Cited by 108Child and Animal Learning DevelopmentPrimate Behavior and EcologyDecision-Making and Behavioral Economics

Anticipation of future events in squirrel monkeys (Saimiri sciureus) and rats (Rattus norvegicus): Tests of the Bischof-Kohler hypothesis.

Naqshbandi, Mariam, Roberts, William A.·2006·Journal of Comparative Psychology

Abstract

The Bischof-Kohler hypothesis holds that nonhuman animals cannot anticipate a future event and take appropriate action when that event involves satisfaction of a need not currently experienced. Tests of the Bischof-Kohler hypothesis were performed with squirrel monkeys (Saimiri sciureus) and rats (Rattus norvegicus). In experimental trials with both species, a nonthirsty animal had its water bottle removed and then chose between a smaller and larger quantity of food. Consumption of the food induced thirst. Choice of the smaller quantity led to the return of the water bottle sooner than choice of the larger quantity. Monkeys reversed their baseline preference for the larger quantity of food when the experimental contingencies were introduced, but rats continued to prefer the larger amount. Although the rat findings support the Bischof-Kohler hypothesis, the monkey findings challenge it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/0735-7036.120.4.345

Cites

44 of 44 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?

  • Rats and Rhesus macaques appear to fail at the future planning task, while squirrel monkeys were successful.

    “While rats [162] and Rhesus macaques [163] appear to fail at this task, other monkeys (squirrel monkeys) were successful [162].”

    From Is episodic-like memory <i>like</i> episodic memory? (2024) · cites this paper as [162]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Naqshbandi, M., & Roberts, W. A.
Affiliations
Western University (CA)
Venue
Journal of Comparative Psychology
Published
2006
Volume
120
Issue
4
Pages
345-357
ISSN
  • 0093-4127 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-2087
  • 0735-7036
OpenAlex
W2060894788
Cited by
108
References
44
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 11
FWCI
13.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of comparative psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Child and Animal Learning Development
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Primate Behavior and Ecology
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
Keywords
squirrel monkey, rats, thirst, food choice, need satisfaction, water deprivation, animal cognition
MeSH terms
Animals, Attitude, Choice Behavior, Feeding Behavior, Forecasting, Male, Psychological Theory, Saimiri, Species Specificity, Time Factors, 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