Cited by 82Human-Animal Interaction StudiesAnimal Behavior and ReproductionAnimal Behavior and Welfare Studies

How domestication modulates play behavior: A comparative analysis between wild rats and a laboratory strain of Rattus norvegicus.

Himmler, Brett T., Stryjek, Rafal, Modlinska, Klaudia, Derksen, Stephanie M., Pisula, Wojciech, Pellis, Sergio M.·2013·Journal of Comparative Psychology

Abstract

Laboratory rats have been widely used to study the development and neural underpinnings of play behavior. However, it is not known whether domestic rats play in the same way and at the same frequency as their wild counterparts. In this study, the play of juvenile rats from a colony of wild rats maintained in captivity was compared to that of a strain of domesticated rats (e.g., Long Evans hooded). Three predictions were tested. First, it was predicted that wild rats would incorporate more agonistic behavior in their play. This was not found, as in all cases, both the wild and the laboratory rats attacked and defended the nape during play, a nonagonistic body target. Second, because play is typically more frequent in domesticated animals than their wild progenitors, it was predicted that the wild rats should play less than the laboratory rats. This was found to be the case. Third, because wild animals tend to be less tolerant of proximity by conspecifics and tend to be more agile in their movements, it was predicted that there would be less contact between wild pair mates. This was found to be the case; data show that the play of laboratory rats involves the same target (i.e., the nape of the neck) and tactics of defense as those used by wild rats. However, the laboratory rats initiated playful attacks more frequently, and were more likely to use tactics that promoted bodily contact. These similarities and differences need to be considered when using laboratory animals as models for play in general.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/a0032187

Cites

80 of 80 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

1 of the 81 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Himmler, B. T., Stryjek, R., Modlinska, K., Derksen, S. M., Pisula, W., & Pellis, S. M.
Affiliations
  • University of Lethbridge (CA)
  • Institute of Psychology (PL)
Venue
Journal of Comparative Psychology
Published
2013
Volume
127
Issue
4
Pages
453-464
ISSN
  • 0093-4127 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-2087
  • 0735-7036
OpenAlex
W2323261940
Cited by
82
References
81
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 1
FWCI
5.52
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of comparative psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Science Centre (UMO-2011/01/B/HS6/06442)
  • Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (40058)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Human-Animal Interaction Studies
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Animal Behavior and Reproduction
  • Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Animal Behavior and Welfare Studies
Keywords
play behavior, domestication, wild rats, laboratory rats, Rattus norvegicus, Long-Evans rats, agonistic behavior, play frequency, animal models, comparative animal behavior
MeSH terms
Agonistic Behavior, Animals, Animals, Domestic, Animals, Wild, Behavior, Animal, Female, Male, Play and Playthings, Social Behavior, Rats, Long-Evans, 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