|
|
Van Schaik, C. (2006). Why are some animals so smart? Sci Am, 294(4), 64–71.
|
|
|
|
Flack, J. C., de Waal, F. B. M., & Krakauer, D. C. (2005). Social structure, robustness, and policing cost in a cognitively sophisticated species. Am Nat, 165(5), E126–139.
Abstract: Conflict management is one of the primary requirements for social complexity. Of the many forms of conflict management, one of the rarest and most interesting is third-party policing, or intervening impartially to control conflict. Third-party policing should be hard to evolve because policers personally pay a cost for intervening, while the benefits are diffused over the whole group. In this study we investigate the incidence and costs of policing in a primate society. We report quantitative evidence of non-kin policing in the nonhuman primate, the pigtailed macaque. We find that policing is effective at reducing the intensity of or terminating conflict when performed by the most powerful individuals. We define a measure, social power consensus, that predicts effective low-cost interventions by powerful individuals and ineffective, relatively costly interventions by low-power individuals. Finally, we develop a simple probabilistic model to explore whether the degree to which policing can effectively reduce the societal cost of conflict is dependent on variance in the distribution of power. Our data and simple model suggest that third-party policing effectiveness and cost are dependent on power structure and might emerge only in societies with high variance in power.
|
|
|
|
Kaplan, A. I., & Borodovskii, M. I. (1989). [Alternative animal behavior: a model and its statistical characteristics]. Nauchnye Doki Vyss Shkoly Biol Nauki, (3), 29–32.
Abstract: The rats' alternative behaviour in T-maze at simultaneous two-sided food refreshment in 13 trials a day during 6 days has been studied. It has been found that in the first testing days the indexes of alternative behaviour of animals correspond to the characteristics of the random alternation. However, on the 5-6th day of testing in the overwhelming majority of rats the true deviation of alternation index above or below than the theoretical values has been revealed. A question on the existence of two strategies of cognitive behaviour alteration and perseveration in rat population is under discussion.
|
|
|
|
Virga, V., & Houpt, K. A. (2001). Prevalence of placentophagia in horses. Equine Vet J, 33(2), 208–210.
|
|
|
|
Zentall, T. R. (2006). Mental time travel in animals: a challenging question. Behav. Process., 72(2), 173–183.
Abstract: Humans have the ability to mentally recreate past events (using episodic memory) and imagine future events (by planning). The best evidence for such mental time travel is personal and thus subjective. For this reason, it is particularly difficult to study such behavior in animals. There is some indirect evidence, however, that animals have both episodic memory and the ability to plan for the future. When unexpectedly asked to do so, animals can report about their recent past experiences (episodic memory) and they also appear to be able to use the anticipation of a future event as the basis for a present action (planning). Thus, the ability to imagine past and future events may not be uniquely human.
|
|
|
|
Klein, E. D., & Zentall, T. R. (2003). Imitation and affordance learning by pigeons (Columba livia). J Comp Psychol, 117(4), 414–419.
Abstract: The bidirectional control procedure was used to determine whether pigeons (Columba livia) would imitate a demonstrator that pushed a sliding screen for food. One group of observers saw a trained demonstrator push a sliding screen door with its beak (imitation group), whereas 2 other groups watched the screen move independently (possibly learning how the environment works) with a conspecific either present (affordance learning with social facilitation) or absent (affordance learning alone). A 4th group could not see the screen being pushed (sound and odor control). Imitation was evidenced by the finding that pigeons that saw a demonstrator push the screen made a higher proportion of matching screen pushes than observers in 2 appropriate control conditions. Further, observers that watched a screen move without a demonstrator present made a significantly higher proportion of matching screen pushes than would be expected by chance. Thus, these pigeons were capable of affordance learning.
|
|
|
|
Heyes, C. M. (1994). Social learning in animals: categories and mechanisms. Biol. Rev., 69(2), 207–231.
Abstract: There has been relatively little research on the psychological mechanisms of social learning. This may be due, in part, to the practice of distinguishing categories of social learning in relation to ill-defined mechanisms (Davis, 1973; Galef, 1988). This practice both makes it difficult to identify empirically examples of different types of social learning, and gives the false impression that the mechanisms responsible for social learning are clearly understood. It has been proposed that social learning phenomena be subsumed within the categorization scheme currently used by investigators of asocial learning. This scheme distinguishes categories of learning according to observable conditions, namely, the type of experience that gives rise to a change in an animal (single stimulus vs. stimulus-stimulus relationship vs. response-reinforcer relationship), and the type of behaviour in which this change is detected (response evocation vs. learnability) (Rescorla, 1988). Specifically, three alignments have been proposed: (i) stimulus enhancement with single stimulus learning, (ii) observational conditioning with stimulus-stimulus learning, or Pavlovian conditioning, and (iii) observational learning with response-reinforcer learning, or instrumental conditioning. If, as the proposed alignments suggest, the conditions of social and asocial learning are the same, there is some reason to believe that the mechanisms underlying the two sets of phenomena are also the same. This is so if one makes the relatively uncontroversial assumption that phenomena which occur under similar conditions tend to be controlled by similar mechanisms. However, the proposed alignments are intended to be a set of hypotheses, rather than conclusions, about the mechanisms of social learning; as a basis for further research in which animal learning theory is applied to social learning. A concerted attempt to apply animal learning theory to social learning, to find out whether the same mechanisms are responsible for social and asocial learning, could lead both to refinements of the general theory, and to a better understanding of the mechanisms of social learning. There are precedents for these positive developments in research applying animal learning theory to food aversion learning (e.g. Domjan, 1983; Rozin & Schull, 1988) and imprinting (e.g. Bolhuis, de Vox & Kruit, 1990; Hollis, ten Cate & Bateson, 1991). Like social learning, these phenomena almost certainly play distinctive roles in the antogeny of adaptive behaviour, and they are customarily regarded as 'special kinds' of learning (Shettleworth, 1993).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)
|
|
|
|
Cooper, J. J. (1998). Comparative learning theory and its application in the training of horses. Equine Vet J Suppl, (27), 39–43.
Abstract: Training can best be explained as a process that occurs through stimulus-response-reinforcement chains, whereby animals are conditioned to associate cues in their environment, with specific behavioural responses and their rewarding consequences. Research into learning in horses has concentrated on their powers of discrimination and on primary positive reinforcement schedules, where the correct response is paired with a desirable consequence such as food. In contrast, a number of other learning processes that are used in training have been widely studied in other species, but have received little scientific investigation in the horse. These include: negative reinforcement, where performance of the correct response is followed by removal of, or decrease in, intensity of a unpleasant stimulus; punishment, where an incorrect response is paired with an undesirable consequence, but without consistent prior warning; secondary conditioning, where a natural primary reinforcer such as food is closely associated with an arbitrary secondary reinforcer such as vocal praise; and variable or partial conditioning, where once the correct response has been learnt, reinforcement is presented according to an intermittent schedule to increase resistance to extinction outside of training.
|
|
|
|
Crowell-Davis, S. L., & Houpt, K. A. (1986). Techniques for taking a behavioral history. Vet Clin North Am Equine Pract, 2(3), 507–518.
Abstract: A thorough behavioral history is essential for adequate assessment of a given case. In reviewing the chief complaint, a description of what actually happened, rather than the owner's interpretation of what happened, is required. Other behavior problems, environment, rearing history, and training need to be reviewed. Sample question sets for some common problems are given.
|
|
|
|
Heinrich, B., & Bugnyar, T. (2007). Just how smart are ravens? Sci Am, 296(4), 64–71.
|
|
