| Records |
| Author |
Massen, J.; Sterck, E.; de Vos, H. |
Title  |
Close social associations in animals and humans: functions and mechanisms of friendship |
Type |
|
| Year |
2010 |
Publication |
Behaviour |
Abbreviated Journal |
|
| Volume |
147 |
Issue |
11 |
Pages |
1379 |
| Keywords |
Both humans and group-living animals associate and behave affiliatively more with some individuals than others. Human friendship has long been acknowledged, and recently scientists studying animal behaviour have started using the term friendship for close social associates in animals. Yet, while biologists describe friends as social tools to enhance fitness, social scientists describe human friendship as unconditional. We investigate whether these different descriptions reflect true differences in human friendship and animal close social associations or are a by-product of different research approaches: namely social scientists focussing on proximate and biologists on ultimate explanations. We first stress the importance of similar measures to determine close social associations, thereafter examine their ultimate benefits and proximate motivations, and discuss the latest findings on the central-neural regulation of social bonds. We conclude that both human friendship and animal close social associations are ultimately beneficial. On the proximate level, motivations for friendship in humans and for close social associations in animals are not necessarily based on benefits and are often unconditional. Moreover, humans share with many animals a similar physiological basis of sociality. Therefore, biologists and social scientist describe the same phenomenon, and the use of the term friendship for animals seems justified. |
| Abstract |
Both humans and group-living animals associate and behave affiliatively more with some individuals than others. Human friendship has long been acknowledged, and recently scientists studying animal behaviour have started using the term friendship for close social associates in animals. Yet, while biologists describe friends as social tools to enhance fitness, social scientists describe human friendship as unconditional. We investigate whether these different descriptions reflect true differences in human friendship and animal close social associations or are a by-product of different research approaches: namely social scientists focussing on proximate and biologists on ultimate explanations. We first stress the importance of similar measures to determine close social associations, thereafter examine their ultimate benefits and proximate motivations, and discuss the latest findings on the central-neural regulation of social bonds. We conclude that both human friendship and animal close social associations are ultimately beneficial. On the proximate level, motivations for friendship in humans and for close social associations in animals are not necessarily based on benefits and are often unconditional. Moreover, humans share with many animals a similar physiological basis of sociality. Therefore, biologists and social scientist describe the same phenomenon, and the use of the term friendship for animals seems justified. |
| Address |
|
| Corporate Author |
|
Thesis |
|
| Publisher |
|
Place of Publication |
|
Editor |
|
| Language |
|
Summary Language |
|
Original Title |
|
| Series Editor |
|
Series Title |
|
Abbreviated Series Title |
|
| Series Volume |
|
Series Issue |
|
Edition |
|
| ISSN |
|
ISBN |
|
Medium |
|
| Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
| Notes |
|
Approved |
no |
| Call Number |
Equine Behaviour @ team @ |
Serial |
5813 |
| Permanent link to this record |
| |
|
| |
| Author |
Silk, J.; Cheney, D.; Seyfarth, R. |
| Title |
A practical guide to the study of social relationships |
Type |
Journal Article |
| Year |
2013 |
Publication |
Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews |
Abbreviated Journal |
Evol. Anthropol. |
| Volume |
22 |
Issue |
5 |
Pages |
213-225 |
| Keywords |
observational methods; behavioral analysis; methods; dyadic relationships; social bonds |
| Abstract |
Behavioral ecologists have devoted considerable effort to identifying the sources of variation in individual reproductive success. Much of this work has focused on the characteristics of individuals, such as their sex and rank. However, many animals live in stable social groups and the fitness of individuals depends at least in part on the outcome of their interactions with other group members. For example, in many primate species, high dominance rank enhances access to resources and reproductive success. The ability to acquire and maintain high rank often depends on the availability and effectiveness of coalitionary support. Allies may be cultivated and coalitions may be reinforced by affiliative interactions such as grooming, food sharing, and tolerance. These findings suggest that if we want to understand the selective pressures that shape the social behavior of primates, it will be profitable to broaden our focus from the characteristics of individuals to the properties of the relationships that they form with others. The goal of this paper is to discuss a set of methods that can be used to quantify the properties of social relationships. |
| Address |
|
| Corporate Author |
|
Thesis |
|
| Publisher |
|
Place of Publication |
|
Editor |
|
| Language |
|
Summary Language |
|
Original Title |
|
| Series Editor |
|
Series Title |
|
Abbreviated Series Title |
|
| Series Volume |
|
Series Issue |
|
Edition |
|
| ISSN |
1520-6505 |
ISBN |
|
Medium |
|
| Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
| Notes |
|
Approved |
no |
| Call Number |
Equine Behaviour @ team @ |
Serial |
5748 |
| Permanent link to this record |
