|
|
Pick, D., & Krueger, K. (2012). Heuristics and complex decisions in man and horses. In K. Krueger (Ed.), Proceedings of the 2. International Equine Science Meeting (Vol. in press). Wald: Xenophon Publishing.
Abstract: Darwin’s claim of differences in mental abilities between man and other animals is a matter of degree rather than of kind and appears to apply nicely to a comparison of choice behaviour in humans and equine. Humans and horses make two kinds of decisions, fast reflexive decisions based on heuristics, and slower more considered decisions that require more complex cognitive processing. Heuristic use is adaptive in that decisions based on them are most often useful in helping an organism to survive while requiring little time and cognitive effort. There is considerable evidence that there is an innate basis to many heuristics in humans as well as horses. A case will be made that the investigation of heuristics specific to horses will lead to an understanding of equine behaviour that has not been possible using traditional learning theories alone. Traditional learning theories are restricted in explaining behaviour to appeals to reinforcement regimes or to the formation of associations between novel stimuli and stimuli that cause innate reflexes, but they are of no use when behaviour is controlled by stimuli that have never been reinforced or been systematically paired with other stimuli that cause reflexive responses. For example, a horse in a two-choice discrimination task may choose a familiar stimulus which has never been reinforced over a new stimulus added to the discrimination task, simply due to the use of an heuristic that usually works -- when in doubt, choose a more familiar object over an unfamiliar one. Conflict resolution strategies provide another good example of heuristic vs. slow decision making. In both humans and horses, conflict resolution strategies are used within, but not typically between social groups. Such groups can be defined as community of interest. Depending on the resource that has to be defended, groups may well be small identities, such as human families or horse harems, or large aggregations such as herds in horses, or religious groups or nations in humans. Fast and simple resolution is possible with stable social identities in simple environments, but more complicated and time consuming deliberative processes are required to resolve conflict over long-term resource acquisition, for decisions in complex conflicts situations and complex social settings.
|
|
|
|
Wolter, R., & Krueger, K. (2015). The analysis of social bonds in feral horses. In Proceedings of the 3. International Equine Science Meeting.
Abstract: In many social mammals, individuals preferentially affiliate with a small subset of available partners instead of distributing their social behaviors equally among all group members. The resulting social bonds have been investigated in several mammalian taxa, especially in primate societies, but also in other taxa such as birds, dolphins, rodents and ungulates. In feral horses, a great number of studies on social bonds can be found, but with a huge variety between methods for the analysis. There seems to be a lack of a clear and common definition of social bonds in horses and of comparable analyses. For example, there are irregularities between the studies regarding the research designs, the selection of recording methods and the interpretation of the measurements. Mutual grooming is used most often for the analysis of social relationships in many species. As mutual grooming is rare in horses, especially measurements of spatial proximity are commonly used for the analysis of social bonds in addition to other behavioral patterns. However, the combination of mutual grooming and nearest neighborhood analyses for the analysis of social bond is debatable, as in contrast to mutual grooming, which must occur deliberately by both grooming partners, the spatial distribution can be influenced by one partner alone, which may even force the other horse to keep a certain distance or to stay in close proximity.
In this study, we investigated the comparability of mutual grooming and nearest neighborhood data for social bond analyses in feral horses. Therefore, we observed five groups of semi-wild living Przewalski’s horses and six groups of feral horses.
We analysed the horses’ social ranks by applying an Average Dominance Index, we recorded the distances between the animals and observed the number of mutual grooming events as well as friendly approaches.
Our results show that there was only a weak correlation between the frequency of staying in nearest neighborhood and mutual grooming in all observed horse groups. In contrast to this, the correlation between the number of friendly approaches and mutual grooming events was higher in most groups.
Hierarchies did not affect social bonds, as mutual grooming was similarly induced by higher and lower ranking animals and the social rank did not affect the choice of the grooming partner. Similarly, likelihoods of staying in the neighborhood of particular animals were not affected by the animals’ social rank.
The grooming frequencies differed between the different horse groups and between the individual horses living in the particular groups. They seem to be effected by individual predisposition.
Altogether we suggest that the ratio of mutual grooming seems to be a better indicator for social bonds in feral horses than the frequency of staying in the nearest neighborhood. Mutual grooming occurs deliberately and is bidirectional, whereas nearest neighborhoods could be enforced and unidirectional. For the calculation of social bonds in horses, we consider it to be more reliable to combine the frequency of mutual grooming with the frequency of friendly approaches.
|
|
