Student Responses to Active Learning Activities With Live and Virtual Rats in Psychology Teaching Laboratories Maree J. Hunt 1 and Anne C. Macaskill 1 Abstract Taking an ethical approach to using nonhuman animals in teaching requires assessment of the learning benefits of using animals and how these compare to the benefits of alternative teaching practices. It is also important to consider whether students have ethical reservations about completing exercises with animals. We compared upper level undergraduate students’ evaluations of psy- chology laboratories using live rats with their evaluations of using a virtual rat (Sniffy). Students reported that the live-rat labs were ethically acceptable and that working with live rats enhanced their learning to a greater extent than working with Sniffy. These results support the retention of laboratories using live rats in psychology courses. Keywords rats, virtual rats, Sniffy, teaching, ethics, psychology Learning and behavior is one of the many psychology subdis- ciplines in which nonhumans are integral to research. There- fore, courses on learning and behavior often include “hands-on experience” with animals (Cunningham, 2003). An American Psychological Association (APA, 1990) resolution states “the use of animals by students can be an important component of science education” before highlighting the importance of ani- mal welfare. Although typical learning laboratories are nonin- vasive, animals may be bred for use in teaching and are food restricted; these ethical considerations must be balanced with demonstrated learning benefits. In our upper level learning course, we include laboratories in which students work with live rats. Anecdotal evidence sug- gests that working with live rats creates a unique learning opportunity and aids learning. Anecdotal reports may not pro- vide a complete picture, however, as students with ethical reservations might not have an easy way to report these (Cun- ningham, 2003). We did not have any systematic data regard- ing learning benefits, students’ ethical evaluations of use of live animals, or students’ evaluations of substitute activities. Plous surveyed psychology faculty (1996a) and students (1996b) about animal use in teaching. Most reported animal labora- tories had educational benefits, but many also had ethical concerns. Elcoro and Trundle (2013) compared student preferences for live rats and a popular computer-simulated rat, Sniffy. Stu- dents completed two 15-min exercises investigating fixed- ratio-schedule performance, one with a live rat and one with Sniffy, and both pretrained. Students preferred the live rat activity and reported they learned more from it. Some students commented that Sniffy did not teach them how to care for animals and was not helpful for studying new behavior. We extended Elcoro and Trundle’s (2013) study as follows: students spent more time working with both live rats and Sniffy, neither had been pretrained, material covered was more complex, and students completed activities as part of a for- credit course. We provided students with more information to inform their evaluation of the ethics of rat use, including that rats are bred specially and may be euthanized afterward. We investigated whether students’ conclusions about retaining live-rat labs most reflected learning benefits, ethical considera- tions, or their opinions of an alternative learning package fea- turing Sniffy. This provided a more complete understanding of students’ responses of the use of live rats. Method Participants and Course Context The course was a one-semester third-year undergraduate course on behavior analysis with a total enrollment of 159. Seventy- nine students who attended one of the final lectures completed the questionnaire. The university’s human ethics committee 1 School of Psychology, Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand Corresponding Author: Anne C. Macaskill, School of Psychology, Victoria University of Wellington, PO Box 600, Wellington, New Zealand. Email: anne.macaskill@vuw.ac.nz Teaching of Psychology 1-5 ª The Author(s) 2017 Reprints and permission: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0098628317692632 journals.sagepub.com/home/top