|
|
Custance DM, Whiten A, & Bard KA. (1995). Can young chimpanzees imitate arbitrary actions? Hayes and Hayes (1952) revisited. Behavior, 132, 839.
|
|
|
|
Saleh, N., & Chittka, L. (2006). The importance of experience in the interpretation of conspecific chemical signals. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol., 61(2), 215–220.
Abstract: Abstract Foraging bumblebees scent mark flowers with hydrocarbon secretions. Several studies have found these scent marks act as a repellent to bee foragers. This was thought to minimize the risk of visiting recently depleted flowers. Some studies, however, have found a reverse, attractive effect of scent marks left on flowers. Do bees mark flowers with different scents, or could the same scent be interpreted differently depending on the bees? previous experience with reward levels in flowers? We use a simple experimental design to investigate if the scent marks can become attractive when bees forage on artificial flowers that remain rewarding upon the bees? return after having depleted them. We contrast this with bees trained in the more natural scenario where revisits to recently emptied flowers are unrewarding. The bees association between scent mark and reward value was tested with flowers scent marked from the same source. We find that the bees experience with the level of reward determines how the scent mark is interpreted: the same scent can act as both an attractant and a repellent. How experience and learning influence the interpretation of the meaning of chemical signals deposited by animals for communication has rarely been investigated.
|
|
|
|
Dugatkin, L. A., & Alfieri, M. (1991). Guppies and the TIT FOR TAT strategy: preference based on past interaction. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol., 28(4), 243–246.
Abstract: The evolution of cooperation requires either (a) nonrandom interactions, such that cooperators preferentially interact with other cooperators, or (b) conditional behaviors, such that individuals act cooperatively primarily towards other cooperators. Although these conditions can be met without assuming sophisticated animal cognition, they are more likely to be met if animals can remember individuals with whom they have interacted, associate past interactions with these individuals, and base future behavior on this information. Here we show that guppies (Poecilia reticulata), in the context of predator inspection behavior, can identify and remember (for at least 4 h) the “more cooperative” among two conspecifics and subsequently choose to be near these individuals in future encounters.
|
|
|
|
Sluyter F., Arseneault L., Moffitt T.E., Veenema A.H., de Boer S., & Koolhaas J.M. (2003). Toward an Animal Model for Antisocial Behavior: Parallels Between Mice and Humans: Aggression. Behavior Genetics, 33, 563–574.
|
|
|
|
Kurtzman H.S., Church R.M., & Crystal J.D. (2002). Data archiving for animal cognition research: Report of an NIMH workshop. Animal Learning & Behavior, 30, 405–412.
|
|
|
|
McGreevy, P. D. (2004).
|
|
|
|
Waring, G. H. (2003).
|
|
|
|
Grzimek, B. (1968). On the Psychology of the Horse. Man and Animal: Studies in Behavior, , 37–46.
|
|
|
|
Boitani, L. (1982). Patterns of homesites attendance in two Minnesota wolf packs. In F. H. Harrington, & P. C. Paquet (Eds.), Wolves of the World: Perspectives of Behavior, Ecology and Conservation. New York: Noyes, Park Ridge.
|
|
|
|
Zentall, T. R. (2001). The case for a cognitive approach to animal learning and behavior. Behav Processes, 54(1-3), 65–78.
Abstract: The dangers of hypothesizing about unobservable cognitive mechanisms are well known to behavior analysts. I propose, however, that carefully fashioned cognitive theories that make predictions that are inconsistent with current behavioral theories can provide useful research tools for the understanding of behavior. Furthermore, even if the results of such research may be accommodated by modifying existing behavioral theories, our understanding of behavior is often advanced by the empirical findings because it is unlikely that the research would have been conducted in the absence of such cognitive hypothesizing. Two examples of the development of emergent relations are described: The first deals with the nature of a pigeon's 'representation' of two stimuli both of which are associated with correct responding to a third in a many-to-one matching task (stimulus equivalence or common representations). The second has to do with transitive inference, the emergent relation between two stimuli mediated by their relation to a common stimulus in a simultaneous discrimination.
|
|
