Cited by 19Primate Behavior and EcologyAnimal Behavior and Welfare StudiesAnimal Behavior and Reproduction

Pinning in the Play Fighting of Rats: A Comparative Perspective With Methodological Recommendations

Open access
Himmler, Stephanie M., Himmler, Brett T., Stryjek, Rafał, Modlińska, Klaudia, Pisula, Wojciech, Pellis, Sergio M.·2016·International Journal of Comparative Psychology

Abstract

During play fighting, rats attack and defend the nape and during the course of this competitive interaction, they may adopt a configuration in which one animal stands over its supine partner (i.e., pin). Because the pin configuration is typically frequent and relatively easy to identify, it has been widely used as a marker to detect the effects of experimental treatments. In the present study, the frequency of pinning during standardized, 10min trials in three strains of rats, Long Evans hooded (LE), Sprague-Dawley (SD) and wild (WWCPS), was compared. LE and SD had higher rates than WWCPS rats (#/min: 6.5, 5.5, 1.5, respectively). When adjusted for strain differences in the frequency of attacks, SD as well as WWCPS rats had lower rates of pinning compared to LE rats. Both SD and WWCPS rats were less likely to use tactics of defense that promote pinning. Moreover, while the majority of the pins achieved in LE rats arose from the defender actively rolling over onto its back, the majority of pins in WWCPS rats arose because one partner pushed the other onto its back. SD rats were intermediate in this regard. Finally, once they do adopt the pin configuration, SD rats are less likely to remain supine than LE and WWCPS rats. That is, both SD and WWCPS rats have significantly fewer pins than LE rats, but a different combination of factors account for this. These data highlight the need to use a battery of measures for ascertaining the effects of experimental manipulations on play. Some suggested guidelines are provided.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.46867/ijcp.2016.29.00.06

Cites

54 of 54 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Himmler, S. M., Himmler, B. T., Stryjek, R., Modlińska, K., Pisula, W., & Pellis, S. M.
Affiliations
  • University of Lethbridge (CA)
  • University of Minnesota (US)
  • Polish Academy of Sciences (PL)
Corresponding author
Pellis, Sergio M.
Venue
International Journal of Comparative Psychology
Published
2016
Volume
29
ISSN
  • 0889-3667 (ISSN-L)
  • 2168-3344
OpenAlex
W2766048403
Cited by
19
References
54
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 7 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 3
FWCI
3.01
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • International Journal of Comparative Psychology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Primate Behavior and Ecology
  • Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Animal Behavior and Welfare Studies
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Animal Behavior and Reproduction
Keywords
play fighting, pinning, rats, strain differences, Long-Evans rats, Sprague-Dawley rats, wild rats, defense tactics, supine position

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