Search for: All records

Abstract Neophobia, an aversive response to novelty, is a behavior with critical ecological and evolutionary relevance for wild populations because it directly influences animals’ ability to adapt to new environments and exploit novel resources. Neophobia has been described in a wide variety of different animal species from arachnids to zebra finches. Because of this widespread prevalence and ecological importance, the number of neophobia studies has continued to increase over time. However, many neophobia studies (as well as many animal behavior studies more generally) suffer from one or more of what we have deemed the “seven deadly sins” of neophobia experimental design. These “sins” include: (1) animals that are not habituated to the testing environment, (2) problems with novel stimulus selection, (3) non-standardized motivation, (4) pseudoreplication, (5) lack of sufficient controls, (6) fixed treatment order, and (7) using arbitrary thresholds for data analysis. We discuss each of these potential issues in turn and make recommendations for how to avoid them in future behavior research. More consistency in how neophobia studies are designed would facilitate comparisons across different populations and species and allow researchers to better understand whether neophobia can help explain animals’ responses to human-altered landscapes and the ability to survive in the Anthropocene. 

Avoidance of novel stimuli (neophobia) affects how wild animals interact with their environment and may partly determine whether animals persist in human-altered landscapes. The neuroendocrine mediators of neophobia are poorly understood, although past work demonstrated that experimentally reducing circulating corticosterone in wild-caught house sparrows (Passer domesticus) decreased neophobia toward novel objects placed near the food dish. In this experiment, we directly tested the role of one of the two types of corticosterone receptors, the glucocorticoid receptor (GR), in mediating neophobia in house sparrows by administering a GR antagonist (RU486, n = 10) or a vehicle control (peanut oil, n = 10) over 5 consecutive days and measuring responses to novel objects both pre- and post-treatment. We also measured baseline and stress-induced corticosterone in all sparrows on the final day of behavior trials. To better understand the effects of RU486 on corticosterone over time, in a separate group of sparrows (n = 12) we administered RU486 or vehicle over 5 days and took multiple blood samples to assess baseline and stress-induced corticosterone. Overall, we did not detect an effect of subcutaneous RU486 injections on neophobia behavior. However, we did find that RU486 injections significantly decreased stress-induced corticosterone levels starting 1 day post-injection and baseline corticosterone levels starting 6 days post-injection, compared to vehicle-injected controls. Our results suggest that GR is not involved in mediating neophobia behavior in house sparrows. 

Some individuals respond to new objects, foods, or environments with wariness (neophobia), whereas others are willing to approach and explore. Because novel stimuli can represent both dangers and resources, group-living species may show adaptive plasticity in neophobia in response to social cues. To better understand how conspecific calls can influence neophobia in a highly gregarious species, we exposed individual house sparrows (Passer domesticus) to either conspecific alarm calls (n = 12), conspecific contact calls (n = 12), or no playback (n = 12) and measured latency to feed in the presence of novel objects. We also measured novelty responses with no sound the week before and after the sound treatment week for all individuals. Relative to no playback and contact calls, we predicted that conspecific alarm calls would increase neophobia behavior during the acoustic trial and that these effects would persist the week after exposure. Instead, we found that individuals in the contact call and no playback groups became less neophobic as weeks progressed, while the alarm call group showed no attenuation of neophobia. There was a significant interaction between week and treatment, where neophobia responses over the three weeks were significantly different for individuals exposed to alarm calls compared to the contact and no playback groups combined. These results suggest that house sparrows learn social information about potentially threatening stimuli from conspecific alarm calls; here, that novel objects may be dangerous.