Abstract: A group of animals can only move cohesively, if group members “somehow” reach a consensus about the timing (e.g., start) and the spatial direction/destination of the collective movement. Timing and spatial decisions usually differ with respect to the continuity of their cost/benefit distribution in such a way that, in principle, compromises are much more feasible in timing decision (e.g. median preferred time) than they are in spatial decisions. The consequence is that consensus costs connected to collective timing decisions are usually less skewed amongst group members than are consensus costs connected to spatial decisions. This, in turn, influences the evolution of decision sharing: sharing in timing decisions is most likely to evolve when conflicts are high relative to group cohesion benefits, while sharing in spatial decisions is most likely to evolve in the opposite situation. We discuss the implications of these differences for the study of collective movement decisions.

Abstract: Previous research on the allocation of scarce resources shows that when people are assigned labels of leader or follower in their group, leaders allocate more of the scarce resources to themselves than followers do. In three laboratory studies, we examine the idea that how people are selected for the leader role (i.e. election or appointment) determines whether leaders take more or equal shares (relative to followers) from a common resource. In a first experiment, we show that participants were more accepting of norm violating behavior by an appointed versus elected leader. In a second experiment, we show that when participants were assigned to a leader or follower role, allocations of appointed leaders differed significantly from those of elected leaders and followers, whereas there was no difference between the two latter conditions. Moreover, elected leaders were shown to feel more social responsibility than both appointed leaders and followers. In a final experiment, we show that when participants were primed with the concept of social responsibility (relative to a neutral condition) no difference in allocations between appointed and elected leaders emerged.

Abstract: Social dynamics and maintenance of social cohesion were studied by analysing social interventions in two groups of horses consisting of adult mares, their offspring, adult geldings and sub-adults. The animals were observed for a total of 1316 h. All relevant dyadic and triadic social interactions, including initial behaviour, possible intervention and outcome, were recorded. The main question was: do horses use interventions in affiliative interactions to safeguard their social network? Horses were significantly more likely to intervene in allogrooming or play interactions that involved a preferred partner. The stronger the preferred association in allogrooming, the higher the likelihood the intervener took over allogrooming with an initial dyad member. Interveners originating from two newly introduced groups (n = 3 and 5), intervened significantly more often when a member of their own group allogroomed with an unfamiliar horse. In play, no correlation with unfamiliarity was found. Overall, the intervening horses stopped more than half of the initial allogrooming interactions, and a third of all interactions. Therefore, social facilitation cannot sufficiently explain interference behaviour. This study shows that maintaining relationships with preferred partners is important to horses and has implications for equine husbandry and management.

Abstract: In the process of domestication, dogs (Canis familiaris) and cats (Felis catus) have undergone thousands of years of genetic changes that have adapted them to the human environment. Both species have acquired a global distribution and it has become quite common to find homes with the two living side by side. Nevertheless, there is widespread belief that interspecific communication between dogs and cats is problematic, stemming from their separate evolutionary development and different social structures. Consequently, many people considering possible adoption of both species are concerned about their ability to get along. Interrelationships of dogs and cats living together were studied here in an attempt to determine the main factors influencing the type of relationship likely to develop between the two species. Two approaches were used: (1) a questionnaire completed by owners of both dog(s) and cat(s), which provided a broad database of the animals' behaviors; and (2) observations carried out in participants' homes on their dog-cat interactions. Two separate ethograms for dogs and cats served for analyses of their body language. The findings revealed the following: Both species showed a similar ability to establish a relatively amicable relationship with the other species; the animals' gender had little influence on the nature of their interrelationship; and adoption of the cat prior to the dog appears to conduce to establishing an amicable relationship, as does their first encounter taking place at an early age (up to 6 months of age in cats and up to 1 year in dogs). The findings also suggest that the majority of these dogs and cats understood the particular body language displayed by one animal that has an opposite meaning for the other species; and that the earlier the age of first encounter between the two, the better this understanding. It can be concluded that exposure of both species at an early age to the presence of the other facilitates the learning of each other's body language, and the consequent establishment of an amicable relationship. A better understanding of the various factors that contribute to determining the two species' relationship should not only improve the quality of life of these pets, but also reassure and encourage more people to adopt both cat and dog.

Abstract: We are an intensely social species--it has been argued that our social nature defines what makes us human, what makes us conscious or what gave us our large brains. As a new field, the social brain sciences are probing the neural underpinnings of social behaviour and have produced a banquet of data that are both tantalizing and deeply puzzling. We are finding new links between emotion and reason, between action and perception, and between representations of other people and ourselves. No less important are the links that are also being established across disciplines to understand social behaviour, as neuroscientists, social psychologists, anthropologists, ethologists and philosophers forge new collaborations.