Harlow, H. F. (1950). Learning and satiation of response in intrinsically motivated complex puzzle performance by monkeys. J Comp Physiol Psychol, 43(4), 289–294.
Abstract: Two rhesus monkeys, given 60 two-hour sessions with a six-device mechanical puzzle showed clear evidence of learning, the curve showing ratio of incorrect to correct responses appearing quite comparable to similar curves obtained during externally rewarded situations. When, on the thirteenth day of tests, the subjects were presented with the puzzle 100 times at 6-minute intervals, the number of devices manipulated decreased regularly throughout the day, although there was no significant change in the number of times the problem assembly was attacked.
|
Fischhoff, I. R., Sundaresan, S. R., Cordingley, J., Larkin, H. M., Sellier, M. - J., & Rubenstein, D. I. (2007). Social relationships and reproductive state influence leadership roles in movements of plains zebra, Equus burchellii. Anim. Behav., 73(5), 825–831.
Abstract: In animal groups, collective movements emerge from individual interactions. Biologists seek to identify how characteristics of actors in these groups, and their relationships, influence the decision-making process. We distinguished two basic factors determining leadership in group choices: identity and state. We hypothesized that identity is more important to leadership in groups with stable relationships, which permit the development of habitual roles. In groups with fluid membership, particular individuals or subgroups are less likely to emerge as consistent leaders. Instead, we predicted that movement initiation in unstable groups depends on individual state at the time of the decision. We characterized how identity and reproductive state influenced leadership patterns in the movements of plains zebra. As in many other mammals, lactation in this species significantly alters water and energy needs. We investigated leadership in tightly knit harems and loosely bonded herds of multiple harems. Harem females tended to have habitual roles in the initiation of harem movement. In herds, however, we found no consistent leaders among harems. At both levels of social organization, lactation was a key determinant of leadership. In harems, lactating females were more likely to initiate movement than nonlactating females. In turn, harems containing lactating females were more likely to lead herd movements. Thus, we conclude that social relationships and reproductive state together shape the interactions that produce group behaviours. One benefit to lactating females of leading herd movements is preferential access to scarce water. Thus, leadership roles in group decisions may have fitness consequences.
|
Lingle, S., Rendall, D., Wilson, W. F., DeYoung, R. W., & Pellis, S. M. (2007). Altruism and recognition in the antipredator defence of deer: 2. Why mule deer help nonoffspring fawns. Anim. Behav., 73(5), 907–916.
Abstract: Both white-tailed deer, Odocoileus virginianus, and mule deer, O. hemionus, females defend fawns against coyotes, Canis latrans, but only mule deer defend nonoffspring conspecific and heterospecific fawns. During a predator attack, females may have to decide whether to defend a fawn while having imperfect information on its identity obtained from hearing a few distress calls. Although imperfect recognition can influence altruistic behaviour, few empirical studies have considered this point when testing functional explanations for altruism. We designed a series of playback experiments with fawn distress calls to test alternative hypotheses (by-product of parental care, kin selection, reciprocal altruism) for the mule deer's defence of nonoffspring, specifically allowing for the possibility that females mistake these fawns for their own. White-tailed deer females approached the speaker only when distress calls of white-tailed deer fawns were played and when their own fawn was hidden, suggesting that fawn defence was strictly a matter of parental care in this species. In contrast, mule deer females responded similarly and strongly, regardless of the caller's identity, the female's reproductive state (mother or nonmother) or the presence of their own offspring. The failure of mule deer females to adjust their responses to these conditions suggests that they do not defend nonoffspring because they mistake them for their own fawns. The lack of behavioural discrimination also suggests that kin selection, reciprocal altruism and defence of the offspring's area are unlikely to explain the mule deer's defence of nonoffspring. We identify causal and functional questions that still need to be addressed to understand why mule deer defend fawns so indiscriminately.
|
|
Miller, G. (2006). Animal behavior. Signs of empathy seen in mice. Science, 312(5782), 1860–1861.
|
