This title is printed to order. This book may have been self-published. If so, we cannot guarantee the quality of the content. In the main most books will have gone through the editing process however some may not. We therefore suggest that you be aware of this before ordering this book. If in doubt check either the author or publisher’s details as we are unable to accept any returns unless they are faulty. Please contact us if you have any questions.
Anthropocentricity and pragmatism seem to be the main reasons why pigeons have served as the black boxes of so many psychologists and neurobehaviorists during the past decade. Anthropocentricity, because at first glance pigeons show several strik ing features which bear a beautiful similarity to human systems in respects such as drinking, bipedality, territoriality, and apparently easy pursual of individual interests. Pragmatism, because of the suspected lesser complexity of the pigeon’s system, which enables them to serve as good paradigms for human systems. For example, the visually guided grasping system of the beak could be used as a model for the visually guided grasping system of the tips of the thumb and forefinger in humans (personal communi cation, Zeigler). Other pragmatic reasons are the low cost of breeding these birds, their easy adaptation to experimental conditions, and their obvious capacity for learning and remembering. Although a closer and more critical examination largely undermines the anthropomorphic arguments, this has not diminished interest in the pigeon. In many studies on sensorimotor and motivational processes of hunger, thirst, and learning, pecking and drinking behavior serve as the systems on which the outcome of different black box systems is measured. Clear examples of this application are found in McFarland (1964, 1965), Dawkins (1966), Dawkins and Dawkins (1973), Goodman and Schein (1974), Machliss (1977), and Zeigler, Levitt, and Levine (1980).
