Abstract
Two experiments investigating sex differences in the open-field behavior of young chicks are reported. In the first experiment, ambulation latencies of 10-day-old male and female chicks in a novel environment were measured. Half of the chicks were kept in social isolation for 2 days prior to testing; the other half were socially reared until tested. Results showed that in socially reared chicks ambulation latencies were significantly higher in males than in females, whereas in isolation-reared chicks there were no significant sex differences. In the second experiment, latencies of ambulation were measured in socially reared 10-day-old chicks placed in a novel environment with or without a visible predator (i.e., a human being). Sex differences were evident in both conditions, with males showing higher ambulation latencies than females. It is argued that sex differences in open-field behavior of chicks may be due to a stronger motivation for social reinstatement in females, which reduces the usual antipredatory reactions of chicks placed in a novel environment.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Candland, D. K., Nagy, Z. M., &Conklyn, L. D. H. (1963). Emotional behavior in the domestic chicken (White Leghorn) as a function of age and developmental environment.Journal of Comparative & Physiological Psychology,56, 1069–1073.
Faure, J. M. (1979). Influence de la souche et du sexe sur le comportement en open-field du jeune poussin.Biology of Behaviour,4, 19–24.
Faure, J. M., &Folmer, J. C. (1975). Etude génétique de l’activité précoce en open-field du jeune poussin.Annales de Génétique et de Selection Animale,7, 123–132.
Gallup, G. G., Jr. (1974). Genetic influence on tonic immobility in chickens.Animal Learning & Behavior,2, 145–147.
Gallup, G. G., Jr., &Suarez, S. D. (1980). An etiological analysis of open-field behaviour in chickens.Animal Behaviour,28, 368–378.
Jones, R. B. (1977a). Repeated exposure of the domestic chick to a novel environment. Effects on behavioural responses.Behavioural Processes,2, 315–323.
Jones, R. B. (1977b). Sex and strain differences in the open-field responses of the domestic chick.Applied Animal Ethology,3, 255–261.
Jones, R. B. (1979). The hole-in-the-wall test: Its validity as a measure of the “timidity” aspect of fear in the domestic chick.IRCS Medical Science,7, 167.
Jones, R. B., &Black, A. J. (1979). The behaviour of domestic chicks in their home cages and in an open-field: Substrate effects.IRCS Medical Science,7, 619.
Jones, R. B., &Faure, J. M. (1981) Sex effects on open-field behaviour in the domestic chick as a function of age.Biology of Behaviour,6, 265–272.
Jones, R. B., &Faure, J. M. (1982). Open-field behaviour of male and female domestic chick as a function of housing conditions, test situations and novelty.Biology of Behaviour,7, 17–25.
McBrtde, G., &Foenander, F. (1962). Territorial behaviour in flocks of domestic fowls.Nature,194, 102.
McBride, G., Parer, I. P., &Foenander, F. (1969) The social organization and behaviour of the feral domestic fowl.Animal Behaviour Monograph,2, 127–181.
Suarez, S. D., &Gallup, G. G., Jr. (1981) Predatory overtones of open-field testing in chickens.Animal Learning & Behavior,9, 153–163.
Suarez, S. D., &Gallup, G. G., Jr. (1982) Open-field behavior in chickens The experimenter is a predator.Journal of Comparative & Physiological Psychology,96, 432–439.
Suarez, S. D., &Gallup, G. G., Jr. (1983) Social reinstatement and open-field testing in chickens.Animal Learning & Behavior,11, 119–126.
Suarez, S. D., &Gallup, G. G., Jr. (1985) Open-field behaviour in chickens: A replication revisited.Behavioural Processes,10, 333–340.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Vallorttgara, G., Zanforlin, M. Open-field behavior of young chicks (Gallus gallus): Antipredatory responses, social reinstatement motivation, and gender effects. Animal Learning & Behavior 16, 359–362 (1988). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03209088
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03209088