|
Seyfarth, R. M., & Cheney, D. L. (2003). The Structure of Social Knowledge in Monkeys. In F. B. M. de Waal, & P. L. Tyack (Eds.), Animal Social Complexity: Intelligence, Culture, and Individualized Societies. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
|
|
Nicol, C. J. (2000). Equine Stereotypies. In: Houpt K.A. (Ed.),. In Recent Advances in Companion Animal Behavior Problems. International Veterinary Information Service.
|
Cheney, D. l., & Seyfarth, R. M. (2004). Social complexity and the information acquired during eavesdropping by primates and other animals. In P. K. McGregor (Ed.), Animal Communication networks. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Cambridge University Press.
Abstract: In many of the studies reviewed in this book, eavesdropping takes the
following form: a subject has the opportunity to monitor, or eavesdrop upon, an
interaction between two other animals,Aand B. The subject then uses the information
obtained through these observations to assess A`s and B`s relative dominance
or attractiveness as a mate (e.g. Mennill et al., 2002; Ch. 2). For example, Oliveira
et al. (1998) found that male fighting fish Betta splendens that had witnessed two
other males involved in an aggressive interaction subsequently responded more
strongly to the loser of that interaction than the winner. Subjects-behaviour could
not have been influenced by any inherent differences between the two males, because
subjects responded equally strongly to the winner and the loser of competitive
interactions they had not observed. Similarly, Peake et al. (2001) presented
male great tits Parus major with the opportunity to monitor an apparent competitive
interaction between two strangers by simulating a singing contest using two
loudspeakers. The relative timing of the singing bouts (as measured by the degree
of overlap between the two songs) provided information about each “contestants”
relative status. Following the singing interaction, one of the “contestants” was
introduced into the male`s territory. Males responded significantly less strongly
to singers that had apparently just “lost” the interaction (see also McGregor &
Dabelsteen, 1996; Naguib et al., 1999; Ch. 2).
What information does an individual acquire when it eavesdrops on others?
In theory, an eavesdropper could acquire information of many different sorts:
about A, about B, about the relationship between A and B, or about the place of
Animal Communication Networks, ed. Peter K. McGregor. Published by Cambridge University Press.
c.
Cambridge University Press 2005.
583
P1: JZZ/... P2: JZZ/...
0521823617c25.xml CU1917B/McGregor 0 521 582361 7 October 7, 2004 22:31
584 D. L. Cheney & R. M. Seyfarth
A`s and B`s relationship in a larger social framework. The exact information acquired
will probably reflect the particular species social structure. For example,
songbirds like great tits live in communities in which six or seven neighbours
surround each territory-holding male. Males appear to benefit from the knowledge
that certain individuals occupy specific areas (e.g. Brooks & Falls, 1975), that
competitive interactions between two different neighbours have particular outcomes,
and that these outcomes are stable over time. We would, therefore, expect
an eavesdropping great tit not only to learn that neighbour A was dominant to
neighbour B, for example, but also to form the expectation that A was likely to
defeat B in all future encounters. More speculatively, because the outcome of territorial
interactions are often site specific (reviewed by Bradbury & Vehrencamp,
1998), we would expect eavesdropping tits to learn further that A dominates B
in some areas but B dominates A in others. In contrast, the information gained
from monitoring neighbours interactions would unlikely be sufficient to allow
the eavesdropper to rank all of its neighbours in a linear dominance hierarchy,
because not all neighbouring males would come into contact with one another.
Such information would be difficult if not impossible to acquire; it might also be
of little functional value.
In contrast, species that live in large, permanent social groups have a much
greater opportunity to monitor the social interactions of many different individuals
simultaneously. Monkey species such as baboons Papio cynocephalus, for
example, typically live in groups of 80 or more individuals, which include several
matrilineal families arranged in a stable, linear dominance rank order (Silk et al.,
1999). Offspring assume ranks similar to those of their mothers, and females maintain
close bonds with their matrilineal kin throughout their lives. Cutting across
these stable long-term relationships based on rank and kinship are more transient
bonds: for example, the temporary associations formed between unrelated
females whose infants are of similar ages, and the “friendships” formed between
adult males and lactating females as an apparent adaptation against infanticide
(Palombit et al., 1997, 2001). In order to compete successfully within such groups, it
would seem advantageous for individuals to recognize who outranks whom, who
is closely bonded to whom, and who is likely to be allied to whom (Harcourt, 1988,
1992; Cheney & Seyfarth, 1990; see below). The ability to adopt a third party`s perspective
and discriminate among the social relationships that exist among others
would seem to be of great selective benefit.
In this chapter, we review evidence for eavesdropping in selected primate
species and we consider what sort of information is acquired when one individual
observes or listens in on the interactions of others. We then compare eavesdropping
by primates with eavesdropping in other animal species, focusing on both
potential differences and directions for further research
|
Mendl M, H. Z. Living in gourps: Evolutionary Perspective. In Social Behavior in Farm Animals.
Abstract: An understanding of social behavior is increasingly necessary in farm animal husbandry as more animals are housed in groups rather than in individual stalls or pens. There may be economic or welfare reasons for such housing. This book is the first to specifically address this important subject. The chapters fall into three broad subject areas: concepts in social behavior; species specific chapters; current issues. Authors include leading experts from Europe, North America, Australia and New Zealand.
|
Allen, C. (2006). Transitive inference in animals: Reasoning or conditioned associations? In S. Hurley, & M. Nudds (Eds.), Rational Animals? (pp. 175–186). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Abstract: It is widely accepted that many species of nonhuman animals appear to engage in transitive inference,
producing appropriate responses to novel pairings of non-adjacent members of an ordered series
without previous experience of these pairings. Some researchers have taken this capability as
providing direct evidence that these animals reason. Others resist such declarations, favouring instead
explanations in terms of associative conditioning. Associative accounts of transitive inference have
been refined in application to a simple 5-element learning task that is the main paradigm for
laboratory investigations of the phenomenon, but it remains unclear how well those accounts
generalise to more information-rich environments such as social hierarchies which may contain scores
of individuals, and where rapid learning is important. The case of transitive inference is an example of
a more general dispute between proponents of associative accounts and advocates of more cognitive
accounts of animal behaviour. Examination of the specific details of transitive inference suggests
some lessons for the wider debate.
|
|
Epstein H,. (1971). Wild horses – Recent and extinct. In In: The origin of the domestic animals of Africa II (pp. 401–417).
|
|
Epstein H,. (1984). Ass, mule and onager. In In Manson: Evolution of domesticatd animals. (pp. 174–184).
|
|
HAFEZ, E. S. E., WILLIAMS, M., & WIERZBOWSKI, S. (1962). The Behaviour of Horses..
|
|
Rubenstein, D. I. (1994). The ecology of female social behaviour in horses, zebras and asses. In P. J. Jarman, & A. R. (Eds.), Animal Societies (pp. 13–28). Kyoto University Press.
|
Merkies, K., McKechnie, M. J., & Zakrajsek, E. (2018). Behavioural and physiological responses of therapy horses to mentally traumatized humans. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, .
Abstract: The benefits to humans of equine-assisted therapy (EAT) have been well-researched, however few studies have analyzed the effects on the horse. Understanding how differing mental states of humans affect the behaviour and response of the horse can assist in providing optimal outcomes for both horse and human. Four humans clinically diagnosed and under care of a psychotherapist for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) were matched physically to four neurotypical control humans and individually subjected to each of 17 therapy horses loose in a round pen. A professional acting coach instructed the control humans in replicating the physical movements of their paired PTSD individual. Both horses and humans were equipped with a heart rate (HR) monitor recording HR every 5secs. Saliva samples were collected from each horse 30 min before and 30 min after each trial to analyze cortisol concentrations. Each trial consisted of 5 min of baseline observation of the horse alone in the round pen after which the human entered the round pen for 2 min, followed by an additional 5 min of the horse alone. Behavioural observations indicative of stress in the horse (gait, head height, ear orientation, body orientation, distance from the human, latency of approach to the human, vocalizations, and chewing) were retrospectively collected from video recordings of each trial and analyzed using a repeated measures GLIMMIX with Tukey's multiple comparisons for differences between treatments and time periods. Horses moved slower (p < 0.0001), carried their head lower (p < 0.0001), vocalized less (p < 0.0001), and chewed less (p < 0.0001) when any human was present with them in the round pen. Horse HR increased in the presence of the PTSD humans, even after the PTSD human left the pen (p < 0.0001). Since two of the PTSD/control human pairs were experienced with horses and two were not, a post-hoc analysis showed that horses approached quicker (p < 0.016) and stood closer (p < 0.0082) to humans who were experienced with horses. Horse HR was lower when with inexperienced humans (p < 0.0001) whereas inexperienced human HR was higher (p < 0.0001). Horse salivary cortisol did not differ between exposure to PTSD and control humans (p > 0.32). Overall, behavioural and physiological responses of horses to humans are more pronounced based on human experience with horses than whether the human is diagnosed with a mental disorder. This may be a reflection of a directness of movement associated with humans who are experienced with horses that makes the horse more attentive. It appears that horses respond more to physical cues from the human rather than emotional cues. This knowledge is important in tailoring therapy programs and justifying horse responses when interacting with a patient in a therapy setting.
|
