Boyd, R., & Richerson, P. J. (1996). Why Culture is Common, but Cultural Evolution is Rare. Proc Br Acad, 88, 73–93.
Abstract: If culture is defined as variation acquired and maintained by social learning, then culture is common in nature. However, cumulative cultural evolution resulting in behaviors that no individual could invent on their own is limited to humans, song birds, and perhaps chimpanzees. Circumstantial evidence suggests that cumulative cultural evolution requires the capacity for observational learning. Here, we analyze two models the evolution of psychological capacities that allow cumulative cultural evolution. Both models suggest that the conditions which allow the evolution of such capacities when rare are much more stringent than the conditions which allow the maintenance of the capacities when common. This result follows from the fact that the assumed benefit of the capacities, cumulative cultural adaptation, cannot occur when the capacities are rare. These results suggest why such capacities may be rare in nature.
|
Lefebvre, L., & Giraldeau, L. - A. (1996). Is social learning an adaptive specialisation? In C. M. Heyes, & B. G. Galef B. G..Jr. (Eds.), Social learning in animals: The root of culture (pp. 107–128). San Diego: Academic Press.
|
Povinelli, D. J., & Eddy T. J. (1996). What Young Chimpanzees Know about Seeing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Abstract: Synopsis
Does a young chimpanzee's gaze subjectively link it to the outside world? Is seeing “about” something to this species? This volume reports the results of fifteen studies conducted with chimpanzees and preschool children. The findings provide little evidence that young chimpanzees understand seeing as a mental event. Even though young chimps spontaneously attend to and follow the visual gaze of others, they simultaneously appear oblivious to the attentional significance of that gaze. This interpretation is consistent with three different possibilities: chimpanzees may experience a delay in psychological development; alternatively, they may possess a different theory of attention, connected subjectively through other behavioral indicators; or the subjective understanding of visual perception may only be present in humans.
|
Davis, M. H. (1996). Empathy: A Social Psychological Approach. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Abstract: Product Description
Empathy has long been a topic of interest to psychologists, but it has been studied in a sometimes bewildering number of ways. In this volume, Mark Davis offers a thorough, evenhanded review of contemporary empathy research, especially work that has been carried out by social and personality psychologists.Davis’ approach is explicitly multidimensional. He draws careful distinctions between situational and dispositional “antecedents” of empathy, cognitive and noncognitive “internal processes,” affective and nonaffective “intrapersonal outcomes,” and the “interpersonal behaviora
l outcomes” that follow. Davis presents a novel organizational model to help classify and interpret previous findings. This book will be of value in advanced undergraduate and graduate courses on altruism, helping, nad moral development.
About the Author
Mark H. Davis is associate professor of psychology at Eckerd College in St. Petersburg, Florida.
|
Hausberger, M., Le Scolan, N., Muller, C., Gautier, E., & Wolff, A. (1996). Individual behavioural characteristics in horses: predictability, endogenous and environmental factors. Journée d`Etude, 22, 113–123.
|
de Waal, F. B. M., & Aureli, F. (1996). Consolation, reconciliation, and a possible cognitive difference between macaque and chimpanzee. In A. E. Russon, K. A. Bard, & S. T. Parker (Eds.), Reaching into Thought: The Minds of the Great Apes (pp. 80–110.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Abstract: Russon,A.E.; Bard, K.A.; Parker, S.T.
|
Mertens, P. A., & Unshelm, J. (1996). Effects of Group and Individual Housing on the Behavior of Kennelled Dogs in Animal Shelters. Anthrozoos: A Multidisciplinary Journal of The Interactions of People & Animals, 9, 40–51.
Abstract: To emphasize the effects of group- and single housing of kennelled dogs, the behavior of 211 dogs in two German animal shelters was tested and observed. After being placed, 197 of the dogs' new owners were interviewed.
Although 51% of the German animal shelters already keep dogs in groups, there is strong prejudice against group housing because of the fear of fights. This study demonstrates that this apprehension is unfounded. Ninety-one percent of the social confrontations between dogs housed together were settled by the use of behavioral rituals. Keeping dogs in groups, furthermore, leads to a significant reduction in noise emission (p<.001). Group housing fulfills the dog's need for social interaction and the need to move. Dogs that were housed in groups displayed a closer human-animal relationship (80%) than those that had been kept individually (43%). A high percentage of individually housed dogs suffered from behavioral problems (31%) and 10% developed stereotypes. The percentage of behaviorally disturbed dogs observed in group housing was 11%, and stereotyped forms of behavior did not occur. Dogs who had been kept in groups were, on average, placed within 10 days, and were returned to the animal shelter less often (9%) compared to those housed individually (25%). Dogs that were housed separately needed an average of 17 days to be placed. Even after being placed, there is a correlation between the animal shelter's type of housing and the dog's behavior. Within four weeks after picking up their pet, 88% of the owners of dogs that had been housed individually complained of problems compared to the owners of the dogs that had been kept in groups, 53% of whom were completely satisfied with the adoption.
Despite the fact that these results might be influenced by the small number of shelters examined, the study leads to the conclusion that keeping dogs in groups is a suitable alternative for dog housing in animal shelters and, for the animals' welfare, is preferable to individual housing.
|
Frank S. A. (1996). Policing and group cohesion when resources vary. Anim. Behav., 52, 1163–1169.
Abstract: The transition from competing individuals to cooperative groups has occurred several times inevolutionary history. The puzzle is why selfish individuals did not subvert cohesive group behaviour bytaking resources without contributing to the group’s overall success. Kin selection and reciprocal altruism are the two standard explanations for group cohesion. But many groups have evolved into
cooperative units when relatedness was low and opportunities were limited for the strategic alliances required for reciprocity. A new theory was recently proposed in which individuals invest some of their resources into repressing competition between group members. Such policing increases the fair distribution of resources in the group and enhances group cohesion. The surprising aspect of this theory
is that low relatedness is more conducive to the spread of policing traits than is high relatedness. Here a new explanation is developed of the biological processes that favour policing. The model is then extended in two ways. First, more realism is added to the theory by accounting for the full range of costs and benefits associated with competitive and cooperative traits within groups. Second, another
surprising result is introduced about cooperative evolution. Small variations in individual vigour or resources can lead to large variations in individual contributions to policing the group. Stronger individuals often invest all of their excess resources into policing, but weaker individuals do not contribute to group cohesion.
|
Nishida, T., & Hosaka K. (1996). Coalition strategies among adult male chimpanzees of the Mahale Mountains, Tanzania. In W. C. McGrew, L. F. Marchant, & T. Nishida (Eds.), Great Ape Societies. (pp. 114–135). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
|
Tomasello, M. (1996). Do apes ape? In C. M. Heyes, & B. G. Galef (Eds.), Social learning in animals: the roots of culture (pp. 319–346). London: Academic Press.
|