|
Bauer, G. B. (2005). Research Training for Releasable Animals. Conservation Biology, 19, 1779–1789.
|
|
Carruthers, P. (2005). Why the question of animal consciousness might not matter very much. Philosophical Psychology, 18, 83–102.
|
|
Mendl, M., & Paul, E. S. (2004). Consciousness, emotion and animal welfare: insights from cognitive science. Animal Welfare, 13, 17–25.
|
|
Josep Call, Brian Hare, Malinda Carpenter, & Michael Tomasello. (2004). `Unwilling' versus `unable': chimpanzees' understanding of human intentional action. Developmental Science, 7, 488–498.
|
|
Yacoub Khallad. (2004). Conceptualization in the pigeon: What do we know? International Journal of Psychology, 39, 73–94.
|
|
Passani M. B., & Blandina P. (2004). The Neuronal Histaminergic System in Cognition. Current Medicinal Chemistry – Central Nervous System Agents, 4, 17–26.
|
Evans, C. S., & Evans, L. (2007). Representational signalling in birds. Biology Letters, 3(1), 8–11.
Abstract: Some animals give specific calls when they discover food or detect a particular type of predator. Companions respond with food-searching behaviour or by adopting appropriate escape responses. These signals thus seem to denote objects in the environment, but this specific mechanism has only been demonstrated for monkey alarm calls. We manipulated whether fowl (Gallus gallus) had recently found a small quantity of preferred food and then tested for a specific interaction between this event and their subsequent response to playback of food calls. In one treatment, food calls thus potentially provided information about the immediate environment, while in the other the putative message was redundant with individual experience. Food calls evoked substrate searching, but only if the hens had not recently discovered food. An identical manipulation had no effect on responses to an acoustically matched control call. These results show that chicken food calls are representational signals: they stimulate retrieval of information about a class of external events. This is the first such demonstration for any non-primate species. Representational signalling is hence more taxonomically widespread than has previously been thought, suggesting that it may be the product of common social factors, rather than an attribute of a particular phylogenetic lineage.
|
Mullin, M. H. (1999). MIRRORS AND WINDOWS: Sociocultural Studies of Human-Animal Relationships. Annual Review of Anthropology, 28(1), 201–224.
Abstract: Humans' relationships with animals, increasingly the subject of controversy, have long been of interest to those whose primary aim has been the better understanding of humans' relationships with other humans. Since this topic was last reviewed here, human-animal relationships have undergone considerable reexamination, reflecting key trends in the history of social analysis, including concerns with connections between anthropology and colonialism and with the construction of race, class, and gender identities. There have been many attempts to integrate structuralist or symbolic approaches with those focused on environmental, political, and economic dimensions. Human-animal relationships are now much more likely to be considered in dynamic terms, and consequently, there has been much interdisciplinary exchange between anthropologists and historians. Some research directly engages moral and political concerns about animals, but it is likely that sociocultural research on human-animal relationships will continue to be as much, if not more, about humans.
|
|
Premack, D. (1983). Animal Cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 34(1), 351–362.
|
|
Timberlake, W. (1993). Animal Behavior: A Continuing Synthesis. Annual Review of Psychology, 44(1), 675–706.
|
