Animal Psychology
One interesting question that has been recently pondered is, “If any animal species are found to be conscious beings with feelings and emotions similar to humans, is it possible that these animals understand humor?.” Looking at the history of thought on this issue gives us a foundation for understanding the scientific approaches that have taken place trying to link the animal and human brain. Specific work on animal play, vocalization, and other imitation behaviors has led to even more belief by some that we are on the cusp of answering this question. Many scientists admit that because the study of the animal brain is so difficult and still ‘weighs heavily on qualitative data we will never be satisfied in our quest for this answer. Still others, not accepting of this thought, continue searching for answers because the process is too fascinating not to pursue. To understand the ways animals understand humor, you must look at the ways in which animals play, their individualized vocalizations, and their imitation behaviors, in order to prove this.
For hundreds of years scientists, philosophers and even the novice have inquired about the animal brain. While their motives have varied for their interest and scientific exploration, all have posed similar questions. Are animals conscious beings with feelings and emotions like humans? Are their minds incapable of this higher level of being? Evolutionists persist in attempting to link humans to their supposed ape ancestors while others hope to use new animal brain discoveries to develop cures for human conditions. Still others hope to prove that if animals have feelings and experience emotions similar to ours, we should consider their welfare and rights just like humans. There has been much disagreement on how to even go about investigating whether or not animals are conscious beings. Compounding the dilemma is that most studies of animal brain function have produced “soft” qualitative data rather than “hard” data scientists can easily assess. Drawing inferences from detailed observation of animal behavior has been the main reason for continued discussion about animals and their ability to experience a host of emotions. The study of primates has been the most prevalent but has now spread to investigation across many species in search of similar findings. This has led to a call for further study of animals in their native environments rather than just the laboratory.
The history of this concept of animal sentience or conscious thought, that animals are capable of experiencing positive and negative thoughts, have been accepted by lay people dating back to the Renaissance period (Duncan 11). The writings of Leonardo Da Vinci, Shakespeare and the philosopher Francis Bacon offer proof that the idea of animal consciousness was part of the belief system of the time (Duncan 11). By the 18th Century and the Age of Enlightenment, philosophers began to show stronger belief that animals had feelings similar to their own (Duncan 11). At the end of the 19th Century scientists and philosophers alike had accepted the possibility of animal sentience and were beginning to share their ideas. The next significant development in the thought on this topic came when Charles Darwin produced work demonstrating that any feelings or emotions that animals were possibly showing were simply adaptations to the pressure of natural selection (Duncan 12). Fast forward to the period of Behaviorist Science, and the thought that animals were incapable of experiencing feelings. Emotions ruled as people like B.F. Skinner, and James Watson produced the assertion that animal behaviors and proposed emotional responses were simply learned responses to known stimuli rather than conscious emotion (Duncan 11). Their work influenced how those in the field of animal psychology wrote about the topic when there was little talk of animal consciousness or feelings (Duncan 12).
However, tables turned when scientists concerned themselves about animal welfare when agriculture, laboratory research, and product testing pushed the issue of measuring animal stress in the 1960s. The publication of Harrison’s book “Animal Machines” and the British Government investigation “Brambell Report” in 1965 linked animals measure of physiological stress capacity to their welfare levels. This gave Harrison the attention of the scientific community and the opportunity to reintroduce the idea of animal sentience into the argument. She highlighted the idea that agreement among scientists regarding animal sentience would mean that many animals were in a state of poor welfare due to physiological stress. This would require scientists to concern themselves with whether animals were consciously feeling the emotions of stress. (Duncan 13). At this point even Behaviorists began to accept the notion that considering the possibility of animal feelings warranted inclusion in the investigation of animal welfare (Duncan 13).
With the background of scientific thought on the topic in place it is important to look at the pitfalls scientists have faced when pursuing the question of animal consciousness and the various methods used to gather information. The main issue remains unchanged in that the subjective feelings of animals are just that. The researchers are unable to simply ask their subjects and as a result they must gather their information from indirect means (Duncan 14). For those concerned with animals feeling pain, the “asking” hurdle has been even bigger. Studies of animal behavior, with and without analgesics, has opened eyes that animals experience emotional suffering not just physical. In one such study, broiler chickens were able to appropriately administer a pain killing drug depending on their physical state. Birds were given a choice between two different feed mixtures, one with pain killer added and one without. The lame or injured birds ate significantly more of the medicated feed than did the healthy birds consistently over trials (Duncan 15). Through indirect methods like this scientists have advanced thought in the realm of animal welfare, but most agree that more knowledge of proposed animal emotion is needed across many areas of science, not just animal welfare science. These include the fields of neuroscience, psychopharmacology and pain research (Mendel 1).
Despite gains in scientific methods and thought frameworks for studying animal emotion in the laboratory, little systematic empirical research has been done in the field with free-ranging animals (Bekoff 1). Popular descriptions of animal emotions, especially from non-scientist’s observations in the wild, have been labeled ‘too soft” to pursue. Bekoff however, argues that because rigorous study of animal emotions remains in its infancy. Research will benefit from multiple perspectives including so-called “soft” observations and “hard” studies of animal emotions (Bekoff 1). In his paper “Animal Emotions: Exploring Passionate Natures”, he provides many examples from field observations that provide what he believes is compelling evidence that animals consciously experience many different emotions. Citing Poole’s 1998 observation of elephants in the wild is one such descriptive example that emotions are not simply the result of some bodily state that moves the animal to a specific, learned action. The submission reads: “It’s hard to watch elephants’ remarkable behavior during a family or bond group greeting ceremony, the birth of a new family member, a playful interaction, the meeting of a relative, the rescue of a family member, or the arrival of a musth male, and not imagine that they feel very strong emotions which could be describes words such as, joy, happiness, love, feelings of friendship, exuberance, amusement, pleasure, compassion, relief and respect (Bekoff 2).
Bekoff instructs that this type of observational research is just as crucial as the research conducted in areas such as neurobiology which provide some “hard” data. He explains that, “Research which reduces animal behavior and animal emotions to neural firings, muscle movements, and hormonal effects will not likely lead us significantly closer to an understanding of animal emotions.” (Bekoff 2). Utilizing the elephant example Bekoff makes the distinction between what he describes as primary or neural emotions and the more rich secondary, or nature emotions that he believes will lead to deeper understanding of animal consciousness. He distinguishes primary emotions as in-born, hard-wired, reflex like neural responses to fear and fight-or-flight responses to dangerous stimuli, versus secondary emotions “that are experienced or felt, evaluated or reflected upon.” It is these type of emotions inferred from observation of the elephants behavior in the wild “that involve higher brain centers in the cerebral cortex which allow the animal to make connections between feelings and actions and allows for variability and flexibility in behavior” again making the connection between emotion and cognition (Bekoff 3). Observation of animal play across many species is another area of research which has provided inferences about animal emotion as well as neurobiological support. Researchers concur that many species seek out social play tirelessly and that play appears contagious across many species. Observations provide common themes of apparent joy and happiness in animals at play and that they display immense freedom in this state (Bekoff 3). Bekoff’s observation of a young elk and bison in the wild provides a great picture of the emotion of play. He describes the elk foregoing nearby green pastures to repeatedly run across a snow covered field jumping and twisting in the air and bison who followed one another onto ice to slide to the other side while bellowing their ‘Gwaaa” call (Canfield, Bekoff). Conclusions drawn about the emotions animals experience with play from the rich amount of field observation has been supported by “hard” neurobiological data from animal brain chemistry studies (Bekoff 4). Researchers have shown that dopamine and perhaps serotonin and norepinephrine are important regulators of play and that large areas of the brain are active during play (Bekoff 4). Their Biological data indicates that animal play is subjectively pleasurable as is it for humans and thus describes their motivation for play is not just reflex action due to bodily state. Many other animal emotions have been studied and observed. Compelling examples from the field regarding animal emotions of grief, romantic love and embarrassment follow similar paths as the examples above.
A final area of research that may lead us closer to the understanding of animal consciousness and emotional experience comes when studying vocalizations, specifically those scientists believe relate to human laughter (Panskepp 1). Evolutionists believe ancestral forms of play and laughter existed in animals long before humans came along (Panskepp 2). Furthermore, the neural circuitry for laughter has been mapped to what these scientists refer to as, “very ancient regions of the brain,” and that the capacity for human laughter came before the capacity for speech in brain evolution (Panskepp 2). Observations of play patterns in young chimps and humans who demonstrate the ability to laugh early in development suggests human laughter traces back to the emotional recesses of our animalian past (Panskepp 3). The distinctive panting of apes during rough play has been recorded and mapped to human laughter vocalization patterns (McGraw 4). Psychologist Marina Davila-Ross, of the University of Portsmouth in the United Kingdom, analyzed digital recordings of tickle-induced panting from chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas and orangutans, as well as human laughter. She has provided evidence indicating vocal similarities between species which match their proposed evolutionary relationships. For example, the closest relationship in vocalization patterns was between chimps and humans which they believe have the closest evolutionary relationship and the least similar followed suit with the evolutionists’ mapping (McGraw 4).
The more recent discovery that has drawn attention comes from the study of rat vocalizations which researchers believe are indicative of laughter and more importantly, a rare reflective of positive emotional feelings not just reflexive patterns (Panskepp 5). Researchers have suggested that if laughter could be linked to emotion than the idea of animals understanding humor would be the next logical development. Psychologist Jaak Panskepp at Bowling Green University in Ohio had earlier discovered that rats emit unique ultrasonic chirps in the 50 Kilohertz range when they were chasing each other and engaging in play fighting. To confirm the chirps were associated with positive experiences he put the rats in different situations. For instance, when forced into situations where rats were much larger the vocalization patterns changed, Panskepp suggests indicates the “play” was no longer fun. In addition, when given a chance to hear different rat chirps by pushing on different bars, the rats chose to listen to the specific 50 Kilohertz chirp he had measured during play. Supporting this preference, the rats produced the same 50 Kilohertz chirp when experimenters used electrodes and opiate administration to stimulate reward centers of the rat’s brains (McGraw 2).
Panskepp took it further by beginning to tickle rats in a manner and location similar to what he had observed during rat play. The tickled rats quickly became conditioned to the tickling and began chasing the human fingers while emitting the 50 Kilohertz chirps confirmed with sonographic analysis. They found the rats also preferred spending time with other rats who chirped frequently in the same manner, the ‘happy” rats. While this rat vocalization evidence is compelling, one its chief investigators, Jeffrey Burgdorff, a biomedical engineering professor at Northwestern’s Falk Center has continued the rat tickling with caution saying “I don’t necessarily call it laughter, I call it a signal of positive affect.” (Burgdorff 4). Jack Panskepp the founding rat tickler also acknowledges that there appears to be evolutionary similarities between human child laughter during rough and tumble play and an expression of similar vocalization patterns in young rat subjects at play he is not willing to conclude that the rats are laughing (Bering 2).
With this new evidence scientists believe it seems possible that there could be a bridge between emotional animal laughter and the notion that animals may have a sense of humor. The 2017 Laboratory Animal Refinement and Enrichment Forum (LAREF) focused on this possibility. Participants agreed that many animal species exhibit play behavior and vocalizations unique to play situations but the big question left unanswered was whether or not
animals actually display humor. That is, do animals behave in ways motivated to achieve reactions from other animals or humans just for laughs? Forum participants shared anecdotes that will continue to support the quest for more research on this topic. Examples include a chimpanzee who put a blanket over its head and chased his playmates around until she would stop, pull the blanket off her head making the other chimps stop and laugh every time this was repeated. Another story involved a Scarlet Macaw who would wait until a pet store manager finished sweeping under the its cage and then used its beak to fling the contents of its bowl on the floor, turn its head upside down and laugh until the manager finished sweeping it up again (LAREF).
Despite the recent advancements which appear to link play, animal behavior and laughing vocalizations across many species including dogs, dolphins, birds, primates and the ticklish rats, belief in animal sense of humor is still a leap away (Bering 1). Neuropsychologist Martin Meyer has detailed differences between laughing systems among mammals reflected by structural differences in the brain regions involved as well as in vocal architecture (Bering 3). Using brain imaging studies of humans watching cartoon and listening to jokes demonstrated activation of not only ancient, evolutionary structures in the brain such as the amygdala and the nucleus accumbens, but also more recently evolved “higher-order” brain networks including parts of the frontal cortex. As a result he concluded that although primates laugh, human’s experience of humor involved higher level cognitive networks that the primates and other laughing species do not share (Bering 3).
Many researchers remain open to the concept of animal sense of humor along the spectrum of animal emotions and experiences. It is hard not to when animals like Koko the Gorilla from Woodside California who has learned over 200 words and over 100 American Sign Language signs and has her trainers convinced she know different meanings of the same words. When she was asked the question “what can you think of that is hard?” she signed “rock” and “work”. This same, apparently comedic Gorilla once tied her trainer’s shoe laces together and signed “chase” (McGraw 5). It’s stories like these that allow researchers to enter the grey area of admitting that even if these types of behaviors are learned responses, it does not exclude the notion that they still could be an expression of humor or fun, just one not parallel to the human experience of humor (McGraw 5). Jaak Panskepp helps summarize by saying “if indeed animals mental lives are made up from the neural threads of both joy and woe (and many other feelings), we may need to consider the full nature of their affective brains in order to understand our own (Panskepp 3).
The indirect methods scientists use to study animal consciousness have advanced, but most agree that more knowledge of proposed animal emotion is needed across many areas of science. For those who believe they have proof many animals species are conscious beings with feelings and emotions similar to humans, the questions of whether these animals actually understand humor is inviting. The history of thought on this issue has given us a foundation for understanding and the application of scientific approaches in the lab and the field help to link the animal and human brain further. The scientific work on animal play, vocalizations, and other imitation behaviors has led many to the strong belief that animals may truly understand our humor. Still, we are left at the cusp of answering this question. Many scientists admit that because the study of the animal brain is so difficult and still weighs heavily on qualitative data we may never be satisfied in our quest for this answer. Others not accepting of this thought continue searching for answers because the process is simply too fascinating not to pursue.
Bibliography
Beauchamp, Tom L. “Opposing Views On Animal Experimentation: Do Animals Have Rights?.” Ethics & Behavior 7.2 (1997): 113. Academic Search Premier. Web. 29 Mar.2014.
Bekoff, Marc. “Animal Emotions: Exploring Passionate Natures. Current Interdisciplinary Research Provides Compelling Evidence That Many Animals Experience Such Emotions as Joy, Fear, Love, Despair, and Grief — We Are Not Alone.” BioScience, vol. 50, no. 10, 2000, pp. 861–870.
Bering, Jesse. “The Rat That Laughed: Do Animals Other than Humans Have a Sense of Humor? Maybe so.” Scientific American, vol. 307, no. 1, 2012, pp. 74–77.
“Do Animals Have a Sense of Humor?” Do Animals Have a Sense of Humor? | Animal Welfare Institute, 2017, awionline.org/awi-quarterly/2011-winter/do-animals-have-sense-humor.
Duncan, Ian J.H. “The Changing Concept of Animal Sentience.” Applied Animal Behaviour Science, vol. 100, no. 1–2, 2006, pp. 11–19.
McGraw, Peter, and Joel Warner. “Do Animals Have a Sense of Humor?” Slate Magazine, 26 Mar.2014. www.slate.com/articles/arts/culturebox/features/2014/the_humor_code/do_animals_have_a_sense_of_humor_new_evidence_suggests_that_all_mammals.html.
Mendl, Michael H\, et al. “An Integrative and Functional Framework for the Study of Animal Emotion and Mood.” Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, vol. 277, no. 1696, 2010, pp. 2895–2904.
Panksepp, Jaak. “Affective Consciousness: Core Emotional Feelings in Animals and Humans.” Consciousness and Cognition, vol. 14, no. 1, 2005, pp. 30–80.
Panksepp, Jaak. “Beyond a Joke: From Animal Laughter to Human Joy?” Science, vol. 308, no. 5718, 2005, pp. 62–3
Tangley, L. “Animal Emotions. Sheer Joy. Romantic Love. The Pain of Mourning. Scientists Say Pets and Wild Creatures Have Feelings, Too.” U.S. News &Amp; World Report, vol. 129, no. 17, 2000, pp. 48–52.
