| Home | [21–30] << 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 >> [41–50] |
|
R. A. J. Taylor. (1981). The Behavioural Basis of Redistribution I. The Delta -Model Concept. T. J. Anim. Ecol., 50(2), 573–586.
Abstract: (1) A conceptual model is developed in which spatial behaviour is density-dependent. The behaviour is classified as congregatory or migratory according to whether it results in movement towards or away from population concentrations. (2) Spatial behaviour is shown to result from both individual and population interactions. (3) The stability properties of the model are explored and it is shown how, under particular conditions, populations obeying the model have a population density regulating mechanism. (4) The similarity between the model and the potential energy curve of physics is noted, but it is emphasized that this is a behavioural not a physical model.
|
|
Ellis, L. (1995). Dominance and reproductive success among nonhuman animals: A cross-species comparison. Ethol. a. Sociob., 16(4), 257–333.
Abstract: This paper updates and extends Dewsbury's (1982) review of the literature on dominance and reproductive success (RS). The findings from approximately 700 studies are included, over two thirds of which were unavailable to Dewsbury. In order to give a highly condensed and yet meaningful overview, the main findings are represented in four tables, one for male nonprimates, one for female nonprimates, one for male primates, and one for female primates. In the tables for males, findings are analyzed in terms of six different indicators of RS, and in the tables for females, in terms of eight RS indicators. Outside the primate order, evidence largely supported the hypothesis that high-ranking males enjoy greater RS than do subordinate males. For females, studies are more evenly divided between those supporting the hypothesis that high rank and RS are positively correlated and those indicating no significant rank-RS relationship. This may reflect both the lower saliency of hierarchical relationships among females, as well as the lower variability in RS among females, relative to males. Among primates, a complex picture has emerged, especially in the case of males. Much of the complexity appears due to the importance of age and seniority in affecting dominance rank. Also, in some primate species, female preferences for sex partners seem to have little to do with the male's dominance rank, at least at the time mating takes place. Nevertheless, the majority of studies suggest that high- to middle-ranking males have at least a slight lifetime reproductive advantage over the lowest ranking males.
|
|
Izar, P., Ferreira, R. G., & Sato, T. (2006). Describing the organization of dominance relationships by dominance-directed tree method. Am. J. Primatol., 68(2), 189–207.
Abstract: Methods to describe dominance hierarchies are a key tool in primatology studies. Most current methods are appropriate for analyzing linear and near-linear hierarchies; however, more complex structures are common in primate groups. We propose a method termed “dominance-directed tree.” This method is based on graph theory and set theory to analyze dominance relationships in social groups. The method constructs a transitive matrix by imposing transitivity to the dominance matrix and produces a graphical representation of the dominance relationships, which allows an easy visualization of the hierarchical position of the individuals, or subsets of individuals. The method is also able to detect partial and complete hierarchies, and to describe situations in which hierarchical and nonhierarchical principles operate. To illustrate the method, we apply a dominance tree analysis to artificial data and empirical data from a group of Cebus apella.
Keywords: Animals; Cebus/physiology; *Models, Biological; *Social Dominance
|
|
Sondergaard, E., & Ladewig, J. (2004). Group housing exerts a positive effect on the behaviour of young horses during training. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 87(1-2), 105–118.
Abstract: In an experiment on the effects of social environment and training on the human-animal relationship, 20 horses were handled according to a defined schedule. Eight horses were housed singly and 12 horses were housed in four groups of 3 horses. Horses were handled three times per week in 10 min sessions from an age of 6 months until 2 years of age during two winter periods. A total of 50 and 70 sessions were given in the first and second period, respectively. Five randomly allocated people performed the training. The training scheme involved leading, tying up, touching, lifting feet, etc. in 43 stages. The horse had to fulfil the performance criteria of each stage in order to get to the next stage. In the first winter period, horses were led to the stable when they had “passed” a stage or after 10 min of training. In the second winter period, horses would start off at stage 1 again, and when they “passed” a stage they went on to the next stage within the same training session. Because of the change in training procedure results were analysed separately for the two winter periods. There was a significant difference between trainers in the number of times they allowed a horse to “pass” a stage within each winter period (χ32, P<0.05; χ32, P<0.001 for the first and the second winter period, respectively). Group housed horses “passed” more stages than single housed horses (17 versus 14; 27 versus 18 in the first and second winter period, respectively; P<0.05 for the interaction). Singly housed horses bit the trainer more frequently than did group housed horses (P<0.01). The responses of group housed horses to training clearly demonstrate the benefits of raising young horses in groups.
Keywords: Horses; Housing; Human-animal relationship; Social environment; Training; Learning
|
|
Reed, P., Skiera, F., Adams, L., & Heyes, C. M. (1996). Effects of Isolation Rearing and Mirror Exposure on Social and Asocial Discrimination Performance. Learn. Motiv., 27(2), 113–129.
Abstract: Four experiments examined the effects of rearing in isolation on rats performance on discrimination-based and social learning tasks. After demonstrating that the rearing procedures produced similar results in an open field task to those previously established (Experiment 1), rats were subjected to two discrimination tasks: an instrumental occasion setting procedure (Experiment 3) and a nonspatial win-stay/lose-shift versus win-shift/lose-stay procedure (Experiment 4). Deficits in acquisition of the necessary discriminations were noted in the rats raised in isolation, but there were no differences between isolation-reared and socially reared subjects in response acquisition per se. In Experiment 2, rats were presented with an observational learning task using the bidirectional control procedure. Socially reared rats had a tendency to imitate the behavior they had observed, but rats raised in isolation performed the opposite behavior to that observed, indicating a failure to use a conspecific as a reference point in the task. The presence of a mirror during rearing in isolation was also investigated, but was found to have little effect in attenuating the above deficits in behavior.
|
|
Baer, K. L., Potter, G. D., Friend, T. H., & Beaver, B. V. (1983). Observation effects on learning in horses. Appl. Animal. Ethol., 11(2), 123–129.
Abstract: Sixteen horses, divided into 2 groups of 8, were used to study observational learning in horses. One group served as controls while the other group served as the treated group (observers). Observers were allowed to watch a correctly performed discrimination task for 5 days prior to testing their learning response using the same task. Discrimination testing was conducted on all horses daily for 14 days, with criterion set at 7 out of 8 responses correct with the last 5 consecutively correct. The maximum number of trials performed without reaching criterion was limited to 20 per day. Mean trials to criteria (MT) by group were: control, 11.25; observer, 10.70. Mean error (ME) scores were: control, 2.37; observer, 2.02. Average initial discrimination error scores were 11.13 for control and 10.38 for observers (P < 0.10). Asymptote was reached by Day 8 for both control and observer groups. Analysis of variance with repeated measures showed an extreme-day effect indicative of learning (P < 0.01), with non-significant differences in learning rate between experimental groups. Whether the initial ability of the horses to perform a discrimination learning task was enhanced by observation of other horses' performance of that task was not obvious from these data.
|
|
Horner, V., & Whiten, A. (2007). Learning from others' mistakes limits on understanding a trap-tube task by young chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) and children (Homo sapiens). J Comp Psychol, 121(1), 12–21.
Abstract: A trap-tube task was used to determine whether chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) and children (Homo sapiens) who observed a model's errors and successes could master the task in fewer trials than those who saw only successes. Two- to 7-year-old chimpanzees and 3- to 4-year-old children did not benefit from observing errors and found the task difficult. Two of the 6 chimpanzees developed a successful anticipatory strategy but showed no evidence of representing the core causal relations involved in trapping. Three- to 4-year-old children showed a similar limitation and tended to copy the actions of the demonstrator, irrespective of their causal relevance. Five- to 6-year-old children were able to master the task but did not appear to be influenced by social learning or benefit from observing errors.
|
|
Whiten, A., Horner, V., Litchfield, C. A., & Marshall-Pescini, S. (2004). How do apes ape? Learn. Behav., 32(1), 36–52.
Abstract: In the wake of telling critiques of the foundations on which earlier conclusions were based, the last 15 years have witnessed a renaissance in the study of social learning in apes. As a result, we are able to review 31 experimental studies from this period in which social learning in chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans has been investigated. The principal question framed at the beginning of this era, Do apes ape? has been answered in the affirmative, at least in certain conditions. The more interesting question now is, thus, How do apes ape? Answering this question has engendered richer taxonomies of the range of social-learning processes at work and new methodologies to uncover them. Together, these studies suggest that apes ape by employing a portfolio of alternative social-learning processes in flexibly adaptive ways, in conjunction with nonsocial learning. We conclude by sketching the kind of decision tree that appears to underlie the deployment of these alternatives.
|
|
Caldwell, C. A., & Whiten, A. (2004). Testing for social learning and imitation in common marmosets, Callithrix jacchus, using an artificial fruit. Anim. Cogn., 7(2), 77–85.
Abstract: We tested for social learning and imitation in common marmosets using an artificial foraging task and trained conspecific demonstrators. We trained a demonstrator marmoset to open an artificial fruit, providing a full demonstration of the task to be learned. Another marmoset provided a partial demonstration, controlling for stimulus enhancement effects, by eating food from the outside of the apparatus. We thus compared three observer groups, each consisting of four animals: those that received the full demonstration, those that received the partial demonstration, and a control group that saw no demonstration prior to testing. Although none of the observer marmosets succeeded in opening the artificial fruit during the test periods, there were clear effects of demonstration type. Those that saw the full demonstration manipulated the apparatus more overall, whereas those from the control group manipulated it the least of the three groups. Those from the full-demonstration group also contacted the particular parts of the artificial fruit that they had seen touched (localised stimulus enhancement) to a greater extent than the other two groups. There was also an interaction between the number of hand and mouth touches made to the artificial fruit for the full- and partial-demonstration groups. Whether or not these data represent evidence for imitation is discussed. We also propose that the clear differences between the groups suggest that social learning mechanisms provide real benefits to these animals in terms of developing novel food-processing skills analogous to the one presented here.
|
|
Horowitz, A. C. (2003). Do humans ape? Or do apes human? Imitation and intention in humans (Homo sapiens) and other animals. J Comp Psychol, 117(3), 325–336.
Abstract: A. Whiten, D. M. Custance, J.-C. Gomez, P. Teixidor, and K. A. Bard (1996) tested chimpanzees' (Pan troglodytes) and human children's (Homo sapiens) skills at imitation with a 2-action test on an “artificial fruit.” Chimpanzees imitated to a restricted degree; children were more thoroughly imitative. Such results prompted some to assert that the difference in imitation indicates a difference in the subjects' understanding of the intentions of the demonstrator (M. Tomasello, 1996). In this experiment, 37 adult human subjects were tested with the artificial fruit. Far from being perfect imitators, the adults were less imitative than the children. These results cast doubt on the inference from imitative performance to an ability to understand others' intentions. The results also demonstrate how any test of imitation requires a control group and attention to the level of behavioral analysis.
|