Future Sight? Animals' Odd Behavior in '61
On this page
Can you train any animal to do anything?
Imagine you're training a pig to drop wooden coins into a piggy bank for food rewards — a simple task that should work perfectly according to behavioral psychology. But something strange happens: the pig starts picking up the coins, dropping them, picking them up again, rooting them along the ground, and completely ignoring the food reward it could easily earn. Two pioneering animal trainers, Keller and Marian Breland, discovered that even when animals knew exactly what they needed to do for a reward, their instinctive behaviors would mysteriously take over and sabotage their learned responses. What they found challenged everything psychologists thought they knew about how learning works.
Animal trainers discovered that instinct often beats conditioning.
In the 1960s, two animal trainers working with various species for commercial entertainment noticed something puzzling. Despite using proven conditioning techniques, their animals kept reverting to natural behaviors that interfered with their training. This challenged the dominant behaviorist view that any behavior could be shaped through rewards and punishments.
Animals' instinctive behaviors can override learned responses, even when the learned behavior would bring them immediate rewards.
Key Findings
- Animals consistently reverted to instinctive behaviors that interfered with their training.
- For example, pigs trained to deposit coins would start rooting and tossing them instead of simply dropping them in a slot.
- The stronger the animal's natural food-gathering instincts, the more they disrupted the learned behaviors.
What Is This About?
The Brelands trained various animals using operant conditioning - rewarding desired behaviors and ignoring unwanted ones. They worked with species ranging from pigs to raccoons, teaching them specific tasks for entertainment purposes. They carefully observed what happened when the animals' natural instincts conflicted with the trained behaviors, documenting cases where conditioning failed despite proper technique.
Applied operant conditioning techniques to train various animal species for commercial purposes, observing when instinctive behaviors interfered with learned behaviors.
Found that animals' natural instinctive behaviors consistently disrupted and overrode trained behaviors, challenging pure behaviorist approaches.
How Good Is the Evidence?
This paper has been cited 1,189 times, making it one of the most influential critiques of pure behaviorism in psychology - comparable to landmark papers that shifted entire fields of study.
Supporters argue this work revealed crucial limitations of behaviorism and highlighted the importance of evolutionary psychology in understanding behavior. It showed that 'blank slate' theories were oversimplified. Skeptics contend that the observations were anecdotal and that better conditioning techniques might have overcome the instinctive drift. They argue the study lacks rigorous experimental controls.
Mainstream: This work contributed valuable insights about biological constraints on learning but doesn't invalidate conditioning principles entirely. Moderate: The findings demonstrate that evolutionary factors must be integrated into learning theories for complete understanding. Frontier: This reveals fundamental flaws in mechanistic approaches to behavior and supports more holistic, biologically-informed models.
This isn't about animal intelligence or training failure. The misconception is that conditioning always works if done correctly. The reality is that biological programming can be stronger than learned behaviors, regardless of training skill.
To settle this question definitively would require controlled experiments comparing conditioning success across species with varying instinctive behaviors, plus neurological studies showing how innate programs override learned responses. This study provides valuable observational evidence but lacks the experimental controls and quantitative measures needed for definitive conclusions.
In our attempt to extend a behavioristically oriented approach to the engineering control of animal behavior by operant conditioning techniques, we have fought a running battle with the seditious notion of instinct.
Stance: Mixed
What Does It Mean?
Animals literally chose to follow their instincts over getting food — essentially choosing hunger over going against their biological programming. This study has been cited over 1,000 times and helped revolutionize our understanding of the mind.
It's like trying to teach a cat to fetch like a dog - you might have some success initially, but the cat's natural hunting and independence instincts will eventually override the training. The animal's 'factory settings' prove stronger than the new programming.
If instinctive behaviors can consistently override learned responses, this suggests that consciousness and free will might be more constrained by biological programming than we typically assume. It raises profound questions about human behavior: how much of what we think are conscious choices might actually be driven by evolutionary predispositions we're not even aware of? The implications extend from education and therapy to understanding the very nature of human agency.
Observational studies can provide valuable insights that challenge established theories, but they need follow-up controlled experiments to confirm the patterns and rule out alternative explanations.
Understanding Terms
What This Study Claims
Findings
Instinctive behavior patterns consistently interfered with operant conditioning in multiple animal species
moderateInterpretations
Pure behaviorist approaches are insufficient for understanding and predicting animal behavior across species
moderateImplications
Ethological understanding of species-specific instincts is essential for effective behavioral control
moderateThis summary is for general information about current research. It does not constitute medical advice. The scientific interpretation of these results is debated among researchers. If personally affected, please consult qualified professionals.