Cited by 142Primate Behavior and EcologyAnimal Behavior and Welfare StudiesChild and Animal Learning Development

Desire for social contact, not empathy, may explain “rescue” behavior in rats

Silberberg, Alan, Allouch, Candice, Sandfort, Samantha, Kearns, David, Karpel, Heather, Slotnick, Burton·2014·Animal Cognition

Abstract

Ben-Ami Bartal et al. (Science 334:1427-1430, 2011) showed that a rat in an open space (free rat) would touch the front door of a restraining tube to open its rear door, thereby enabling a rat trapped within (trapped rat) to enter a larger space that was farther away from the free rat. Since opening the rear door distanced the trapped rat from the free rat, Ben-Ami Bartal et al. argued free-rat behavior could not be motivated by the pursuit of social contact. Instead, this rat was empathically motivated, its goal being to reduce the presumed distress of the rat trapped in the restraining tube. In two experiments, we show that (a) a free rat will not learn to touch the front door to open the rear door when it is the first condition of the experiment; (b) over time, a trapped rat will often return to a restraining tube despite its presumed aversiveness; and (c) a free rat experienced in touching the front door will continue to touch it even if touching does not free the trapped rat. We explain these results and Ben-Ami Bartal et al.'s in terms of two processes, neophobia and the pursuit of social contact. When first placed in a restraining tube, neophobia causes the trapped rat to escape the tube when the rear door is opened. Across sessions, neophobia diminishes, permitting the rats' pursuit of social contact to emerge and dominate free- and trapped-rat behavior.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10071-013-0692-1

Cites

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?

  • Prosocial effects are evident in pair-bonded voles and familiar female mice, but not between strangers or in male mice; this may also generalize to rats.

    “First, prosocial effects are evident in pair-bonded voles and familiar female mice, but not between strangers or in male mice; this may also generalize to rats42 (but see25).”
  • Some paradigms require learning or direct exposure to a conspecific in pain, making it difficult to isolate social affective processes from other motivations.

    “However, some paradigms require learning or direct exposure to a conspecific in pain, making it difficult to isolate social affective processes from other motivations21,25.”

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 28 · Cited by 142

Authors
Silberberg, A., Allouch, C., Sandfort, S., Kearns, D., Karpel, H., & Slotnick, B.
Affiliations
American University (US)
Corresponding author
Silberberg, Alan
Venue
Animal Cognition
Published
2013-10-15
Volume
17
Issue
3
Pages
609-618
ISSN
  • 1435-9448 (ISSN-L)
  • 1435-9456
OpenAlex
W1983342568
Cited by
142
References
28
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 5
FWCI
15.47
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Animal Cognition (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Primate Behavior and Ecology
  • Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Animal Behavior and Welfare Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Child and Animal Learning Development
Keywords
rescue behavior, social contact, empathy, neophobia, rats, social behavior, aversive experience
MeSH terms
Animals, Empathy, Female, Helping Behavior, Social Behavior, Rats, Sprague-Dawley, Rats

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