Counterfreeloading: what it is and what it shows about the effort

Despite the fact that food is a basic necessity, many animals value more that which is difficult for them to obtain.

We are going to explore this phenomenon in depth, assessing the possible causes of the so-called counterfreeloading. and reviewing some of the studies that support the existence of this curious mechanism in many animal species.

• Related article: "What is Ethology and what is its object of study?"

What is counter freeloading?

The concept of counterfreeloading refers to an animal behavior by which some individuals show a propensity to choose those foods that require a certain effort to obtain, to the detriment of others that are at their free disposal without involving the slightest work to get hold of them.

There is no exact word in Spanish to translate this term, although an approximate translation could be against free supply, and it is that the foundation of this concept is the decision that the animal makes when faced with the dilemma, precisely between a direct and free supply, as opposed to another in which it has to take an active part in order to to get it. In counterfreeloading, the animal chooses the second option.

This is a concept developed by researcher Glen Jensen, an expert in comparative psychology, the branch that studies the similarities and differences between human behavior and the behavior of animals. Said psychologist prepared a study in 1963 where he discovered the phenomenon of counterfreeloading. In that study, Jensen used two hundred laboratory rats.

He placed all these animals in a scenario in which they had a container with food, with free access to it, but he also added to the cage a dispensing device, with the same type of food. This device released food if the rat pressed a lever. The logical thing would be to think that the rats would not bother to try to operate the dispenser, since they had food in the containers.

But it was not like that. These animals showed that they preferred that food that they somehow earned with their own effort. This is an absolutely clear example of what counterfreeloading represents. Some might wonder if this is not a behavior unique to rats. Other researchers wondered the same thing, so they started a whole series of experiments with other animal species.

Thanks to that, Today we know that counterfreeloading is a fairly widespread behavior in the animal kingdom., because the tests with species as diverse as mice, gerbils, different types of fish, several different birds, bears, wolves, giraffes, monkeys and even large primates such as chimpanzees prefer to earn their food with their effort. Would it mean, therefore, that it is a general behavior in all animals?

Rather, in almost all animals. There is at least one species that prefers others to provide their food rather than having to do the least bit to get it. This animal could not be other than the domestic cat. Even so, we can affirm that the so-called counterfreeloading is appreciated in most of the species studied.

Counterfreeloading in captive animals

Although Jensen was the first to use the word counterfreeloading, the truth is that some time ago, other researchers had already considered the principles of this behavior. For example, Robert Yerkes, in 1925, already spoke of the importance of using mechanisms that mix playing with food in the artificial environments created for the primates that lived in captivity.

In other words, what he was proposing was precisely practice counterfreeloading so that the animals would have elements that would allow them to stay active and somehow earn food. This is exactly what associations like Rainfer Fundación Chimpatia, a sanctuary for rescued primates, given a second chance after suffering the hardships of exploitation.

In Rainfer it is usual use environmental enrichment techniques in which animals have to take advantage of their intellect to get hold of the food. In summer, for example, they are given blocks of ice with frozen fruit inside, with the double function of refrigerating them and proposing the challenge of removing the rich piece that is trapped behind the layer frost.

On other occasions, the ration of food is prepared hidden in boxes or in various places in the enclosure, so that the animals have to move and participate in the search and are not limited to being served sustenance in a container. In this case, we could not say that it is exactly a case of counterfreeloading, since for this they should also have the other option available.

But the reality is that when that happens, animals tend to choose the option that involves moderate effort. That would be counterfreeloading.

In many zoological centers this type of action is also regularly used, since they provide many animals eat directly but also place other parts in devices that have to be manipulated.

Animals mostly choose this second option, since It is an enrichment for them in an environment that is usually quite routine. But what are the reasons behind that decision?

• You may be interested in: "The self-determination theory: what it is and what it proposes"

Possible causes

There are several explanations that try to make a logical sense of the phenomenon of counterfreeloading. Let's see the most important of them.

1. Information Primacy

The first of the causes that has been assessed has to do with what is known as the information primacy theory. The explanation used by this theory is that, through counterfreeloading, the animal in question is obtaining relevant information about how the environment in which it lives worksthus reducing uncertainty.

2. natural behaviors

Another explanation is based on the similarity with the natural environment of the animal species that we are studying and the situation in which it finds itself when it chooses counterfreeloading. A wild animal, in its habitat, rarely finds food gathered in one place without having to do anything.. On the contrary, he has to strive, search, hunt.

Therefore, when in captivity, it can replicate, in part, those behaviors, choosing to work to obtain food.

3. Enrichment of the environment

The third theory has already been mentioned in part in the previous point. It has to do with the environmental stimulation that comes with proposing a challenge within a scenario that does not usually contain many variations. In this way, you would not get the stimulation you would get in the natural habitat but certainly it would still be much more exhilarating than finding food in a bowl every morning, unchanged.

In other words. What the counterfreeloading would be doing would be appease the boredom to which some animals may be subjected, especially those that do not experience variations in their enclosure.

The way to apply it

We already know much better what the concept of counterfreeloading means. We have seen examples and have evaluated some of the possible explanations. Let us now focus on how to carry out a situation where the animal can benefit from the advantages of this mechanism.

Obviously, each species is different and so are the individuals within the same species, but the patterns are usually similar for many of them. To introduce counterfreeloading into a pet or captive animal, we must start by placing only a portion of the food that corresponds to it in the stress situation.

Besides, we must be restrained in the challenge that we propose to themBecause if the food is practically inaccessible, the animal will become frustrated and quickly abandon the task, heading towards the food that is "free" (the one that is available without effort). Therefore it is important to adjust the difficulty of the exercise.

Subsequently, and as the animal gets used to it, we can increase the obstacles and make it increasingly difficult to get to the food. Likewise, we will increase the amount, so that the reward is commensurate with the effort that he has to make. At this point it's still counterfreeloading because you always have the option of heading to the food bowl, which is the easy way out.

But, if the conditions have been properly designed, we will verify that the individual discards that possibility and prefers the adventure that involves solving the problem in front of you in order to get the prize after completing the work that is expect from him. Continuing with this routine, we will reach the last phase, in which you will only be provided with food in the form of a challenge, regardless of the "free" container.

In this last phase we would already be talking about mere environmental enrichment but not counterfreeloading, since they would not be given the option to choose, having removed the easy option. But it won't matter, because he'll prefer the hard one. Unless he's a cat.

Bibliographic references:

• Inglis, I. R., Forkman, B., Lazarus, J. (1997). Free food or earned food? A review and fuzzy model of counterfreeloading. Animal behavior. Elsevier.
• Jensen, G.D. (1963). Preference for bar pressing over "freeloading" as a function of number of rewarded presses. Journal of Experimental Psychology.
• Koffer, K., Coulson, G. (1971). Feline indolence: Cats prefer free to response-produced food. Psychonomic Science.
• Osborne, S.R. (1977). The free food (counterfreeloading) phenomenon: A review and analysis. Animal Learning & Behavior. Springer.