Kerth, G. (2010). Group decision-making in animal societies. In P. Kappeler (Ed.), Animal Behaviour: Evolution and Mechanisms (pp. 241–265). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
Abstract: Individuals need to coordinate their activities to benefit from group living. Thus group decisions are essential for societies, especially if group members cooperate with each other. Models show that shared (democratic) decisions outperform unshared (despotic) decisions, even if individuals disagree about actions. This is surprising as in most other contexts, differences in individual preferences lead to sex-, age-, or kin-specific behaviour. Empirical studies testing the predictions of the theoretical models have only recently begun to emerge. This applies particularly to group decisions in fission-fusion societies, where individuals can avoid decisions that are not in their interest. After outlining the basic ideas and theoretical models on group decision-making I focus on the available empirical studies. Originally most of the relevant studies have been on social insects and fish but recently an increasing number of studies on mammals and birds have been published, including some that deal with wild long-lived animals living in complex societies. This includes societies where group members have different interests, as in most mammals, and which have been less studied compared to eusocial insects that normally have no conflict among their colony members about what to do. I investigate whether the same decision rules apply in societies with conflict and without conflict, and outline open questions that remain to be studied. The chapter concludes with a synthesis on what is known about group decision-making in animals and an outlook on what I think should be done to answer the open questions.
|
|
Parrish, J. K., & Viscido, S. V. (2005). Traffic rules of fish schools: A review of agent-based approaches. In C. K. Hemelrijk (Ed.), Self-organisation and the evolution of social behaviour. (pp. 50–80). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
|
|
Boyd, L., & Keiper, R. (2005). Behavioural ecology of feral horses. In D. S. Mills, & McDonnell S. M. (Eds.), The domestic horse: the origins, development, and management of its behaviour. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
|
|
Goodall, J. (1973). Cultural elements in a chimpanzee community. In E. W. Menzel (Ed.), Precultural primate behaviour (Vol. 1, pp. 144–184). Basel: Karger.
|
|
Clutton-Brock, J. (1995). Origins of the dog: domestication and early history. In J. A. Serpell (Ed.), The Domestic Dog: Its Evolution, Behaviour and Interactions with People. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
|
|
Byrne R.W. (1994). The evolution of intelligence. In P.J.B. Slater and T.R. Halliday (Ed.), Behaviour and Evolution (pp. 223–265). Cambridge,UK: Cambridge University Press.
|
|
HAFEZ, E. S. E., WILLIAMS, M., & WIERZBOWSKI, S. (1962). The Behaviour of Horses..
|
|
Lieberman, D. (1993).
|
|
Mills, D. S., & Nankervis, K. J. (1999).
|
Gorecka, A., Golonka, M., Chruszczewski, M., & Jezierski, T. (2007). A note on behaviour and heart rate in horses differing in facial hair whorl. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 105(1-3), 244–248.
Abstract: The relationship between facial hair whorl position and reactivity, as assessed by behavioural measures (handling score = HS; startle reaction to a suddenly appearing novel object = SR; latency to touch a novel object = LNO) and heart rate measures (mean HR; increase in heart rate = IHR) were studied using 55 Konik horses reared either under conventional stable conditions or in the forest reserve. Horses were classified into four groups according to the whorl position and/or shape: (1) high, single whorl above the top eye line, n = 9; (2) medium, single whorl between the top and the bottom eye line, n = 30; (3) low, single whorl below the bottom eye line, n = 10; and (4) elongated or double whorl, n = 6. Horses with a high whorl position demonstrated a lesser degree of manageability as expressed by a lower HS compared to individuals with medium (P = 0.002) or low whorl positions (P = 0.016). Horses with different whorl positions did not differ significantly in their startle response to a suddenly appearing novel object (P = 0.685). The horses with an elongated or double whorl, which appeared only in the forest group, took significantly longer to approach the novel object than horses with medium (P = 0.006) or low (P = 0.005) whorl positions. No significant differences in mean HR and IHR between groups (HR: P = 0.629 and IHR: P = 0.214) were found. In conclusion, this study supports the relationship between the position of the hair whorl on the horses' head and their manageability during handling, as well as the latency to approach an unknown object.
|
