Counterfreeloading: what is it and what does it show about the effort?

Let's see what counterfreeloading is and possible explanations as to why it exists.

Despite the fact that food is a basic need, many animals value more highly the food they have difficulty in obtaining.

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

What is counterfreeloading?

The concept of counterfreeloading makes reference to an animal behavior by which some individuals show a propensity to choose those foods that they have a certain effort to obtain.The concept is based on the fact that the animal's decision is based on the choice that it makes when faced with a dilemma, precisely between a free supply of food and a free choice of food.

There is no exact word in English to translate this term, although an approximate translation could be contrafreeloading, since the basis of this concept is the decision that the animal makes when faced with the dilemma between a direct and free supply and another in which it has to take an active part in order to obtain it. In contrafreeloading, the animal chooses the second option.

This is a concept developed by the researcher Glen Jensen, an expert in comparative psychologythe branch that studies the similarities and differences between human behavior and animal behavior. This psychologist elaborated a study in 1963 where he discovered the phenomenon of counterfreeloading. In this 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 also added to the cage a dispensing device, with the same type of food. This device released food if the rat pressed a lever. One would think that the rats would not even bother to try to operate the dispenser, since they had food in the containers.

But this was not the case. These animals demonstrated that they preferred the 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.

As a result, we now know that counterfreeloading is a fairly widespread behavior in the animal kingdom.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 own effort. Would this mean, therefore, that this is a generalized behavior in all animals?

Rather, in almost all animals. There is at least one species that prefers to be provided with food by others rather than having to make the slightest effort to obtain it. This animal could not be other than the domestic cat. Even so, we can affirm that in most of the species studied, the so-called counterfreeloading can be appreciated.

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 mixed play with feeding in the artificial environments created for primates living in captivity.

In other words, what he was proposing was precisely to to practice counter-freeloading so that the animals would have elements that would allow them to stay active and somehow earn food. and somehow earn their food. This is exactly what associations like Rainfer Fundación Chimpatia, a sanctuary for rescued primates, are doing today, giving them a second chance after having suffered the hardships of exploitation.

At Rainfer, it is customary to environmental enrichment techniques in which the animals have to use their intellect to get their hands on the food. to get their hands on food. In summer, for example, the animals are provided with blocks of ice with frozen fruit inside, with the dual function of cooling them and challenging them to bring out the tasty food that is trapped behind the frozen layer.

On other occasions, the food ration is prepared for them 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 contrafreeloading, because for that 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 zoos, this type of action is also commonly used, as they provide many animals with food directly, but also place other parts in devices that have to be handled.

The animals mostly choose this second option, as it is an enrichment for them in a enrichment for them in an environment that is usually quite routine.. But what are the reasons behind this decision?

Possible causes

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

1. Primacy of information

The first of the causes that has been assessed has to do with the so-called 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 functions, thus reducing uncertainty.thus reducing uncertainty.

2. Natural behaviors

Another explanation is based on the similarity with the natural environment of the animal species 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, it has to make an effort, to search, to hunt.

Therefore, when in captivity, it may replicate, in part, these behaviors, choosing to exert itself to obtain food.

3. Environmental enrichment

The third theory has already been mentioned in part in the previous point. It has to do with the environmental stimulation of being challenged in a setting that does not usually contain much variation. In this way, you would not get the stimulation you would get in the wild, but it would still be much more stimulating than finding your food in a bowl every morning, unchanged.

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

How to apply it

We already know much better what the concept of counterfreeloading means. We have seen examples and have assessed some of the possible explanations. Let's now focus on how to implement 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 often similar for many of them. To introduce contrafreeloading in a domestic animal or one living in captivity, we must begin by placing only a portion of the food that corresponds to the stress situation.

In addition, we must be moderate in the challenge we propose to them, we must be restrained in the challenge that we propose to themIf the food is practically inaccessible, the animal will become frustrated and will quickly abandon the task, moving towards the food that is "free" (that which is available without effort). It is therefore important to adjust the difficulty of the exercise.

Later, as the animal gets used to it, we can increase the obstacles and make it more and more difficult for it to reach the food. Likewise, we will increase the quantity, so that the reward is in accordance with the effort he has to make. At this point it continues to be counterfreeloading because it always has the option of going to the food dish, which is the easy way.

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

In this last phase we would already speak of mere environmental enrichment but not of counter-freeloading, since it would not be given the option to choose, having withdrawn the easy option. But it won't matter, because it will prefer the hard one. Unless it is a cat.

Bibliographical references:

• Inglis, I.R., Forkman, B., Lazarus, J. (1997). Free food or earned food? A review and fuzzy model of counterfreeloading. Animal behaviour. 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 (contrafreeloading) phenomenon: A review and analysis. Animal Learning & Behavior. Springer.