4.2 Article

Evidence for Individual Differences in Regulatory Focus in Rats, Rattus norvegicus

Journal

JOURNAL OF COMPARATIVE PSYCHOLOGY
Volume 126, Issue 4, Pages 347-354

Publisher

AMER PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1037/a0027244

Keywords

regulatory focus; animal personality; behavioral syndromes; temperament; bold-shy

Funding

  1. Office of the Director, United States National Institutes of Health [DP2OD001674]
  2. United States National Institute of Mental Health [39429]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Regulatory focus (Higgins, 1997) builds on the classic approach-avoidance distinction by identifying two important approach orientations: the promotion focus (approaching gains and attainment) and the prevention focus (approaching nonlosses and safety). Though individual differences in regulatory focus have been widely studied in human psychology, it is unknown if such differences exist in other species. To explore this possibility, we designed a series of tests for laboratory rats, paralleling human regulatory focus research on risk taking. In home-cage tests, rats (N = 23) were given an opportunity to prevent a loss by burying a noxious novel object. In solitary tests in a novel enclosure, the same rats had the opportunity to pursue gains (food rewards) and/or safety (darkness). Rats demonstrated stable individual differences on both tests (p's < .001). Complementing the human research, duration of time spent with the noxious novel object was predicted by an individual's tendency to pursue safety (p < .01) and not by the tendency to pursue gains (p > .8). Some aspects of these results were compatible with alternative approaches, such as the bold-shy axis and if-then personality profiles (Mischel & Shoda, 1995). Regulatory focus theory, however, was uniquely able to predict the overall pattern, which may be an indication that it could contribute to future research in animal personality, motivation, and welfare.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available