Noonan, M 1996 Preference of laboratory rats for potentially enriching stimulus objects. Laboratory Animals 30: 97–101CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Crook, J H 1980 The Evolution of Human Consciousness. Clarendon Press: Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
Csikszentmihalyi, M 1975 Beyond Boredom and Anxiety: The Experience of Play in Work and Games. Jossey Bass: San Francisco, USAGoogle Scholar
Fragazy, D M and Adams-Curtis, L E 1991 Environmental challenges in groups of capuchins. In: Box, H O (ed) Primate Responses to Environmental Change pp 239–264. Chapman & Hall: London, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fragazy, D M and Mason, W A 1978 Response to novelty in Saimiri and Callicebus: influence of social context. Primates 19: 311–331Google Scholar
Glickman, S E and Sroges, R W 1966 Curiosity in zoo animals. Behaviour 26: 151–188CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Greene, J 1982 The gambling trap. Psychology Today 16(9): 50–55Google Scholar
Hanson, J P, Larson, M E and Snowdon, C T 1976 The effects of control over high intensity noise on plasma Cortisol levels in rhesus monkeys. Behavioural Biology 16: 333–340CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Humphrey, N K 1972 Interest and pleasure: two determinants of a monkey’s visual preferences. Perception 1: 395–416CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Inglis, I R and Ferguson, N J K 1986 Starlings search for food rather than eat freely available, identical food. Animal Behaviour 34: 614–617CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Inglis, I R, Forkman, B and Lazarus, J In press. Contrafreeloading working for food with free food present. A review, fuzzy model and functional analysis. Animal BehaviourGoogle Scholar
Jaenicke, C and Ehrlich, A 1982 Effects of animate vs inanimate stimuli on curiosity behavior in greater galago and slow loris. Primates 23: 95–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jolly, A 1964 Prosimians’ manipulation of simple object problems. Animal Behaviour 12: 560–570CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Line, S W, Clarke, A S and Markowitz, H 1989 Adult female rhesus macaque responses to novel objects. Lab Animal 18(4): 33–40Google Scholar
Line, S W and Morgan, K N 1991 The effects of two novel objects on the behaviour of singly caged adult rhesus macaques. Laboratory Animal Science 41: 365–369Google ScholarPubMed
Line, S W, Morgan, K N and Markowitz, H 1991 Simple toys do not alter the behavior of aged rhesus monkeys. Zoo Biology 10: 473–484Google Scholar
Markowitz, H and Line, S W 1989 Primate research models and environmental enrichment. In: Segal, E F (ed) Housing, Care and Psychological Well-Being of Captive and Laboratory Primates pp 203–212. Noyes Publications: New Jersey, USAGoogle Scholar
Markowitz, H and Line, S W 1991 The need for responsive environments. In: Rollin, B E and Kesel, M L (eds) The Experimental Animal in Biomedical Research pp 153–170. CRC Press: Boca Raton, USAGoogle Scholar
Marr, D and Nishihara, H K 1978 Representation and recognition of the spatial organisation of three dimensional shapes. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B 200: 269–294Google ScholarPubMed
McGrew, W C, Brennan, J A and Russell, J 1986 An artificial ‘gum tree’ for marmosets (Callithrix j. jacchus). Zoo Biology 5: 45–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKenzie, S M, Chamove, A S and Feistner, A T C 1986 Floor-coverings and hanging screens alter arboreal monkey behavior. Zoo Biology 5: 339–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Menzel, E W 1965 Responsiveness to objects in free-ranging Japanese monkeys. Behaviour 26: 130–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Menzel, E W 1978 Cognitive mapping in chimpanzees. In: Hulse, S H, Fowler, H and Honig, W K (eds) Cognitive Processes in Animal Behaviour pp 96–109. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Hillsdale, USAGoogle Scholar
Menzel, E W and Menzel, C R 1979 Cognitive, developmental and social aspects of responsiveness to novel objects in a family group of marmosets (Saguinus fuscicollis). Behaviour 70: 251–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Millar, S K, Evans, S and Chamove, A S 1988 Older offspring contact novel objects soonest in callitrichid families. Biology of Behaviour 13: 82–96Google Scholar
Mineka, S, Gunnar, M and Champoux, M 1986 Control and early socioemotional development: infant rhesus monkeys reared in controllable versus uncontrollable environments. Child Development 57: 1241–1256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neuringer, A J 1969 Animals respond for food in the presence of free food. Science 166: 399–401CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Novak, M A and Drewson, K H 1989 Enriching the lives of captive primates: issues and problems. In: Segal, E F (ed) Housing, Care and Psychological Well-Being of Captive and Laboratory Primates pp 161–182. Noyes Publications: New Jersey, USAGoogle Scholar
O’Neill, P 1989 A room with a view for captive primates: issues, goals, research and related strategies. In: Segal, E F (ed) Housing, Care and Psychological Well-Being of Captive and Laboratory Primates pp 135–160. Noyes Publications: New Jersey, USAGoogle Scholar
Overmier, J P, Patterson, J and Wielkiewicz, R M 1980 Environmental contingencies as sources of stress in animals. In: Levine, S and Ursin, H (eds) Coping and Health pp 1–38. Plenum Press: New York, USAGoogle Scholar
Parker, C E 1974 The antecedents of man the manipulator. Journal of Human Evolution 3: 493–500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piaget, J 1959 La naissance de l'intelligence chez l'enfant, 3rd edition. Delachaux et Niestlé: Neuchâtel, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
Plotkin, H C 1994 The Nature of Knowledge. Penguin: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Preutz, J D and Bloomsmith, M A 1992 Comparing two manipulable objects as enrichment for captive chimpanzees. Animal Welfare 1: 127–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sackett, G P 1965 Manipulatory behavior in monkeys reared under different levels of early stimulus variation. Perceptual and Motor Skills 20: 985–988Google ScholarPubMed
Sackett, G P 1966 Development of preference for differentially complex patterns by infant monkeys. Psychonomic Science 6: 441–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sambrook, T D and Buchanan-Smith, H M 1996 What makes novel objects enriching? A comparison of the qualities of control and complexity. Laboratory Primate Newsletter 35(4): 1–4Google Scholar
Sambrook, T D and Whiten, A 1997 On the nature of complexity in cognitive and behavioural science. Theory and Psychology 7: 191–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schapiro, S J and Bloomsmith, M A 1995 Behavioral effects of enrichment on singly-housed, yearling rhesus monkeys: an analysis including three enrichment conditions and a control group. American Journal of Primatology 35: 89–101CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Segal, E F (ed) 1989 Housing, Care and Psychological Weil-Being of Captive and Laboratory Primates. Noyes Publications: New Jersey, USAGoogle Scholar
Seligman, M E P 1975 Helplessness: On Depression, Development and Death. Freeman: San Francisco, USAGoogle Scholar
Shannon, C E and Weaver, W 1949 The Mathematical Theory of Communication. University of Illinois Press: Urbana, USAGoogle Scholar
Shefferly, N, Fritz, J and Howell, S 1993 Toys as environmental enrichment for captive juvenile chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). Laboratory Primate Newsletter 32(2): 7–9Google Scholar
Stolz, S B and Lott, D F 1964 Establishment in rats of a persistent response producing a net loss of reinforcement. Journal of Comparative Physiology and Psychology 57: 147–149CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tripp, J K 1985 Increasing activity in captive orangutans. Zoo Biology 4: 225–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Visalberghi, E and Mason, W A 1983 Determinants of problem-solving success in Saimiri and Callicebus. Primates 24: 385–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Washburn, D A and Rumbaugh, D M 1992 Investigations of rhesus monkey video-task performance: evidence for enrichment. Contemporary Topics 31(5): 6–10Google ScholarPubMed