Cited by 24Animal Behavior and Welfare StudiesHuman-Animal Interaction StudiesBehavioral and Psychological Studies

Rates of reinforcement and measures of compliance in free and protected contact elephant management systems

Wilson, Megan L., Perdue, Bonnie M., Bloomsmith, Mollie A., Maple, Terry L.·2015·Zoo Biology

Abstract

Protected contact is an alternative to traditional captive elephant training techniques that emerged as a result of concerns for animal welfare and personnel safety. The present study documented the behavior of elephants and their animal care professionals to determine rates of reinforcement and measures of compliance under two handling systems. Behavioral data were collected from animal care professionals and elephants during the elephants' baths in both free contact (FC) and protected contact (PC). Positive reinforcement, in the form of food, was delivered, on average, nearly eight times more frequently in the PC condition. Further, the mean rate at which the animal care professionals used the ankus in the FC condition as negative reinforcement was similar to the mean rate at which they provided positive reinforcement to the elephants in the FC condition. Latencies between verbal commands and the elephants' behaviors demonstrated an inconsistent pattern, but were generally longer in the PC condition. The mean percent of "refusals" by the elephants was higher for most behaviors across elephants in the PC condition. The findings suggest that animal care professionals did not heavily rely on positive reinforcement in the FC condition to elicit desired behaviors from the elephants, but this was the case in the PC condition. We propose that longer latencies and higher mean percent of refusals by the elephants may indicate that they were exercising choice or control over their environment, which has been associated with improved well-being. Additional studies of this kind are needed to enable other institutions to make informed decisions about elephant management and welfare.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/zoo.21229

Cites

28 of 28 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wilson, M. L., Perdue, B. M., Bloomsmith, M. A., & Maple, T. L.
Affiliations
  • Georgia State University (US)
  • Agnes Scott College (US)
  • Emory National Primate Research Center (US)
  • Florida Atlantic University (US)
Corresponding author
Wilson, Megan L.
Venue
Zoo Biology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2015-07-14
Volume
34
Issue
5
Pages
431-437
ISSN
  • 0733-3188 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-2361
OpenAlex
W1901008107
Cited by
24
References
27
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 1
FWCI
0.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Zoo Biology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Elizabeth Smithgall-Watts endowment
  • Zoo Atlanta's Charles Bailey foundation
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Animal Behavior and Welfare Studies
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Human-Animal Interaction Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Behavioral and Psychological Studies
Keywords
captive elephants, positive reinforcement, negative reinforcement, reinforcement rate, compliance, refusal behavior, animal welfare, zoo animal management
MeSH terms
Animals, Animal Husbandry, Animal Welfare, Animals, Zoo, Behavior, Animal, Elephants, Female, Humans, Male, Reinforcement, Psychology

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review