|
Cheney, D. L., & Seyfarth, R. M. (1990). How Monkeys See the World.
|
|
Seyfarth, R. M., & Cheney, D. L. (2003). The Structure of Social Knowledge in Monkeys. In F. B. M. de Waal, & P. L. Tyack (Eds.), Animal Social Complexity: Intelligence, Culture, and Individualized Societies. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
|
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
|
Crockford, C., Wittig, R. M., Seyfarth, R. M., & Cheney, D. L. (2007). Baboons eavesdrop to deduce mating opportunities. Anim. Behav., 73(5), 885–890.
Abstract: Many animals appear to monitor changes in other individuals' dominance ranks and social relationships and to track changes in them. However, it is not known whether they also track changes in very transient relationships. Rapid recognition of a temporary separation between a dominant male and a sexually receptive female, for example, should be adaptive in species where subordinate males use opportunistic strategies to achieve mating success. Dominant male baboons (Papio hamadryas ursinus) form sexual consortships with oestrous females that are characterized by mate guarding and close proximity. To assess whether subordinate males track temporary changes in the status of other males' consortships, we conducted playback experiments using a two-speaker paradigm. In the test condition, subjects heard the consort male's grunts played from one speaker and his consort female's copulation call played from a speaker approximately 40 m away. This sequence suggested that the male and female had temporarily separated and that the female was mating with another male. In a control trial, subjects heard another dominant male's grunts played from one speaker and the female's copulation call played from the other. In a second control trial, conducted within 24 h after the consortship had ended, subjects again heard the consort male's grunt and the female's copulation call played from separate speakers. As predicted, subjects responded strongly only in the test condition. Eavesdropping upon the temporal and spatial juxtaposition of other individuals' vocalizations may be one strategy by which male baboons achieve sneaky matings.
|
|
Cheney, D. L., & Seyfarth, R. M. (1988). Social and non.social knowledge in vervet monkeys. In Machiavellian Intelligence (pp. 255–270). Oxford: Oxford Univ Press.
|
|
Cheney, D. L., & Seyfarth, R. M. (1986). The recognition of social alliances among vervet monkeys. Anim. Behav., 34, 1722–1731.
|
|
Cheney, D. L., & Seyfarth, R. M. (1989). Reconciliation and redirected aggression in vervet monkeys, Behaviour. Behaviour, 110, 258–275.
|
Seyfarth, R. M., & Cheney, D. L. (2000). Social Awareness in Monkeys. Amer. Zool., 40(6), 902–909.
Abstract: Tests of self-awareness in nonhuman primates have to date been concerned almost entirely with the recognition of an animal's reflection in a mirror. By contrast, we know much less about non-human primates' perception of their place within a social network, or of their understanding of themselves as individuals with unique sets of social relationships. Here we review evidence that monkeys who fail the mirror test may nonetheless behave as if they recognize themselves as distinct individuals, each of whom occupies a unique place in society and has a specific set of relations with others. A free-ranging vervet monkey, baboon, or macaque recognizes other members of his group as individuals. He also recognizes matrilineal kin groups, linear dominance rank orders, and behaves as if he recognizes his own unique place within them. This sense of “social self” in monkeys, however, is markedly different from self-awareness in humans. Although monkeys may behave in ways that accurately place themselves within a social network, they are unaware of the knowledge that allows them to do so: they do not know what they know, cannot reflect on what they know, and cannot become the object of their own attention.
|
|
Seyfarth, R. M., & Cheney, D. L. (1988). Do monkeys understand their realtions? In R. Byrne, & A. Whiten (Eds.), Machiavellian Intelligence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
|
Fischer, J., Hammerschmidt, K., Cheney, D. L., & Seyfarth, R. M. (2002). Acoustic features of male baboon loud calls: influences of context, age, and individuality. J Acoust Soc Am, 111(3), 1465–1474.
Abstract: The acoustic structure of loud calls (“wahoos”) recorded from free-ranging male baboons (Papio cynocephalus ursinus) in the Moremi Game Reserve, Botswana, was examined for differences between and within contexts, using calls given in response to predators (alarm wahoos), during male contests (contest wahoos), and when a male had become separated from the group (contact wahoos). Calls were recorded from adolescent, subadult, and adult males. In addition, male alarm calls were compared with those recorded from females. Despite their superficial acoustic similarity, the analysis revealed a number of significant differences between alarm, contest, and contact wahoos. Contest wahoos are given at a much higher rate, exhibit lower frequency characteristics, have a longer “hoo” duration, and a relatively louder “hoo” portion than alarm wahoos. Contact wahoos are acoustically similar to contest wahoos, but are given at a much lower rate. Both alarm and contest wahoos also exhibit significant differences among individuals. Some of the acoustic features that vary in relation to age and sex presumably reflect differences in body size, whereas others are possibly related to male stamina and endurance. The finding that calls serving markedly different functions constitute variants of the same general call type suggests that the vocal production in nonhuman primates is evolutionarily constrained.
|
