Home | [1–10] << 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 >> [21–30] |
Chase, I. D. (1985). The sequential analysis of aggressive acts during hierarchy formation: an application of the `jigsaw puzzle' approach. Anim. Behav., 33(1), 86–100.
Abstract: The `jigsaw puzzle' approach is a general method for investigating how interactions among individuals cumulate to form the overall patterns of dominance behaviour in groups. Here, the model is used to discover how aggressive interactions between pairs of individuals modify subsequent interactions with bystanders or third parties. The model indicates that four sequences of successive, aggressive acts are possible in component triads of larger groups: two ensure transitive attack relationships and two can lead to either transitive or intransitive relationships. An application of the model to 14 groups of four hens demonstrates that the two sequences guaranteeing transitivity make up 77% of all sequences. More specifically, hens attacking one group member usually go on to attack a second member, and hens receiving one attack frequently receive a second attack from a bystander. In contrast, an attacked hen rarely `redirects' an attack to a bystander, and a bystander rarely attacks a group member who has just attacked another individual. The application of the jigsaw puzzle approach to aggressive sequences in other species is discussed. Data available for several primate species corroborate the findings in hens and provide support for the method as a general tool for investigating the proximate mechanisms of hierarchy formation.
|
Chase, I. D., Bartolomeo, C., & Dugatkin, L. A. (1994). Aggressive interactions and inter-contest interval: how long do winners keep winning? Anim. Behav., 48(2), 393–400.
Abstract: Abstract. Considerable evidence across many taxa demonstrates that prior social experience affects the outcome of subsequent aggressive interactions. Although the 'loser effect', in which an individual losing one encounter is likely to lose the next, is relatively well understood, studies of the 'winner effect', in which winning one encounter increases the probability of winning the next, have produced mixed results. Earlier studies differ concerning whether a winner effect exists, and if it does, how long it lasts. The variation in results, however, may arise from different inter-contest intervals and procedures for selecting contestants employed across previous studies. These methodological differences are addressed through a series of experiments using randomly selected winners and three different inter-contest intervals in the pumpkinseed sunfish, Lepomis gibbosus. The results indicate that a winner effect does in fact exist in pumpkinseed sunfish, but that it only lasts between 15 and 60 min. Based on these results, predictions about the behavioural dynamics of hierarchy formation are discussed, and it is suggested that it may be impossible, in principle, to predict the outcome of dominance interactions between some individuals before they are actually assembled to form a group. Finally, the possible mechanisms underlying the winner effect are explored.
|
Chaya, L., Cowan, E., & McGuire, B. (2006). A note on the relationship between time spent in turnout and behaviour during turnout in horses (Equus caballus). Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 98(1-2), 155–160.
Abstract: We examined if time spent in turnout influenced behaviour during turnout for horses maintained in stalls and given either 2 h/week (n = 7) or 12 h/week (n = 7) of turnout. Horses turned out for 2 h/week were more likely than those turned out for 12 h/week to trot, canter, and buck. Frequency of trotting and cantering was also higher and frequency of grazing lower in horses turned out for 2 h/week. These results have welfare implications and support previous studies showing that horses react to confinement with increased activity when not confined.
|
Cheney DL, & Seyfarth RM. (1990). Attending to behaviour versus attending to knowledge: examining monkeys' attribution of mental states. Anim. Behav., 40, 742. |
Cheney, D. l., & Seyfarth, R. M. (2004). Social complexity and the information acquired during eavesdropping by primates and other animals. In P. K. McGregor (Ed.), Animal Communication networks. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Cambridge University Press.
Abstract: In many of the studies reviewed in this book, eavesdropping takes the
following form: a subject has the opportunity to monitor, or eavesdrop upon, an interaction between two other animals,Aand B. The subject then uses the information obtained through these observations to assess A`s and B`s relative dominance or attractiveness as a mate (e.g. Mennill et al., 2002; Ch. 2). For example, Oliveira et al. (1998) found that male fighting fish Betta splendens that had witnessed two other males involved in an aggressive interaction subsequently responded more strongly to the loser of that interaction than the winner. Subjects-behaviour could not have been influenced by any inherent differences between the two males, because subjects responded equally strongly to the winner and the loser of competitive interactions they had not observed. Similarly, Peake et al. (2001) presented male great tits Parus major with the opportunity to monitor an apparent competitive interaction between two strangers by simulating a singing contest using two loudspeakers. The relative timing of the singing bouts (as measured by the degree of overlap between the two songs) provided information about each “contestants” relative status. Following the singing interaction, one of the “contestants” was introduced into the male`s territory. Males responded significantly less strongly to singers that had apparently just “lost” the interaction (see also McGregor & Dabelsteen, 1996; Naguib et al., 1999; Ch. 2). What information does an individual acquire when it eavesdrops on others? In theory, an eavesdropper could acquire information of many different sorts: about A, about B, about the relationship between A and B, or about the place of Animal Communication Networks, ed. Peter K. McGregor. Published by Cambridge University Press. c. Cambridge University Press 2005. 583 P1: JZZ/... P2: JZZ/... 0521823617c25.xml CU1917B/McGregor 0 521 582361 7 October 7, 2004 22:31 584 D. L. Cheney & R. M. Seyfarth A`s and B`s relationship in a larger social framework. The exact information acquired will probably reflect the particular species social structure. For example, songbirds like great tits live in communities in which six or seven neighbours surround each territory-holding male. Males appear to benefit from the knowledge that certain individuals occupy specific areas (e.g. Brooks & Falls, 1975), that competitive interactions between two different neighbours have particular outcomes, and that these outcomes are stable over time. We would, therefore, expect an eavesdropping great tit not only to learn that neighbour A was dominant to neighbour B, for example, but also to form the expectation that A was likely to defeat B in all future encounters. More speculatively, because the outcome of territorial interactions are often site specific (reviewed by Bradbury & Vehrencamp, 1998), we would expect eavesdropping tits to learn further that A dominates B in some areas but B dominates A in others. In contrast, the information gained from monitoring neighbours interactions would unlikely be sufficient to allow the eavesdropper to rank all of its neighbours in a linear dominance hierarchy, because not all neighbouring males would come into contact with one another. Such information would be difficult if not impossible to acquire; it might also be of little functional value. In contrast, species that live in large, permanent social groups have a much greater opportunity to monitor the social interactions of many different individuals simultaneously. Monkey species such as baboons Papio cynocephalus, for example, typically live in groups of 80 or more individuals, which include several matrilineal families arranged in a stable, linear dominance rank order (Silk et al., 1999). Offspring assume ranks similar to those of their mothers, and females maintain close bonds with their matrilineal kin throughout their lives. Cutting across these stable long-term relationships based on rank and kinship are more transient bonds: for example, the temporary associations formed between unrelated females whose infants are of similar ages, and the “friendships” formed between adult males and lactating females as an apparent adaptation against infanticide (Palombit et al., 1997, 2001). In order to compete successfully within such groups, it would seem advantageous for individuals to recognize who outranks whom, who is closely bonded to whom, and who is likely to be allied to whom (Harcourt, 1988, 1992; Cheney & Seyfarth, 1990; see below). The ability to adopt a third party`s perspective and discriminate among the social relationships that exist among others would seem to be of great selective benefit. In this chapter, we review evidence for eavesdropping in selected primate species and we consider what sort of information is acquired when one individual observes or listens in on the interactions of others. We then compare eavesdropping by primates with eavesdropping in other animal species, focusing on both potential differences and directions for further research |
Cheney, D. L., & Seyfarth, R. M. (1999). Recognition of other individuals' social relationships by female baboons. Anim. Behav., 58(1), 67–75.
Abstract: We describe a series of playback experiments designed to test whether free-ranging baboons, Papio cynocephalus ursinus, recognize the calls of other group members and also associate signallers with their close genetic relatives. Pairs of unrelated females were played sequences of calls that mimicked a fight between their relatives. As controls, the same females heard sequences that involved either (1) only the more dominant female's relative or (2) neither of the females' relatives. When call sequences involved their relatives, subjects looked towards the speaker for a longer duration than when the sequences involved nonkin. When the sequences involved the other female's relative, they also looked towards that female. Subjects did not look towards one another when call sequences involved nonkin. Dominant subjects were more likely to supplant their subordinate partners following playbacks of sequences that mimicked a dispute between their relatives than following the two control trials. In contrast, both subjects were more likely to approach one another and to interact in a friendly manner following the two control trials than following the test trial. Results indicate that female baboons recognize the screams and threat grunts not only of their own close relatives but also of unrelated individuals. They also replicate previous studies in suggesting that female monkeys recognize the close associates of other individuals and adjust their interactions with others according to recent events involving individuals other than themselves. Copyright 1999 The Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour.
|
Cheney, D. L., & Seyfarth, R. M. (1997). Reconciliatory grunts by dominant female baboons influence victims' behaviour. Anim. Behav., 54(2), 409–418.
Abstract: Following aggressive interactions, dominant female baboons, Papio cynocephalus ursinusoccasionally grunt to their victims. To examine the effect of these apparently reconciliatory grunts on victims' subsequent behaviour, a series of playback experiments was designed to mimic reconciliation. Victims were played their opponents' grunts in the minutes immediately following a fight and then observed for half an hour. After hearing these grunts, victims approached their former opponents and also tolerated their opponents' approaches at significantly higher rates than they did under control conditions. They were also supplanted by their opponents at significantly lower rates. By contrast, playbacks of control females' grunts did not influence victims' behaviour. Playbacks of reconciliatory grunts did not increase the rate at which opponents approached or initiated friendly interactions with their former victims. Playbacks of reconciliatory grunts, therefore, appeared to influence victims', but not opponents', perception of recent events.
|
Cheney, D. L., & Seyfarth, R. M. (1986). The recognition of social alliances among vervet monkeys. Anim. Behav., 34, 1722–1731. |
Cheng, K. (2004). K.J. Jeffery (ed) The neurobiology of spatial behaviourOxford University Press, Oxford, 2003. Anim. Cogn., . |
Cheng, K. (2004). K.J. Jeffery (ed) The neurobiology of spatial behaviour. Anim. Cogn., 7(3), 199–200. |