|
|
Whiten A., & Byrne, R. W. (Eds.). (1997). Machiavellian Intelligence II – Extensions and Evaluations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
|
|
|
|
Parrish, J. K., & Viscido, S. V. (2005). Traffic rules of fish schools: A review of agent-based approaches. In C. K. Hemelrijk (Ed.), Self-organisation and the evolution of social behaviour. (pp. 50–80). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
|
|
|
|
Krueger, K. (2010). “Erfasst” das Pferd die menschliche Psyche". In M. Dettling, C. Opgen-Rhein, & M. Kläschen (Eds.), Pferdegestützte Therapie bei psychischen Erkrankungen (pp. 40–51). Stuttgart: Schattauer Verlag.
|
|
|
|
Byrne, R. W., & Russon, A. E. (1998). Learning by imitation: a hierachical approach. Behav. Brain Sci., 21, 667–721.
|
|
|
|
Warneken, F., & Tomasello, M. (2006). Altruistic Helping in Human Infants and Young Chimpanzees. Science, 311(5765), 1301–1303.
Abstract: Human beings routinely help others to achieve their goals, even when the helper receives no immediate benefit and the person helped is a stranger. Such altruistic behaviors (toward non-kin) are extremely rare evolutionarily, with some theorists even proposing that they are uniquely human. Here we show that human children as young as 18 months of age (prelinguistic or just-linguistic) quite readily help others to achieve their goals in a variety of different situations. This requires both an understanding of others' goals and an altruistic motivation to help. In addition, we demonstrate similar though less robust skills and motivations in three young chimpanzees.
|
|
|
|
Benz, B., Benitz, B., Krueger, K., & Winter, D. (2013). Weniger Einstreu bei gleichem Komfort. Pferdezucht und Haltung, 1, 66–71.
|
|
|
|
Hoffmann, G., Bockisch, F. - J., & Kreimeier, P. (2009). Einfluss des Haltungssystems auf die Bewegungsaktivität und Stressbelastung bei Pferden in Auslaufhaltungssystemen. Landbauforschung – vTI Agriculture and Forestry Research, 2(59), 105–112.
Abstract: Frühere Untersuchungen haben gezeigt, dass die tägliche Bewegung für die Gesunderhaltung der Pferde notwendig ist. Inwieweit sich jedoch unterschiedliche Bewegungsangebote auf das Stress-und Bewegungsverhalten von Pferden in einer Gruppen-Auslaufhaltung auswirken und ob der Bewegungsbedarf der Pferde durch eine Auslaufhaltung ohne zusätzliche Bewegung gedeckt werden kann, ist der Literatur bisher nicht zu entnehmen. Daher sollte in der nachfolgend beschriebenen Untersuchung der Frage nachgegangen werden, welche Auswirkungen verschiedene Bewegungsangebote auf die Bewegungsaktivität von Pferden in Gruppen-Auslaufhaltungen haben und ob diese das Wohlbefinden der Tiere beeinflussen. Letzteres wurde durch Messung der Herzfrequenzvariabilität und Bestimmung von Cortisolmetaboliten im Pferdekot erfasst und die Bewegungsaktivität der Pferde wurde mit ALT-Pedometern bestimmt.
Verglichen wurden eine Einzel-und Gruppenhaltung mit jeweils angrenzendem Auslauf, aber ohne eine zusätzliche Bewegung der Pferde außerhalb des Stalls. In drei weiteren Varianten der Gruppenhaltung bekamen die Pferde täglichen Auslauf auf einer unbegrünten Koppel, auf einer Weide oder durch gezielte Bewegung in einer Führanlage. Die Bewegungsaktivität konnte durch die zusätzliche Bewegung in Form von Weide oder Führanlage signifikant gesteigert werden.
Ein zusätzliches Bewegungsangebot führte bei den Pferden zu einer Abnahme der Stressbelastung und sollte auch den Pferden ermöglicht werden, die in einer Gruppenhaltung gehalten werden, um ihre physische und psychische Gesundheit zu erhalten.
[Former studies confirm the necessity of daily movement for the health of a horse. But so far no description could be found in the literature how different movement offerings impact the stress and movement behaviour of horses in group husbandries with close-by discharge. The same holds true for the question whether a discharge husbandry system can meet the movement requirements of horses if there isn�t any additional movement possibility. The aim of the present study was to examine different movement offerings, their effects on the movement activities of horses in a group horse husbandry with close-by discharge and the impact of the movement on the wellbeing of the animals.
The heart rate variability and the concentration of the cortisol metabolites in the horse excrement were analyzed for detecting the wellbeing of the horses. Additionally ALT-Pedometers were used for determining the movement activity.
A single and a group husbandry system, each with closeby discharge, were compared when horses had no additional movement outside the stable. In three further variants the group husbandry was supplemented with daily time on a non-grassy pasture land, a pasture or in a horse walker. Pasture or horse walker increased movement activity significantly. Nevertheless an additional movement offering resulted in a lower stress load of the horses and should also be allowed to horses in group husbandry systems to ensure the horse�s physical and mental health.]
|
|
|
|
Krueger., K., & Farmer, K. (2018). Social learning in Horses: Differs from individual learning only in the learning stimulus and not in the learning mechanisms. In 14th Meeting of the Internatinoal Society for Equitation Science.
Abstract: Equine welfare can be enhanced by applying species specific training. This may incorporate social learning, as horses are highly social and social stimuli are of primary importance. Social learning is comparable to individual learning in its learning mechanisms, differing primarily in the way it is stimulated. Our initial study showed that horses of different breeds (N = 38) follow humans after observing other horses doing so, but only if the observed horse was familiar to and higher ranking than the observer (Fisher's exact test: N = 12, P = 0.003). A second study showed that horses and ponies (N = 25) learned to pull a rope to open a feeding apparatus after observing demonstrations by conspecifics, again, only if the demonstrating horse was older and higher ranking than the observer (Fisher's combination test, N = 3, v2 = 27.71, p = 0.006). Our third approach showed that horses and ponies (N = 24) learned to press a switch to open a feeding apparatus after observing a familiar person (GzLM: N = 24, z = 2.33, P = 0.02). Most recently, we confronted horses and ponies (N = 50) with persons demonstrating different techniques for opening a feeding apparatus. In this study we investigated whether the horses would copy the demonstrators' techniques or apply their own. Here only some horses copied the technique, and most of the successful learners used their mouths irrespective of the demonstrators' postures (Chi Square Test: N = 40, df = 2, χ2 = 31.4, p < 0.001). In all the approaches social stimuli elicited learning processes in the test horses, while only a few individuals in the control groups mastered the tasks by individual learning. The following behaviour observed in the initial study may have been facilitated by a social stimuli (social facilitation), and the opening of the feed boxes in the subsequent studies appear to be mostly the result of enhancement (social enhancement). Some horses may have used the social stimuli at first and continued their learning process by individual trial and error. However, the horses were also selective in whom and some in how to copy. This may have been conditioned (socially conditioned) or the result of simple forms of reasoning on the reliability of the particular information provided by demonstrators of certain social ranks or social positions, as high ranking and familiar horses and familiar persons were copied and some imitated exactly.
Lay person message: Traditional riding instructions suggest that horses learn by observing other horses. For example, older, more experienced driving horses are used for initial training of young driving horses. We have shown that horses indeed use learning stimuli provided by other horse, as well as by humans. Horses readily accept stimuli observed in high ranking and familiar horses, and familiar persons. Such stimuli elicit learning processes which are comparable to individual learning. We suggest applying social learning whenever possible, as it is much faster and less stressful than individual learning, where learners experience negative outcomes in trial and error learning.
|
|
|
|
Flauger, B., & Krueger, K. (2013). Aggressionslevel und Platzangebot bei Pferden (Equus caballus) [ Aggression level and enclosure size in horses (Equus caballus)]. Pferdeheilkunde, 29(4), 495–504.
Abstract: Viele Pferdebesitzer bevorzugen aus Angst vor aggressiven Interaktionen und Verletzungsgefahr der Tiere untereinander die Einzelhaltung, obwohl von Tierschutzorganisationen die Gruppenhaltung für Pferde empfohlen wird. In dieser Studie beobachteten wir während des alltäglichen Soziallebens als auch bei der Eingliederung von neuen Gruppenmitgliedern das Sozialverhalten, insbesondere das Aggressionsverhalten, von elf Gruppen domestizierter Pferde (Equus caballus) verschiedener Größe und Zusammensetzung. Während des alltäglichen Soziallebens hatten die Gruppe und der Paddock-Typ (Gras / kein Gras) keinen Einfluss auf die Verhaltensweisen, wohingegen die Paddockgröße unter 10000 m2 einen signifikanten Einfluss auf die submissiven Verhaltensweisen (GzLM; n=56; t=-2.061, P=0.044) und einen nicht signifikanten Einfluss auf die aggressiven Verhaltensweisen (GzLM; n=56; t=-1.782, P=0.081) hatte. Allerdings verringerten sich sowohl die aggressiven als auch die submissiven Verhaltensweisen mit steigendem Platzangebot bis zu 10000 m2 (Spearman rank Korrelation; n=56; aggressive Verhaltensweisen: r = -0.313, P = 0.019; submissive Verhaltensweisen: r = -0.328, P = 0.014). Während den Eingliederungen reduzierten sich die Aggressionen pro Stunde mit der Vergrößerung des Platzangebotes (Spearman rank Korrelation; n=28; r=-0.402, P=0.034). Dies zeigte sich noch deutlicher, wenn Beobachtungen mit einem Platzangebot von über 10000 m2 ausgeschlos- sen wurden (Spearman rank Korrelation; n=23; r=-0.549, P=0.007). Während des alltäglichen Soziallebens näherte sich der Aggressionslevel der Nulllinie an, wenn das Platzangebot pro Pferd mehr als 331 m2 betrug. Deshalb empfehlen wir zur Reduzierung des Aggressionslevels und des Verletzungsrisikos von sozial gehaltenen Pferdegruppen ein Platzangebot von mindestens 331 m2 pro Pferd.
[Even though animal welfare organisations propose group housing for horse welfare, many owners stable horses individually for fear of aggressive interactions and injury risks. In the present study we observed social behaviour, and especially aggressiveness, in eleven domestic horse groups (Equus caballus) of different size and composition, in basic social situations and when new group members were introduced. During basic social situations, the group and the type of paddock (grass / no grass) had no effect on any of the behaviours, where- as the enclosure size below 10,000 m2 had a significant effect on submissive behaviour (GzLM; n=56; t=-2.061, P=0.044) and an insignificant effect on aggressive behaviour (GzLM; n=56; t=-1.782, P=0.081). However, aggressive and submissive behaviour dimi- nished with the increase of enclosure sizes up to 10,000 m2 (Spearman rank correlation; n = 56; aggressive behaviour: r = -0.313, P=0.019; submissive behaviour: r=-0.328, P=0.014). During introductions, aggression levels per hour decreased with any increase of enclosure size (Spearman rank correlation; n=28; r=-0.402, P=0.034) and even more when enclosure sizes above 10,000 m2 were excluded (Spearman rank correlation; n=23; r=-0.549, P=0.007). During basic social situations the aggression level approached zero when the space allowance was more than 331 m2 per horse. We therefore recommend keeping horse groups in an enclosure with at least 331 m2 per horse to reduce aggression and injuries.]
|
|
|
|
Bartal, I. B. - A., Decety, J., & Mason, P. (2011). Empathy and Pro-Social Behavior in Rats. Science, 334(6061), 1427–1430.
Abstract: Whereas human pro-social behavior is often driven by empathic concern for another, it is unclear whether nonprimate mammals experience a similar motivational state. To test for empathically motivated pro-social behavior in rodents, we placed a free rat in an arena with a cagemate trapped in a restrainer. After several sessions, the free rat learned to intentionally and quickly open the restrainer and free the cagemate. Rats did not open empty or object-containing restrainers. They freed cagemates even when social contact was prevented. When liberating a cagemate was pitted against chocolate contained within a second restrainer, rats opened both restrainers and typically shared the chocolate. Thus, rats behave pro-socially in response to a conspecific�s distress, providing strong evidence for biological roots of empathically motivated helping behavior.
|
|
