|
|
Alexander, B. K., & Bowers, J. M. (1969). Social organization of a troop of Japanese monkeys in a two-acre enclosure. Folia Primatol (Basel), 10(3), 230–242.
|
|
|
|
Albentosa, M. J., Kjaer, J. B., & Nicol, C. J. (2003). Strain and age differences in behaviour, fear response and pecking tendency in laying hens. Br Poult Sci, 44(3), 333–344.
Abstract: 1. Behaviours associated with a high or low tendency to feather peck could be used as predictors of feather pecking behaviour in selective breeding programmes. This study investigated how strain and age at testing influenced responses in behavioural tests. 2. Four layer-type strains (ISA Brown, Columbian Blacktail, Ixworth and a high feather pecking (HP) and a low feather pecking (LP) line of White Leghorn) were reared in 6 same-strain/line pens of 8 birds from one day old. Birds in half the pens were given an open field test, a novel object test and a test with loose feather bundles between 4 and 12 weeks of age and a tonic immobility (TI) test at 13 weeks of age. All pens were tested with fixed feather bundles at 26 weeks, and undisturbed behaviour in the home pens was videoed at 1 and 27 weeks of age. Daily records of plumage damage were used as an indicator of feather pecking activity in the home pens. 3. Strain did not influence novel object test, open field test or loose feather test behaviour, although age effects in all three tests indicated a reduction in fearfulness and/or an increase in exploratory behaviour with increasing age. 4. White Leghorns showed longer TI durations than the other strains but less pecking at fixed feather bundles than ISA Browns and Columbian Blacktails. 5. There were few associations between behaviour in the 5 different tests, indicating that birds did not have overall behavioural traits that were consistent across different contexts. This suggests hens cannot easily be categorised into different behavioural 'types', based on their test responses and casts doubt on the usefulness of tests as predictors of feather pecking.
|
|
|
|
Adolphs, R. (2003). Cognitive neuroscience of human social behaviour. Nat Rev Neurosci, 4(3), 165–178.
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.
|
|
