|
McComb, K., Moss, C., Sayialel, S., & Baker, L. (2000). Unusually extensive networks of vocal recognition in African elephants. Anim Behav, 59.
|
|
|
Healy, S. D., & Rowe, C. (2013). Costs and benefits of evolving a larger brain: doubts over the evidence that large brains lead to better cognition. Anim Behav, 86.
|
|
|
Harrington, F. H. (1987). Aggressive howling in wolves. Anim Behav, 35.
|
|
|
Tooze, Z. J., Harrington, F. H., & Fentress, J. C. (1990). Individually distinct vocalizations in timber wolves, Canis lupus. Anim Behav, 40.
|
|
|
Range, F., Möslinger, H., & Virányi, Z. (2012). Domestication has not affected the understanding of means-end connections in dogs. Anim Cogn, 15.
|
|
|
Burla, J. - B., Siegwart, J., & Nawroth, C. (2018). Human Demonstration Does Not Facilitate the Performance of Horses (Equus caballus) in a Spatial Problem-Solving Task. Animal, 8(6), 96.
Abstract: Horses’ ability to adapt to new environments and to acquire new information plays an important role in handling and training. Social learning in particular would be very adaptive for horses as it enables them to flexibly adjust to new environments. In the context of horse handling, social learning from humans has been rarely investigated but could help to facilitate management practices. We assessed the impact of human demonstration on the spatial problem-solving abilities of horses during a detour task. In this task, a bucket with a food reward was placed behind a double-detour barrier and 16 horses were allocated to two test groups of 8 horses each. One group received a human demonstration of how to solve the spatial task while the other group received no demonstration. We found that horses did not solve the detour task more often or faster with human demonstration. However, both test groups improved rapidly over trials. Our results suggest that horses prefer to use individual rather than social information when solving a spatial problem-solving task
|
|
|
Bateson, P. (2014). Play, playfulness, creativity and innovation. Anim. Behav. Cogn., 1(2), 99–112.
|
|
|
Schneider, G., & Krueger, K. (2012). Third-party interventions keep social partners from exchanging affiliative interactions with others. Anim. Behav., 83(2), 377–387.
Abstract: Third-party interventions are defined as the interruption of dyadic interactions by third animals through direct physical contact, interposing or threats. Previous studies focused on the analysis of interventions against agonistic encounters. However, there have been no evaluations of interventions against affiliative behaviours, particularly in relation to the intervening animal�s social relationships and its social and spatial position. Horses, Equus caballus, are an interesting model species, as interventions against affiliative interactions occur more frequently than against agonistic interactions. In this study, 64 feral horses displayed 67 interventions in affiliative interactions and eight interventions in agonistic interactions within the observation period. We analysed the interventions in affiliative encounters, and found that it was mainly higher-ranking females that intervened in the affiliative interactions of group mates in the stable horse harems. The intervening animals took an active part in affiliative and agonistic encounters within the group, but did not occupy particular social roles or spatial positions. They intervened in affiliative interactions in which group mates with which they had social bonds interacted with other members of the group. They targeted the nonbonded animal and approached the one with which they were socially bonded. We suggest some species use third-party interventions in affiliative interactions to prevent competition for preferred social interaction partners from escalating into more costly agonistic encounters.
|
|
|
Seyfarth, R. M., & Cheney, D. L. (2015). Social cognition. Animal Behaviour, 103, 191–202.
Abstract: The social intelligence hypothesis argues that competition and cooperation among individuals have shaped the evolution of cognition in animals. What do we mean by social cognition? Here we suggest that the building blocks of social cognition are a suite of skills, ordered roughly according to the cognitive demands they place upon individuals. These skills allow an animal to recognize others by various means; to recognize and remember other animals' relationships; and, perhaps, to attribute mental states to them. Some skills are elementary and virtually ubiquitous in the animal kingdom; others are more limited in their taxonomic distribution. We treat these skills as the targets of selection, and assume that more complex levels of social cognition evolve only when simpler methods are inadequate. As a result, more complex levels of social cognition indicate greater selective pressures in the past. The presence of each skill can be tested directly through field observations and experiments. In addition, the same methods that have been used to compare social cognition across species can also be used to measure individual differences within species and to test the hypothesis that individual differences in social cognition are linked to differences in reproductive success.
|
|
|
Day, R. L., Coe, R. L., Kendal, J. R., & Laland, K. N. (2003). Neophilia, innovation and social learning: a study of intergeneric differences in callitrichid monkeys. Anim. Behav., 65(3), 559–571.
Abstract: In a comparative study of neophilia, innovation and social attentiveness we exposed individuals in seven callitrichid species, from three genera, to novel extractive foraging tasks. The results revealed consistently shorter response latencies, higher levels of successful and unsuccessful manipulation, and greater attentiveness to the task and to conspecifics inLeontopithecus (lion tamarins) than in both Saguinus (tamarins) and Callithrix (marmosets). This is consistent with the hypothesis that species dependent upon manipulative and explorative foraging tend to be less neophobic and more innovative than other species. Furthermore, Callithrix appeared to be less neophobic than Saguinus; ifCallithrix is regarded as the greater specialist, this result is inconsistent with the hypothesis that neophobia is associated with foraging specialization. We consider the relevance of our findings to taxonomic relationships, and to technical and Machiavellian intelligence hypotheses and discuss the implications for captive breeding and reintroduction strategies.Copyright 2003 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd on behalf of The Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour.
|
|