Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

1968, Vol. 9, No. 2, 142-146

SOCIAL AND NONSOCIAL ATTRACTION IN RATS 1

BIBB LATANfi DAVID C. GLASS 2
Columbia University Russell Sage Foundation, New York City

Recent findings have shown that laboratory rats are strongly attracted to
and reduce fear for each other when observed in pairs in an open field. This
experiment tested whether these effects are specifically "social," that is, whether
rats are attracted only to other rats or to any physical object. The results
showed that male albino rats in an open field are very much attracted to each
other when tested in pairs, only somewhat attracted to an anesthetized rat,
and not at all attracted to a small toy car. Rat pairs also became more gre-
garious with repeated testing; nonsocial attraction did not increase. Rats
showed less defecation and immobility when tested together than when tested
alone or with a nonsocial or semisocial object. The results suggest that inter-
action may be critical for social attraction.

Why are individuals attracted to each about their social interaction. They do not
other? This is one of the most basic but least stare at another animal; they rub up against
well-understood questions in social psychol- it. If rats are attracted by the opportunity
ogy. Are the determinants of social attraction for physical contact rather than by the mere
different in kind from the factors which influ- visual presence of another animal, the socia-
ence nonsocial attraction? Are the two kinds bility measure customarily used will be in-
of attraction fundamentally different? Theo- sensitive. An alternative technique would be
retically these questions are as interesting to allow a pair of animals to move freely in
with respect to animals as they are when an unstructured environment and measure
applied to humans (although the answers, of gregariousness simply by the distance in
course, may differ). However, with the excep- inches which the two animals choose to main-
tion of a few isolated studies, psychologists tain between themselves. To the extent that
have not used animal subjects in laboratory the animals are attracted to each other, they
studies of social attraction. One reason for should stay close together.
this may have been the conviction that many Using this technique, Latane (1968) has
animals, especially the ubiquitous laboratory shown in two separate experiments that when
rat, are not very sociable. The results of the pairs of rats are observed together in an open
few studies of social behavior in rodents have field they are strongly attracted to each other.
provided little evidence that they are at- Compared to an expected "chance" distance
tracted to each other (Antonitis & Baron, of 25 inches, rat pairs stayed an average of
1964; Antonitis & Kish, 1955; Bayroff, 1936; only 12 inches apart. Over repeated days of
Lindzey, Winston, & Roberts, 1965; Locke, testing, rats grew considerably more sociable,
1936). maintaining an average distance of 15 inches
A major problem with most measures of on the first day and only 11 inches on the
rodent social behavior stems from the typical fifth day of the experiment. And the rats ap-
measure of sociability—the amount of time parently had a powerful fear-reducing effect
spent before a screened compartment contain- on each other. When alone, rats deposited
ing a stimulus animal. Simple observation sug- considerably more fecal boluses and were also
gests that rats are usually intensely direct much more immobile than when they were
1
The research reported in this paper was sup- together.
ported in part by grants from the Columbia Uni- Although these results suggest that rats are
versity Council for Research in the Social Sciences considerably more "social" than previous
and the National Science Foundation (GS1239) to studies would indicate, they are subject to at
Bibb Latane' and from the Russell Sage Foundation
and the National Science Foundation (GS1009) to least one important alternative interpreta-
David C. Glass. tion. Perhaps rats are attracted not only to
- Also at Rockefeller University. other rats, but also to any physical object in
142
 SOCIAL AND NONSOCIAL ATTRACTION IN RATS 143

their environment. Perhaps rats are less fear- intervals. Locations were transformed to distance
ful not only when they are with another rat, measures which were averaged over the 30 observa-
tion periods to give a single score. Distance measures
but also when they are in the presence of any for the two observers were combined and the
physical object. It is the purpose of the pres- averaged data used in the analyses reported below.
ent experiment to test this alternative inter- A "chance" base-line distance which would result
pretation. if the rats moved randomly throughout the open
field uninfluenced by the presence of the various
METHOD objects was obtained by simply recording the loca-
tion of each rat when tested alone and then calcu-
Rats were placed once daily for 6 successive days lating distance scores as if it had been tested with
in an open field for 5 minutes with either another an object. This theoretical "distance" between the
rat, an anesthetized rat, a stationary toy car, a mov- rat and an arbitrary location controls for idiosyn-
ing car, or alone and observed for social attraction cratic position preferences.
and emotionality.
Emotionality
Subjects At the end of each experimental period, the ob-
A group of 30 experimentally naive male Carworth servers counted the number of fecal boluses dropped
Farms albino rats, approximately 30 days old, were by the animal or animal pair. An immobility score
housed for the S days prior to the experiment and consisted of the number of 10-second intervals dur-
for the 6 days of the experiment in individual cages ing which, the rat remained in the same numbered
on an ad-lib food and water schedule. The average area of the open field.
weight of the animals was 117 grams on the day
preceding the first experimental session and 217 Experimental Design
grams on the last day of the experiment. The experimental design was a balanced 6 X 6
Latin-square arrangement in which each treatment
Apparatus followed every other treatment an equal number of
The apparatus was a circular open field, 4 feet in times. Each of 30 rats was run in every condition
diameter with an 18-inch wall, painted flat white. once except for the together condition in which they
The wooden floor was marked off with black lines were tested twice.
into 49 sections of equal area and approximately RESULTS
equivalent shape by a series of concentric circles and
radii. Each of these areas was labeled with a number Reliability of Observations
from 1 to 49 for ease of recording the position of the
rats. A 100-watt bulb hung 5 feet above the center Interobserver reliability coefficients across
of the apparatus. rats averaged .97. The average absolute dif-
ference between distance estimates made by
Procedure the two observers was only .6 inch, and there
Rats in the alone condition were individually was no sign of any consistent bias in the di-
placed in the open field. In the together condition, rection of these differences.
two rats were tested simultaneously. The anesthe-
tized-rat condition was identical to the alone condi- Distance Scores
tion except that the experimental animal was placed
in the field with an anesthetized rat from the same An analysis of variance was done on the
stock. Anesthesia was induced by an intraperitoneal mean distance scores obtained from rats under
injection of Nembutal (Abbott Veterinary Prepara- the various conditions during the 6 experi-
tions, 1.6 mg/cc), and the drugged animal was 8
placed near the wall of the field. The still-toy condi- mental days. The effects of order (sequences)
tion was essentially similar except that a S-inch and of subjects were not significant. There
scale model of a red Ferarri racing car with minia- were highly significant effects due to experi-
ture driver and movable wheels was used. In the mental treatments (F = 80.25, p < .0005, dj
moving-toy condition, the car was self-propelled, its = 4/96), days (F = 2.98, p < .005, dj - S/
motion being controlled by a Gerbrands tape pro-
grammer such that it circled the perimeter of the 96), and to the Treatment X Days interaction
open field in slow erratic movements. A cable ex- (F = 2.20, p<.05, dj= 15/96). Table 1
tended from the rear of the car to the light fixture presents the mean distance between rats and
suspended over the field and then on to the pro- stimulus objects in the various conditions. A
grammer.
lower distance score indicates closer approach
Distance to the stimulus object.
3
Two observers recorded the position of the freely All p values reported in this paper are based on
moving rat and of the stimulus object at 10-second two-tailed tests.
144 BIBB LATANE AND DAVID C. GLASS
TABLE 1
MEAN DISTANCE AND CONTACT BETWEEN RAT
AND STIMULUS OBJECT
Condition N M distance
Alone (chance) 30 25.5*
Moving toy 30 24.2a
Still toy 30 24.0.
Anesthetized rat 30 20.1
Together 15 pairs 11.6
Note.—All conditions except those which share the same
subscript are significantly different from each other at the .05
level by the Duncan multiple-range test.
Although rats were no more attracted to the
moving toy or to the still toy than one would
expect by chance, there are indications of a
significant but slight degree of attraction to
the anesthetized rat. The most striking find-
ing, however, is the extremely low mean dis-
tance obtained among rats in the together
condition, half the average distance between
rat and stimulus object in the other condi-
tions. All of the 30 rats used in this experi-
ment approached their partner rats more
closely than the moving toy, all but 1 of the
30 rats approached their partners more closely
than the still toy, and all but 6 of the 30 rats
approached their partners more closely than
the anesthetized rat. Each of these differences
is significant at well beyond the .01 level by
sign test.
Effect of Day of Testing on Approach
Tendency
Figure 1 graphs the mean distance by day
as a function of the stimulus object. While
there was little difference across days in how
closely a rat approached a moving toy, still
toy, or anesthetized rat, rats tested with an-
other rat showed much greater gregariousness
on the fifth and sixth days of the experiment
than on the first and second days. Of the 30
rats used in this experiment, 28 were more
gregarious on their second test in the to-
gether situation (p < .001 by sign test). This
result replicates the finding reported by La-
tane (1968) that rats in the open field be-
come more gregarious over time. The Treat-
ment X Days interaction shown in the analy-
sis of variance is presumably due to the fact
that rats showed a decrease in distance over
days only when tested in the together condi-
tion.
Percentage of Periods in Which Contact Was
Made with Stimulus Object
On the last 3 days of testing a notation was
% periods made for each 10-second period as to whether
of contact
the rat had made contact with the stimulus
— object during that period. The percentages of
21. periods during which the animals made con-
18.
33. tact with the various stimulus objects are
91 presented in Table 1. Although there were no
significant differences in amount of contact by
rats with a moving toy, still toy, or anesthe-
tized rat, there was a striking and extremely
significant increase in contact in the together
condition as opposed to any of the other con-
ditions. This physical contact sometimes in-
volved sniffing of one rat by another, but
often was characterized by one rat climbing
over or crawling under the other while both
were running around the perimeter of the field.
These data, then, indicate that rats are ex-
tremely gregarious, especially after several
days of testing, and that this gregariousness is
not due to the mere fact that another animal
serves as a moving stimulus. Rats are strongly
attracted toward each other under conditions
in which they show little attraction to inani-
mate or animate toys, or even an inert rat.
Emotional Activity
An analysis of variance of the defecation
scores for the rats in this experiment showed
26 Alone(chance)
Rat and moving toy
Rat and still toy
22
Rot and anesthetized rot
o 18
14
10
' Together
1+2 3+4 5+6
Day of testing
FIG. 1. Mean distance by days as a function of
stimulus object (n = 10 rats or rat pairs at each
data point).
 SOCIAL AND NONSOCIAL ATTRACTION IN RATS
that the treatment variable had a strong and
significant effect on defecation (F = 9.02, p
< .005, df = 4/111); no other effects were
significant. When tested together, rats defe-
cated much less than when tested alone (Ta-
ble 2). Defecation in the presence of either a
moving or a still toy was not significantly dif-
ferent than defecation in the alone condition,
although rats did defecate significantly more
when the toy was moving than when it was
still. The presence of either an anesthetized
rat or another moving rat significantly re-
duced defecation as compared to the alone
condition.
Immobility was relatively infrequent and
differences between the conditions were small,
although rats when tested together were less
immobile than under any other condition. The
only difference to approach significance was
that between rats in the together condition
and rats tested with the anesthetized rat (p
< .15).
On the basis of these defecation and im-
mobility data, it can be concluded that rats
do reduce fear for each other. A nonliving ob-
ject such as a toy car, however, does not have
this effect whether it is moving or not. Al-
though rats did defecate significantly less
when in the presence of an anesthetized rat
than when alone, they were considerably but
not significantly more immobile.
DISCUSSION
The facts, then, are clear. Rats are very
much attracted to each other, but not very
much attracted to "nonsocial" stimulus ob-
jects. Rats are also effective fear reducers for
each other; nonsocial stimulus objects are
not. The facts are clear, but what of their
interpretation? What precisely are the dif-
ferences between an alone and a together con-
dition which makes them have such different
effects? What is it about a rat which makes
him not only attractive to another rat, but
also an effective fear reducer?
The most venerable (and most disputed)
explanation is that rats, because of their
genetic makeup, find the particular stimulus
configuration of another rat's color, texture,
shape, and smell intrinsically attractive. Ac-
cording to this explanation, rats are born with
a potentiality for responding positively to the
145
TABLE 2
DEFECATION AND IMMOBILITY
% defeca- M no. of % periods
Condition N ting boluses immobile
Alone 30 40ab 1.33ab 11.7.
Moving toy 30 47. 2.07» 8.9a
Still toy 30 33bo 0.731* 12.9*
Anesthetized rat 30 13od 0.330 17.3.
Together 60 2d 0.05,, 8.7.
Note.—All conditions except those which share the same sub-
script are significantly different from each other at the .05
level by the Duncan multiple-range test (for number of boluses)
or by sign test (for percentage of those defecating).
particular qualities associated with other rats.
Support for this view comes from the present
study's finding that an anesthetized rat is
more attractive than a moving or stationary
toy car. However, this result does not require
the conclusion that the cues for attraction are
themselves innate. In fact, it is equally con-
sistent with an "environmental" position which
holds that gregariousness is dependent on
prior experience.
A second explanation for animal gregarious-
ness emphasizes the importance of early and
continuing learning experiences with other
animals. It can be argued, for example, that
animals are attractive to and reduce fear for
each other because in the past they have
received such rewards as mother's milk,
warmth, or even contact comfort for approach-
ing other animals (Antonitis & Kish, 1955;
Antonitis & Sher, 1952). It has also been
suggested that animals have secondary rein-
forcing properties for one another because
they have previously been reinforced in the
presence of each other (Casey, 1962). Still
other writers have deemphasized the role of
reinforcement, claiming that mere familiarity
may be a major determinant of social attrac-
tion and fear reduction. Scott (1962), in re-
viewing the literature on animal socialization,
suggested the hypothesis that contact between
animals is a sufficient condition for the devel-
opment of social attachments. Cairns (1966)
has developed this idea further and formalized
it in the context of contiguity learning theory.
He reasoned that ongoing behavior will be
disrupted if familiar response-maintaining
cues (such as other animals) are not present,
and that animals will therefore strive to re-
main in the presence of others.
146 BIBB LATANE AND DAVID C. GLASS
Although the results of the present study
do not permit one to choose between these
"learning" and "instinct" formulations, it
should be noted that both approaches view
social attraction as being mediated through
the innate or acquired attractiveness of the
stimulus qualities of other animals. Keller
and Schoenfeld (1950) expressed this point
of view when they asserted that "social stim-
uli do not differ in their function from those of
inanimate origin; they act as eliciting, rein-
forcing, discriminative, and so on [p. 352]."
The idea that particular stimulus qualities
of other animals provide the basis for their
attractiveness can be contrasted with an op-
posing view that animals like and tend to con-
tinue the activities in which they are mutually
involved. In other words, it may be that the
critical factor underlying social attraction in
rats is mutual responsiveness and not any
specific stimulus quality of either animal.
The results of the together and anesthetized
conditions, for example, suggest that some-
thing more than the physical appearance of
the other animal is involved in social attrac-
tion. Rats are much more attracted to another
animal that is free to move and respond than
to an anesthetized rat. The mean degree of
attraction between freely moving rats over the
last third of the experiment was 16.4 inches
(chance distance minus observed distance),
more than 4 times the attraction in the anes-
thetized condition (3.9 inches). The magni-
tude of this difference argues against the sim-
ple interpretation that in the together condi-
tion two animals are free to approach each
other, whereas in the anesthetized condition
only one animal can approach the other. The
fact that an anesthetized rat is stationary also
does not seem to explain the results. The pos-
sibility that movement itself is a sufficient
condition for social attraction is ruled out by
the fact that a moving toy in the present ex-
periment was no more attractive than a still
toy.
One is left, then, with the suggestive hy-
pothesis that mutual responsiveness and inter-
action between the two animals are necessary
conditions for social attraction and fear re-
duction. This possibility is certainly consistent
with the finding by Latane (1968) that rats
are only slightly attracted to a caged stimulus
rat with whom they cannot interact. If this
hypothesis is correct, one should not ask what
makes another rat an attractive and fear-
reducing stimulus object. The better strategy
would be to investigate those factors which
make social interaction a mutually rewarding
experience.
REFERENCES
ANTONITIS, J. J., & BARON, A. Social reinforcement
of bar pressing in mice. Journal of Genetic Psy-
chology, 1964, 105, 223-236.
ANTONITIS, J. J., & KISH, G. B. Reactions of C57
black male mice to active and inactive social stim-
uli. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 1955, 86, 115-
130.
ANTONITIS, J. J., & SHER, A. J. Social regression in
the white rat. Journal of Psychology, 1952, 33,
99-111.
BAYROIT, A. G. The experimental social behavior of
animals: I. The effect of early isolation of white
rats on their later reactions to other white rats as
measured by two periods of free choice. Journal
of Comparative Psychology, 1936, 21, 67-81.
CAIRNS, R. B. Attachment behavior of mammals.
Psychological Review, 1966, 73, 409-426.
CASEY, A. Gregarious behavior in the rat as a func-
tion of secondary reinforcement, drive and novelty.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of
Kansas, 1962.
KELLER, F. S., & SCHOENFELD, W. N. Principles of
psychology. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts,
1950.
LATANE, B. Gregariousness and fear in laboratory
rats. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,
1968, in press.
LINDZEY, G., WINSTON, H. D., & ROBERTS, L. E.
Sociability, fearfulness, and genetic variation in
the mouse. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 1965, 1, 642-645.
LOCKE, N. M. A preliminary study of a social drive
in the white rat. Journal of Psychology, 1936, 1,
225-260.
SCOTT, J. P. Critical periods in behavioral develop-
ment. Science, 1962, 138, 949-958.
(Received April 6, 1967)