| Home | << 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 >> [11–14] |
|
Linklater, W. L., & Cameron, E. Z. (2000). Tests for cooperative behaviour between stallions. Anim. Behav., 60(6), 731–743.
Abstract: Breeding groups with multiple stallions occur sympatrically with single-stallion breeding groups in feral horse, Equus caballus, populations. Mutualism and reciprocal altruism between stallions have been proposed to explain the origin and functioning of multistallion bands. However, empirical support for these hypotheses is contradictory and incomplete. Furthermore, there are no explicit tests of the predictions that each hypothesis makes about stallion behaviour and social structure. We compared nine multistallion and 18 single-stallion bands in the Kaimanawa Ranges, New Zealand. Compared with agonistic behaviours, affiliative behaviours were relatively unimportant in the relationships between stallions within bands. The number of stallions in the band did not have a positive influence on mare group size, stability, home range quality or reproductive success in bands. Furthermore, there was a positive relationship between aggression ('intolerance') by the dominant towards subordinate stallions and the subordinates' effort in mare group defence ('helping') but a negative relationship between helping effort by subordinates and their proximity to, and mating with, the bands' mares. Therefore, the predictions of the mutualism and reciprocal altruism hypotheses were not supported. Indeed, for some of the predictions we found the opposite outcomes to be true. Multistallion bands had significantly poorer reproductive success, and dominant stallions were less tolerant of subordinates that helped most and reduced their access to mares. Nevertheless, in all other respects Kaimanawa stallions in multistallion bands behaved like those described elsewhere. Thus, we reject cooperative hypotheses for multimale breeding groups in horses and discuss the mate parasitism and consort hypotheses as better alternatives. Copyright 2000 The Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour.
|
|
de Waal, F. B. M. (2000). Attitudinal reciprocity in food sharing among brown capuchin monkeys. Anim. Behav., 60(2), 253–261.
Abstract: Capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella) share food even if separated by a mesh restraint. Pairs of capuchins were moved into a test chamber in which one of them received apple pieces for 20 min, and the other received carrot pieces for the next 20 min. Previous research had shown a correlation between the rate of food transfer in both directions across female-female dyads. The present study confirmed this result. Reciprocity across dyads can be explained, however, by symmetry in affiliative and tolerant tendencies between two individuals, provided these tendencies determine food sharing. The present study was designed to exclude this symmetry-based explanation by testing each pair (N=16) of adult females on six separate occasions. There existed a significant covariation across tests of sharing in both dyadic directions, a result unexplained by relationship symmetry. Moreover, control procedures (i.e. testing of a food possessor without a partner, or testing of two individuals with the same food or two different foods at the same time) indicated that behaviour during food trials is not fully explained by mutual attraction or aversion. The monkeys take the quality of their own and the partner's food into account, and possessors limit transfers of high-quality foods. Instead of a symmetry-based reciprocity explanation, a mediating role of memory is suggested, and a mirroring of social attitude between partners. Copyright 2000 The Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour.
|
|
Tommasi, L., & Vallortigara, G. (2000). Searching for the center: spatial cognition in the domestic chick (Gallus gallus). J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process, 26(4), 477–486.
Abstract: Chicks learned to find food hidden under sawdust by ground-scratching in the central position of the floor of a closed arena. When tested inan arena of identical shape but a larger area, chicks searched at 2 different locations, one corresponding to the correct distance (i.e., center) in the smaller (training) arena and the other to the actual center of the test arena. When tested in an arena of the same shape but a smaller area, chicks searched in the center of it. These results suggest that chicks are able to encode information on the absolute and relative distance of the food from the walls of the arena. After training in the presence of a landmark located at the center of the arena, animals searched at the center even after the removal of the landmark. Marked changes in the height of the walls of the arena produced some displacement in searching behavior, suggesting that chicks used the angular size of the walls to estimate distances.
|
|
Parish, A. R., & De Waal, F. B. (2000). The other “closest living relative”. How bonobos (Pan paniscus) challenge traditional assumptions about females, dominance, intra- and intersexual interactions, and hominid evolution. Ann N Y Acad Sci, 907, 97–113.
Abstract: Chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) societies are typically characterized as physically aggressive, male-bonded and male-dominated. Their close relatives, the bonobos (Pan paniscus), differ in startling and significant ways. For instance, female bonobos bond with one another, form coalitions, and dominate males. A pattern of reluctance to consider, let alone acknowledge, female dominance in bonobos exists, however. Because both species are equally “man's” closest relative, the bonobo social system complicates models of human evolution that have historically been based upon referents that are male and chimpanzee-like. The bonobo evidence suggests that models of human evolution must be reformulated such that they also accommodate: real and meaningful female bonds; the possibility of systematic female dominance over males; female mating strategies which encompass extra-group paternities; hunting and meat distribution by females; the importance of the sharing of plant foods; affinitive inter-community interactions; males that do not stalk and attack and are not territorial; and flexible social relationships in which philopatry does not necessarily predict bonding pattern.
|
|
Call, J., Agnetta, B., & Tomasello, M. (2000). Cues that chimpanzees do and do not use to find hidden objects. Anim. Cogn., 3(1), 23–34.
Abstract: Chimpanzees follow conspecific and human gaze direction reliably in some situations, but very few chimpanzees reliably use gaze direction or other communicative signals to locate hidden food in the object-choice task. Three studies aimed at exploring factors that affect chimpanzee performance in this task are reported. In the first study, vocalizations and other noises facilitated the performance of some chimpanzees (only a minority). In the second study, various behavioral cues were given in which a human experimenter either touched, approached, or actually lifted and looked under the container where the food was hidden. Each of these cues led to enhanced performance for only a very few individuals. In the third study – a replication with some methodological improvements of a previous experiment – chimpanzees were confronted with two experimenters giving conflicting cues about the location of the hidden food, with one of them (the knower) having witnessed the hiding process and the other (the guesser) not. In the crucial test in which a third experimenter did the hiding, no chimpanzee found the food at above chance levels. Overall, in all three studies, by far the best performers were two individuals who had been raised in infancy by humans. It thus seems that while chimpanzees are very good at “behavior reading” of various sorts, including gaze following, they do not understand the communicative intentions (informative intentions) behind the looking and gesturing of others – with the possible exception of enculturated chimpanzees, who still do not understand the differential significance of looking and gesturing done by people who have different knowledge about states of affairs in the world.
|
|
Johnstone, R. A., & Dugatkin, L. A. (2000). Coalition formation in animals and the nature of winner and loser effects. Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci., 267(1438), 17–21.
Abstract: Coalition formation has been documented in a diverse array of taxa, yet there has been little formal analysis of polyadic interactions such as coalitions. Here, we develop an optimality model which examines the role of winner and loser effects in shaping coalition formation. We demonstrate that the predicted patterns of alliances are strongly dependent on the way in which winner and loser effects change with contestant strength. When winner and loser effects decrease with the resource-holding power (RHP) of the combatants, coalitions will be favoured between the strongest members of a group, but not between the weakest. If, in contrast, winner and loser effects increase with RHP, exactly the opposite predictions emerge. All other things being equal, intervention is more likely to prove worthwhile when the beneficiary of the aid is weaker (and its opponent is stronger), because the beneficiary is then less likely to win without help. Consequently, intervention is more probable when the impact of victory on the subsequent performance of a combatant increases with that individual's strength because this selects for intervention in favour of weaker combatants. The published literature on hierarchy formation does not reveal how winner and loser effects actually change with contestant strength and we therefore hope that our model will spur others to collect such data; in this light we suggest an experiment which will help to elucidate the nature of winner and loser effects and their impact on coalition formation in animals.
|
|
P. K. McGregor,, & T. M. Peake,. (2000). Communication networks: social environments for receiving and signalling behaviour. Acta. Ethol., 2(2), 71–81.
Abstract: Communication and social behaviour are inextricably linked, with communication mediating important social behaviours such as resource defence and mate attraction. However, the social environment in which communication occurs is often ignored in discussions of communication behaviour. We argue that networks of several individuals are the common social environment for communication behaviour. The consequences for receivers and signallers of communicating in a network environment are the main subjects of this review. Eavesdropping is a receiving behaviour that is only possible in the environment of a network and therefore we concentrate on this behaviour. The main effect of communication networks on signallers is to create competition with other signallers for receiver attention. We discuss the consequences of such competition. To conclude, we explore the role of signals and signalling interactions as sources of information that animals exploit to direct their behaviour.
|
|
Regolin, L., Tommasi, L., & Vallortigara, G. (2000). Visual perception of biological motion in newly hatched chicks as revealed by an imprinting procedure. Anim. Cogn., 3(1), 53–60.
Abstract: Day-old chicks were exposed to point-light animation sequences depicting either a walking hen or a rotating cylinder. On a subsequent free-choice test (experiment 1) the chicks approached the novel stimulus, irrespective of this being the hen or the cylinder. In order to obtain equivalent local motion vectors, in experiments 2 and 3 newly hatched chicks were exposed either to a point-light animation sequence depicting a walking hen, or to a positionally scrambled walking hen (i.e. an animation in which exactly the same set of dots in motion as that employed for the walking hen was presented, but with spatially randomized starting positions). Chicks tested on day 1 (experiment 2) or on day 2 (i.e. after a period in the dark following exposure on day 1 (experiment 3)) proved able to discriminate the two animation sequences: males preferentially approached the novel stimulus, females the familiar one. These results indicate that discrimination was not based on local motion vectors, but rather on the temporally integrated motion sequence.
|
|
Miklósi, A. '., Polgárdi, R., Topál, J., & Csányi, V. (2000). Intentional behaviour in dog-human communication: an experimental analysis of “showing” behaviour in the dog. Anim. Cogn., 3(3), 159–166.
Abstract: Despite earlier scepticism there is now evidence for simple forms of intentional and functionally referential communication in many animal species. Here we investigate whether dogs engage in functional referential communication with their owners. “Showing” is defined as a communicative action consisting of both a directional component related to an external target and an attention-getting component that directs the attention of the perceiver to the informer or sender. In our experimental situation dogs witness the hiding of a piece of food (or a favourite toy) which they cannot get access to. We asked whether dogs would engage in “showing” in the presence of their owner. To control for the motivational effects of both the owner and the food on the dogs' behaviour, control observations were also staged where only the food (or the toy) or the owner was present. Dogs' gazing frequency at both the food (toy) and the owner was greater when only one of these was present. In other words, dogs looked more frequently at their owner when the food (toy) was present, and they looked more at the location of the food (toy) when the owner was present. When both the food (toy) and the owner were present a new behaviour, “gaze alternation”, emerged which was defined as changing the direction of the gaze from the location of the food (toy) to looking at the owner (or vice versa) within 2 s. Vocalisations that occurred in this phase were always associated with gazing at the owner or the location of the food. This behaviour, which was specific to this situation, has also been described in chimpanzees, a gorilla and humans, and has often been interpreted as a form of functionally referential communication. Based on our observations we argue that dogs might be able to engage in functionally referential communication with their owner, and their behaviour could be described as a form of “showing”. The contribution of domestication and individual learning to the well-developed communicative skills in dogs is discussed and will be the subject of further studies.
|
|
Zentall, T. R., Kaiser, D. H., Clement, T. S., Weaver, J. E., & Campbell, G. (2000). Presence/absence-sample matching by pigeons: divergent retention functions may result from the similarity of behavior during the absence sample and the retention interval. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process, 26(3), 294–304.
Abstract: Divergent choose-absence retention functions typically found in pigeons following presence/absence-sample matching have been attributed to the development of a single-code/default coding strategy. However, such effects may result from adventitious differential responding to the samples. In Experiment 1, retention functions were divergent only when differential sample responding could serve as the basis for comparison choice. In Experiment 2, when pecking did not occur during the retention interval, a choose-absence bias was found, but when pecking occurred during the retention interval, a choose-presence bias resulted. In Experiment 3, positive transfer was found when a stimulus associated with the absence of pecking replaced the absence sample but not when a stimulus associated with pecking replaced the presence sample. Thus, presence/absence-sample matching may not encourage the development of a single-code/default coding strategy in pigeons.
|