Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2013 Aug 20.
Published in final edited form as: Physiol Behav. 2012 May 23;107(1):65–75. doi: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2012.05.012

Table 2.

Comparisons of behavioral responses (median, range) to a novel object among housing conditions and between paternally responsive and nonpaternally responsive male California mice.

Isolated virgins N=18 Paired virgins N=16 Expectant fathers N=17 New fathers N=17 Kruskal-Wallis Pa Paternal N=52 Nonpaternal N=16 Mann-Whitney Pb
Approach object – latency (s) 31.4
2.6 – 300.0
23.8
2.3 – 300.0
11.7
2.1 – 300.0
23.8
6.0 – 235.6
0.166 23.7
2.1 – 300.0
31.0
2.6 – 300.0
0.426
Sniff object – duration (s) 12.3
0.0 – 178.0
38.0
0.0 – 167.6
50.9
0.0 – 191.2
43.6
3.1 – 147.8
0.239 39.1
0.0 – 191.2
8.8
0.0 – 122.5
0.088
Touch object – duration (s) 0.1
0.0 – 171.2
19.0
0.0 – 186.5
38.9
0.0 – 232.1
56.2
0.0 – 222.4
0.240 33.7
0.0 – 232.1
6.9
0.0 – 154.1
0.243
Rear – duration (s) 0.0
0.0 – 0.9
0.2
0.0 – 2.6
0.5
0.0 – 5.2
0.5
0.0 – 8.0
0.002 0.2
0.0 – 8.0
0.1
0.0 – 6.6
0.921
a

P-values from Kruskal-Wallis tests comparing isolated virgins, paired virgins, expectant fathers, and new fathers

b

P-values from Mann-Whitney U tests comparing paternal and nonpaternal males

Bold indicates P-values that are statistically significant following pFDR procedure (see Methods).