Behaviour: Normality / Pathology
Debate on the Applied-ethology network [applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca].
Compilation by Dr Joël Dehasse (dvm) - Brussels
- joel.dehasse@skynet.be -
http://www.joeldehasse.com
Clik here to look at the EMERGENCES of this discussion.
Wed, 12 Mar 1997 14:37:49 +0100
Dehasse Joel
Brussels - <jdehasse@arcadis.be> - http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Plains/2913/
To: Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca
Hi everybody,
I would like to invite you to a discussion on NORMALITY and PATHOLOGY
in animal behavior.
I sure have my definitions, but I'm curious to know yours.
I would like to load these definitions in my site as reference
(please if you do not agree, specify it).
When we are able to agree on this basis, maybe we will be able
to discuss on hyperactivity without being hypersensitive on the
subject?
So who will open the show?
Nabil Brandl
The Danish Institute of Animal Science - Dept. of Animal Health
and Welfare - Research Center Foulum - P.O. 39 DK-8830 Tjele -
Denmark - HomePage: http://www.sh.dk/~nabil
Wed, 12 Mar 1997
Every animal population has a common pattern of behaviour. Any
deviation
from this pattern is pathology.
Dr. Werner Haberl
Hamburgerstr. 11 - A-1050 Vienna, Austria - Email: shrewbib@sorex.vienna.at
URL: http://members.vienna.at/shrew (The Shrew (ist's) Site)
Wed Mar 12 1997
From: shrewbib@sorex.vienna.at (The Shrew Site (W.H.))
1) I think the term 'pathological' is not the correct counterpart
of the term 'normal'.
2) It is difficult and 'dangerous' enough to use the term 'normal'
in human biology, about we ourselves should know most. Who sets
the criteria for normality? In what frequency, percentage must
a behaviour be performed to be regarded as so 'common', that any
deviation would result as being not normal? Would a person with
a disease or gene-combination that occurs with a high frequency
in the population be not normal? What about diabetes? What about
short-sightedness? OK, you may say, this is not behaviour, but
what is the difference if we discuss the term 'normal'? (Although
both examples result in a certain behaviour). Is a person smoking
cigarettes normal or not? If someone speaks a language that is
only spoken by a minority, would he be abnormal in your sense?
Are people frequenting a nudist's beach normal? (or, maybe from
an animal's point of view, is it normal to cover ones genitals
by tiny pieces of cloth - which would mean that the majority of
humans are pathological?). And so on...
3) So how can we ascertain 'normality' for 'animal'-behaviour?
Wouldn't this be an anthropomorphism? Isn't our knowledge of animal
behaviour too poor to judge over what is normal and what not (especially
when the evaluation of the behaviour is dependent on the method
we use)? Is the small percentage of a bird population that, due
to given circumstances, would change to a different mating system
pathological?
I am neither an etymologist nor psychologist, but it would be
good to keep these thoughts in mind, when discussing the topic.
What is referred to as not normal, I would probably carefully
describe as 'strange or peculiar' or even more carefully as 'rare'
behaviour'.
Also, if this discussion leads to ethics, the terms normal or
pathological are not appropriate.
Some of you may say that all this is way off the topic because
what we have in mind actually are 'dogs biting their keepers or
pigs biting off their own tails etc.' But dogs did not have the
opportunity to pick their keepers. *Think about the following
sentence: It is 'normal' for pigs kept in hundreds on a few square
meters to become 'weirdoes'. Those not becoming 'weirdoes' must
truly be as 'pathological' as their owners?...rest comes from
the ethics-department. Does not evolution feed on the variety
given by different frequencies of a behaviour, morphotype, gene-constitution?
'Mr. or Ms. Evolution' would probably regard any deviation as
'normal'.
All I am trying to say is that the subject is a dangerous one.
Somehow I have the impression that this discussion is not fit
for an academic forum. We should all have discussed this already
in school...
Werner,
smoker, but neither short-sighted, hypersensitive, nudist nor
diabetic. The Internet is used by a minority of people. I am one
of them, so this may be pathological. Yes, and I must admit that
I also drive a car, although I use public transport whenever possible.
Hope my English is quite 'normal'
Jeff Rau
Jeffrey Rau <jrau@uoguelph.ca>
Wed, 12 Mar 1997
I believe Nabil's definition of normal behavior is weak, and I
offer the following example to illustrate why: Populations of
confined sows commonly show patterns of behaviour such as stereotypies,
vacuum activity, and displacement activity, among a host of other
behaviour. According to Nabil's definition, these should all be
considered normal behaviour since they are common to the population.
I beg to differ.
Nabil's definition of normal behaviour fails to account for the
environmental effect on behaviour, specifically that there exists
an environment which is required to accommodate patterns of normal
behaviour specific to an animal's genotype.
It is erroneous to suggest that because it is common to observe
a specific behaviour within a population, that behaviour should
be considered normal.
I believe that normal behaviour is that which occurs when an animal's
environment matches that for which it is genetically programmed.
It follows that abnormal behaviour is any behaviour which falls
outside of this definition.
Dr. Werner Haberl
shrewbib@sorex.vienna.at
Wed, 12 Mar 1997
We should be careful, when discussing 'dangerous' subjects. Behaviour
is not only a matter of genetical programming.
Does the above definition mean, that a person walking barefoot
in winter is not normal? Or does this definition include all behaviour,
- ie every behaviour is normal?
Who genetically programmed my cat to eat potato-chips?
Jon Watts
University of Saskatchewan - Dept of Herd Medicine and Theriogenology
- Western College of Vet. Med - 52 Campus Drive - Saskatoon -
S7N 1B4 - Canada
wattsjon@duke.usask.ca "The Holy Cow"
Wed, 12 Mar 1997
I'm sure that "normal" behaviour is that which is most
likely to be seen in the environment in which the animal evolved,
but I think defining it as such could invite some errors in interpreting
the behaviour of animals in foreign or human-made environments.
For instance, suppose I take a lion, which has been programmed
to behave appropriately as a predator, scrounger, layabout, opportunist
in the Serengeti, and put it in a small cage. Should I interpret
its escape attempts as pathological, or appropriate? When it lies
down to sleep is this a dysfunction brought about by depression,
or is it just sleepy?
If you can buy the idea that to attempt to escape may be "normal"
behaviour for a lion in a cage (as I do), then you have to look
for a different definition or decide that "normal" is
an inappropriate adjective to describe behaviour.
Suppose the lion is pacing the cage in a repetitive, apparently
purposeless manner for hours on end. Is it behaving abnormally?
I say no.
Or rather I say that the question is meaningless. It is doing
a variant of what many animals do when you put them in cramped,
artificial, unstimulating environment (i.e. performing a stereotypy).
From one angle you could argue that such behaviour is "normal"
for an animal in these conditions. If you place the animal in
a different (preferably better) environment, it will often respond
with different behaviour or an expanded repertoire of behaviour.
I prefer to say that what appears to be aberrant behaviour indicates
much more about the "normality" of the environment from
the animal's perspective, which may be a source of "stress",
than it does necessarily about the psychopathological state of
the animal itself.
Dr. Werner Haberl
Wed, 12 Mar 1997
Imagine having obtained some fish for your aquarium from two different
shops. Those from shop #2 would show stereotype behavior by endlessly
swimming up and down the edge of your aquarium. Those from shop
#1 would not.
Now: according to the statement above, the #2 fish would behave
'normally' (given the stress in captivity). What about the #1
fish?
I agree with Jon Watts' statement that the question is 'meaningless',
providing that 'meaningless' is simply understood as 'not being
relevant to the current discussion'.
Another problem is the 'emotional value' and, regarding 'animals'
the anthropomorphic interpretation, we attach to terms like 'normal'
or 'pathological'. Is 'normal' behaviour positive or negative?
Who are we to judge?
Werner
Jeff - Jeffrey Rau <jrau@uoguelph.ca>
Wed, 12 Mar 1997
Hi Werner,
1. Please tell me what you find so "dangerous" about
discussing what is or is not normal behaviour?
2. I agree, behaviour is not just a matter of genetic programming.
3. All behaviour is not normal, nor is it all abnormal (kind of
a potpourri of normal/abnormal).
4. I would say that the person walking barefoot in the winter
is probably normal, depending on your definition of what a normal
person consists of. Is he/she displaying normal behaviour, well,
that just depends on where this person happens to be (Florida,
the Bahamas, the Arctic, indoors, outdoors, Sputnik, etc...).
I'm sure many people will admit to walking barefoot in winter,
I do every morning on my way to the shower!
5. I'm sure is not in your cats genetic program to eat potato
chips specifically. However your cat is eating those potato chips
because he/she/it is motivated to seek food and consume it, and
that is what your cat is genetically programmed to do.
Jeff, answering to Jon Watts
Jeffrey Rau <jrau@uoguelph.ca>
Wed, 12 Mar 1997
Allow me to clarify. When I say 'environment' I understand it
to mean stimuli in a general sense. For example; a sow will use
straw, wood shavings, shredded paper, etc. to perform nest building
behaviour under confinement conditions. She does not necessarily
require a field of tall grass and/or bushes in order to perform
this behaviour, perhaps just a reasonable facsimile thereof.
When you say "...environment in which the ANIMAL evolved..",
do you mean ANIMAL or SPECIES? Either way the genetic program
of the animal is firmly ingrained and determines, through its
interaction with the
environment/stimuli, how the animal behaves.
Given a situation in 'the wild', where your lion finds itself
in a similar situation of entrapment (i.e.: the cage simulates
this very situation = the two 'environments'/'stimuli' are very
similar), would you expect the lion to perform escape behaviour?
Logically one would have to answer yes, as would I, and you I'm
sure.
As for the sleep/depression situation, someone would have to spend
some cash to investigate the notion of depression in lions.
I will do neither (because you are wrong, and I am right.......next
comes name calling, and soon enough my mother will end up wearing
a pair of army boots!). Normal is just the adjective which should
be used here. I thoroughly agree; an animal performing escape
behaviour in the presence of such entrapment stimulus is normal,
whether it be a man/woman-made cage, or a mountain cave plugged
by fallen rocks.
I think you are confusing the matter with your loose use of the
word 'normal'. When you say such (stereotypy) behaviour is "normal"
for an animal in these (cramped, unstimulating, etc..) conditions,
I believe you should be
saying that it is "common" to observe animals performing
stereotypies under these conditions. Yes, under those environmental
conditions the stereotypy is common behaviour, but normal it is
not! The way in which an animal does behave is not always the
way it is programmed to behave according to its genetic makeup.
This is apparent when its environment, or surrounding stimuli,
does not match to that for which it is genetically programmed.
Yes, animals do perform normal behaviour under confinement conditions,
however they also perform abnormal behaviour under those same
conditions. Some stimuli are present, and some are not.
If you plan on throwing my "lion in a cave plugged by fallen
rocks" analogy back in my face.......good luck. My lion will
dig through the dirt and rocks and eventually escape, or starve
to death trying. It is not confined by bars and concrete, without
any hope of escape, nor is it fed daily to sustain such a hopeless
existence, resorting to the performance of abnormal behaviour.
I agree that the aberrant behaviour can tell us much about the
suitability of the environment (I will refrain from using the
term 'normality' to avoid confusion) from the animal's perspective.
Would you take one more step and say agree that it tells us how
that environment is interacting with that animal's genetic program?
(c'mon). Thus, it must also tell us something about the psychopathological
status of the animal.
Tim Sutton <tsutton@ilink.nis.za> to Jeffrey Rau <jrau@uoguelph.ca>
Wed, 12 Mar 1997
Tim asked me to forward this to the discussion group.
Here is my definition of normal behaviour:
Normal behaviour is behaviour which can be predicted with reasonable
certainty within a given population. Pathological behaviour can
often be the origin of normal behaviour.
Probably the best anecdote I can give to illustrate the point
is in a troop of baboons. The baboons had a (predictable) habit
of raiding rubbish bins in a nature reserve. When a 'baboon proof'
lid was placed over the bin, this behaviour was prevented - until
an adult baboon dipped a juvenile into the bin (pathological behaviour)
- the latter was then retrieved with a handful of goodies from
the bin. When this behaviour is consistantly / predictably repeated,
it can be considered as normal behaviour for that troop of baboons.
Kelly Caithlin Kissane - Grad student - Central Michigan University
- arachnology/animal behavior - <kckissan@alpha.delta.edu>
Wed, 12 Mar 1997
This topic surprises me! For as long as I have studied animal
behavior, I was always told that any time an animal was removed
from it's natural habitat, its behavior was suspected to be a
lab artefact. Certainly when I describe any behavior my lab-reared
spiders exhibit, the first call is "yes, but would it happen
in nature?"
Dr. Werner Haberl, answering to Jeff Rau
Wed, 12 Mar 1997
>1. Please tell me what you find so "dangerous" about
discussing what is or is not normal behaviour?
*Well, it seems to be a terminological (also philosophical, political)
problem. Since you have introduced the term 'common' ('to avoid
confusion') in your reply to Jon I feel a bit better. But to answer
your question: It is 'dangerous', because the term has been/ is
/ and could be abused or misinterpreted by attaching a positive/negative
value. If, in any case, I would use the term 'normal' I would
make sure it is put in quotation-marks.
The term 'common' is a neutral one, that would also fit to Jon's
lion-example.
>4. I would say that the person walking barefoot in the winter
is probably normal, depending on your definition of what a normal
person consists of. Is he/she displaying normal behaviour, well,
that just depends on where this person happens to be (Florida,
the Bahamas, the Arctic, indoors, outdoors, Sputnik, etc...).
I'm sure many people will admit to walking barefoot in winter,
I do every morning on my way to the shower!
*This was just an example. I really did not think about places
like Florida or the shower. I know some people here in Vienna
who walk barefoot in the snow (nice people and their kids wear
shoes). They believe it is healthy. But enough for this. It does
not lead us anywhere. It was just to answer your question.
The problem is, that everybody (?) knows what we are trying to
talk about, but we have trouble formulating, without getting in
conflict. Any philosopher or other humane-scientist would probably
regard this discussion as 'kindergarten'.
To make a long story short: to state that something is 'normal'
is quite different from the statement that something is 'common'
although both statements would be expressed by the same number
= percentage.
One principle of ethology is to be strictly descriptive in a paper's
'results-section' and put possible interpretations to the 'discussions-part'...
My intention is not to oppose Jeff's or Jon's statements, but
merely to provide some (I think) important thoughts on this topic.
But I am not the expert... If anybody thinks that I am wrong,
please tell me, and so be it (and I will regard it as a precious
addition to my way of thinking).
Also if this discussion turns out to be one between Jeff, Jon
and me, it would be better not to bother the whole newsgroup.
But maybe we can get back to what we 'think' Joel Dehasse actually
meant in his initial query...
Jon Watts <wattsjon@duke.usask.ca>
Wed, 12 Mar 1997
Some people object to the concept of "stress", arguing
that it is an ill-defined, woolly concept with many dimensions
and within which there may be many categories or types of stress.
I think "normal" is a like concept.
As far as my stereotypic animal is concerned, I think Tim Sutton
should say it's normal because it is predictable that a captive
animal might behave this way. Nabil Brandl might observe that
a good number of captive animals do perform stereotypies, so by
Nabil's definition it is a common, therefore normal, pattern of
behaviour in a particular population of captive animals. Kelly
Kissane notes that any captive animal behaviour could be artefactual,
and therefore not representative of what the animal would have
done in "the wild". While that is true I don't think
it follows that all captive animal behaviour is "abnormal".
Merely, as Kelly said, "suspect". Jeff Rau though appears
to claim that only behaviour observed in a specific environmental
context can ever be regarded as normal.
I am deliberately not saying whether the stereotyping animal's
behaviour is normal or not. I think it is beside the point. The
animal may well be bored, frustrated, suffering from dimished
welfare or whatever, in ways we may never be able to understand.
That is of great concern of course, but I think it is wrong to
label the behaviour as abnormal as though it were some attribute
of the animal which is at fault. The performance of a type of
behaviour which is not usually seen in free-ranging animals indicates
that some attributes of the environment are different from what
the animal is "genetically programmed" to deal with.
I say take it at face value. The animal is attempting to cope.
It's attempts may be appropriate, inappropriate, successful or
unsuccessful and the animal may suffer or become sick, have reduced
reproductive potential or maybe it won't. The behaviour is in
itself neither normal nor abnormal. It merely is....
I don't know that I would call this area "dangerous"
but I agree with Werner Haberl that there is a lot of subjectivity
and anthropomorphic baggage to carry along with concepts like
"normality". Maybe we can function better without this
one.
Jeff Rushen <rushenj@EM.AGR.CA>
Wed, 12 Mar 1997
In pigs, low energy intake as a result of restricted feeding (i.e.
hunger) is a major cause of stereotyped behaviour. This stereotyped
behaviour consists primarily of food searching behaviours. In
a normal environment, the stimulation of food searching behaviours
would probably be adaptive because it would most likely help the
pigs find food, to reduce the underlying hunger. In gestating
crates, the pigs cannot find more food. Furthermore, work of Cronin
showed that performance of stereotypies uses up a substantial
part of the sows' energy intake (presumably making the pigs even
more hungry). Thus, in gestating crates, the performance of the
behaviour makes the situation worse, rather than better. In this
way the stereotypies can be considered as "pathological"
or "abnormal", but only in this environment.
"Heather J. Billings" <billings@AESOP.RUTGERS.EDU>
Dept. of Animal Sciences - Cook College, Rutgers University -
BILLINGS@AESOP.RUTGERS.EDU
Thu, 13 Mar 1997
As I've been reading the discussion of what is normal or abnormal
behavior, I noticed a common theme. The difficulty in defining
these terms arises because normal is not a term that applies to
the behavior, per se, but to the context of the behavior. So,
while a particular motor pattern may be within the typical behavioral
repertoire of an animal, it may be appropriate or inappropriate
to the context in which it is displayed. When an animal is introduced
to an environment other than that in which the behavior evolved,
such as in zoos, then this is difficult to determine without knowing
whether the behavior has another function in the new environment
than what was ascribed to it in the wild.
Marc Vandenheede <marc@stat.fmv.ulg.ac.be>
Universite de Liege - Faculte de Medecine Veterinaire - Bd de
Colonster, Bat. B43, 4000 Liege - Belgium
Thu, 13 Mar 1997
It's maybe difficult to oppose normal and pathological.
I think that normality is the reverse of abnormality and the reverse
of pathological is physiological.
The concept of normality/abnormality could be explain in terms
of statistics, as already mentioned, or in ethical terms (good
or wrong). The second possibility implies that we are judging
things according to our scientific knowledge but also to our sensibility
(cultural and personal).
A "physiological behaviour" could be defined as adapted
to the present situation, representative of an approach of an
hypothetical welfare state ("perfect harmony between an individual
and its environment"). Some behaviours could be induced by
a disrupted equilibrium between an individual and its environment,
reflecting thus a reduction in welfare, but could be interpreted
as "trying to cope" or "searching another equilibrium".
If these behaviours are adapted to the modified situation, it
would be called "physiological". But if it is not adapted
and induce pathology or worsened welfare, it would be called "pathological".
For example, fear reactions can be adapted to the fear-eliciting
situations and are physiological and essential behaviours but
if the environment don't elicit the expression of these fear reactions
(flight in a cage) or if the individual has a very high emotional
reactivity (anxiety or phobia), it could be called pathological:
the individual cannot find another equilibrium and the behaviour
could elicit some pathologies (accidents, consequences of chronic
stress) or even death.
Another example. One flee on a dog elicits scratching, it's a
physiological behaviour: the welfare is good. But a lot of flees
on a dog or some flees on an allergic dog elicit heightened scratching
which causes woundings. In this case scratching could be called
pathological because the situation gets worse.
P.S. Sorry for my poor English!
Peter Kabai - Ctr. for Zoology, Univ. Veterinary Medicine, Budapest,
Hungary - <pkabai@ns.univet.hu>
Thu, 13 Mar 1997
I agree that both normal and pathologic are anthropomorphic terms.
Normality could be defined in at least two ways.
1) statistical approach: normal would be anything within a certain
range (like 1SD) around the mean of a normal distribution. In
most cases statistical normality equals predictability. (Lions
kept in small cages spend much of their time with stereotypic
behaviour, male lions in the wild would kill young offsprings
of the previous dominant males. Both behaviours are predictable,
and "normal" for the specific sub-sample) (Einstein's
IQ score is not normal)
In enriched zoo environments we see less stereotypies, if Einstein's
genome was cloned in a couple billion copies, statistical normality
would be shifted to a new value.
2) social norm: a range of values accepted by society as "norm".
stereotypies were accepted as normal in menageries, today they
are not. There is a correlation between statistical and social
norm of course (When you see animals only in Zoos, whatever they
do looks "normal". If you base your acceptable range
on other sources of information, Attenborough films, education,
you shift your range.
Pathologic, I think is an entirely different way of thinking,
though it might relate to the different definitions of normality.
1) pathologic in the statistical sense: anything BELLOW the range
of statistical normality negatively affecting
the condition, reproduction etc of the individual. (Parasitic
infection in wild population is "normal". Some animals
might have much more parasites than average and die because of
the "pathogenes".)
2) pathological in the social norm sense: anything bellow the
social norm society wants to fix.
The social approach is ambiguous.
However, the statistical approach is not solid either. The ambiguity
of the statistical approaches might be rooted in some cases in
the changing environment which effects the distribution (from
wild to zoo). Importantly, our concept of the normal range also
depends on our knowledge about the distribution, and this also
changes by time. (We know now, that infanticide, extra pair copulation,
homosexuality, cannibalism and all those nasty things happen commonly
in many species. They are predictable and "normal")
Traditionally, scientists have been interested in population "norms",
and veterinarians in the sick individual. Seems it is all changing
now: recent approaches to model the works of populations based
on the individuals are very promising, and veterinarians are taking
the population approach (pathogene infestation models etc) more
seriously.
However, there is still a big gap between the two ways of thinking.
For example, in my country, Hungary, like in many European countries
the state sponsors a program to eradicate rabies from the wild,
by
throwing vaccines from airplanes.
Rabies is a major control of population growth in foxes. Human
death cases are less than one/year on average. Is this a good
idea?
The number of "abnormal" stereotypies in zoo animals
could probably be reduced infecting them with parasites. Antiparasitic
behaviour is "normal" and has a social context in some
species.
Is this a good idea?
"CHARLOTTE.M.L.NEVISON" <PLXCMLN@pln1.life.nottingham.ac.uk>
Thu, 13 Mar 1997
Again we appear caught up in terminology. Good for debate, and
one I personally am finding very interesting.
My stance on the issue is as follows (along similar lines to Jeff
I think...)
The behavioural rules of response of an animal have developed
through the process of natural selection, over thousands of years.
These rules of response have shaped an animal to respond to the
natural environment. However evolution is always one step behind,
and the situation mankind puts animals in are six steps ahead!
As I see it an animal uses naturally selected rules of response
as a basis for its decisions (normal behaviour??????). However
in situations far removed from the natural environment (e.g. lab)
these rules of response may not allow an animal to cope with this
environment. In this circumstance the behaviour patterns may be
considered inappropriate (pathological?). They also may provide
the basis for the development of behaviours such as stereotypies
(develop from escape attempts?). The inability to fulfil behavioural
rules of response may incur a measurable cost (can be statistically
correlated with immunosuppression, incidence of organ pathology
etc - quick plug for recent Barnard/Hurst/Nevison rodent papers).
The appropriateness of behaviour can be assessed in terms of an
understanding of what evolution has designed an animal to do,
and how current environments may impact on this design. Animals
can be flexible in their responses, but only up to a point. Costs
of inappropriate behaviour are measurable!
I would not use the term `Normal' and `pathological' in the context
they have been used in this debate. They are too ambiguous, unless
their meanings are defined by the person using them.
Ray Stricklin - William_R_STRICKLIN@umail.umd.edu (ws31)
Thu, 13 Mar 1997
I remember participating in a symposium on the housing and behavior
of domestic animals in confinement - hosted by a regional section
of the Animal Behavior Society. This was sometime during the early
1980's.
One European speaker, whose first language was not English, was
asked "How do you know the behavior you have called abnormal
behavior is abnormal?"
His response was, "Because the animals don't normally do
it."
This answer drew some chuckles and smirks from those in the audience,
but quite probably - if one chooses to use these terms - this
may be the best answer one can give to the question!
Thu, 13 Mar 1997 21:19:19 +0100
Dehasse Joel <jdehasse@arcadis.be>
I am really happy with the debate on normality/pathology. I would
like to give you the "emergences" of the discussion.
I have added my proposals at the end of the list. (See list)
A normal behaviour is physiological, adaptive, and allows the
system to come back to homeostasis. A pathological behaviour has
lost its adaptive function, and is not able to lead the system
to come back to homeostasis. The system may be seen as an individual
animal, a family/pack/..., a species, ...