Abstract: This study explored the relationship between two creative styles (adaptor and innovator) and the Big Five personality traits (extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism, and openness to experience). 164 teachers from 3 secondary and 2 primary schools in Singapore completed a self?report questionnaire, which consisted of the Kirton Adaption?Innovation Inventory and the NEO?Five Factor Inventory. It was found that adaptors were significantly more conscientious than innovators, while innovators were significantly more extraverted and open to experience than adaptors. No significant differences were found between adaptors and innovators in neuroticism and agreeableness. The study also revealed a meaningful pattern of relationships between the Big Five personality traits and the three facet scales of the KAI. Specifically, Sufficiency of Originality was negatively correlated with Openness to Experience and Extraversion; Rule Governance was positively correlated with conscientiousness but negatively correlated with openness to experience; Efficiency was positively correlated with conscientiousness. The overall findings supported the fundamental contention that different creative styles were due to different combinations of personality traits, with adaptors being more conscientious, while innovators being more extraverted and open to experience. These personality?based differences in creative styles between adaptors and innovators had resulted in much social conflict between them. One way of resolving it is to make known the nature and value of different creative styles to these two different types of creators.

Abstract: This volume brings together studies from various disciplines of the social sciences and humanities (Anthropology, Sociology, Cultural Studies, History and Literary theory) that examine the equestrian world as a historically gendered and highly dynamic field of contemporary sport and culture. From elite international dressage and jumping, polo and the turf, to the rodeo world of the Americas and popular forms of equestrian sport and culture, we are introduced to a range of issues as they unfold at local and global, national and international levels. Students and scholars of gender, culture and sport will find much of interest in this original look at contemporary issues such as “engendered” (women’s and men’s) dentities/subjectivities of equestrians, representations of girls, horses and the world of adventure in juvenile fiction; the current “feminization” of particular equestrian activities (and where boys and men stand in relation to this); how broad forms of social inequality and stratification play themselves out within gendered equestrian contexts; men and women and their relation to horses within the framework of current discussions on the relation of animals to humans (which may include not only love and care, but also exploitation and violence), among others. Singular contributions that incorporate a wide variety of classic and contemporary theoretical perspectives and empirical methodologies show how horse cultures around the globe contribute to historical and current constructions of embodied “femininities” and “masculinities”, reflecting a world that has been moving “beyond the binaries” while continuing to be enmeshed in their persistent and contradictory legacy. The final chapter makes a brave attempt at synthesizing individual chapters and moving forward from the evidences they provide, to suggest a compelling agenda for future research.

Abstract: Tool use has not yet been confirmed in horses, mules or donkeys. As this subject is difficult to research with conventional methods, we used a crowdsourcing approach to gather data. We contacted equid owners and carers and asked them to report and video examples of �unusual� behaviour via a dedicated website. We also searched YouTube and Facebook for videos of equids showing tool use. From 635 reports, including 1014 behaviours, we found 20 cases of tool use, 13 of which were unambiguous in that it was clear that the behaviour was not trained, caused by reduced welfare, incidental or accidental. We then assessed (a) the effect of management conditions on tool use and (b) whether the animals used tools alone, or socially, involving other equids or humans. We found that management restrictions were associated with corresponding tool use in 12 of the 13 cases (p = 0.01), e.g., equids using sticks to scrape hay within reach when feed was restricted. Furthermore, 8 of the 13 cases involved other equids or humans, such as horses using brushes to groom others. The most frequent tool use was for foraging, with seven examples, tool use for social purposes was seen in four cases, and there was just one case of tool use for escape. There was just one case of tool use for comfort, and in this instance, there were no management restrictions. Equids therefore can develop tool use, especially when management conditions are restricted, but it is a rare occurrence.

Abstract: Two brain hemispheres are unequally involved in the processing of social stimuli, as demonstrated in a wide range of vertebrates. A considerable number of studies have shown the right hemisphere advantage for social processing. At the same time, an approach-withdrawal hypothesis, mainly based on experimental evidence, proposes the involvement of both brain hemispheres according to approach and withdrawal motivation. The present study aimed to test the relative roles of the two hemispheres in social responses displayed in a natural context. Visual biases, implicating hemispheric lateralization, were estimated in the social interactions of saiga antelope in the wild. In individually identified males, the left/right visual field use during approach and withdrawal responses was recorded based on the lateral head/body position, relative to the conspecific. Lateralized approach responses were investigated in three types of interactions, with left visual field bias found for chasing a rival, no bias--for attacking a rival, and right visual field bias--for pursuing a female. In two types of withdrawal responses, left visual field bias was found for retreating after fighting, while no bias was evident in fight rejecting. These findings demonstrate that neither the right hemisphere advantage nor the approach-withdrawal distinction can fully explain the patterns of lateralization observed in social behaviour. It is clear that both brain hemispheres play significant roles in social responses, while their relative contribution is likely determined by a complex set of motivational and emotional factors rather than a simple dichotomous distinction such as, for example, approach versus withdrawal motivation.

Abstract: Two rhesus monkeys, given 60 two-hour sessions with a six-device mechanical puzzle showed clear evidence of learning, the curve showing ratio of incorrect to correct responses appearing quite comparable to similar curves obtained during externally rewarded situations. When, on the thirteenth day of tests, the subjects were presented with the puzzle 100 times at 6-minute intervals, the number of devices manipulated decreased regularly throughout the day, although there was no significant change in the number of times the problem assembly was attacked.