|
|
Hogue, M. - E., Beaugrand, J. P., & Lague, P. C. (1996). Coherent use of information by hens observing their former dominant defeating or being defeated by a stranger. Behav. Process., 38(3), 241–252.
Abstract: This study examines the role of observation during the formation of triads in female domestic hens. Results indicate that during hierarchy formation, a hen observing agonistic interactions and conflict settlement between its former dominant and a stranger uses this information when in turn confronted by the latter. Under a first condition (E, N = 15 triads), bystanders witnessed their prior dominant being defeated by a stranger before being introduced to them. In a second condition (C1, N = 16 triads), bystanders witnessed the victory of their prior dominant over a stranger. In a third condition (C2, N = 15 triads), bystanders witnessed two strangers establishing a dominance relationship before being introduced to their prior dominant and to a stranger the former had just defeated. The behavioural strategies of bystanders depended on the issue of the conflict they had witnessed. Bystanders of the E condition behaved as having no chance of defeating the stranger. They never initiated an attack against it, and upon being attacked, readily submitted in turn to the stranger. On the contrary, bystanders of the C1 condition behaved as having some chances against the stranger. They initiated attacks in 50% of cases, and won 50% of conflicts against the stranger. Under condition C2, bystanders first initiated contact with the strangers in only 27% of cases, which approximates the average of their chances for defeating the stranger. However, bystanders finally defeated the strangers in 40% of cases. These results suggest that bystanders of conditions E and C1 gained some information on the relationship existing between their prior dominant and the stranger and that they used it coherently, perhaps through transitive inference, thus contributing to the existence of transitive relationships within the triads. Alternate explanations are examined.
|
|
|
|
Cheney, D. L., & Seyfarth, R. M. (1990). The representation of social relations by monkeys. Cognition, 37(1-2), 167–196.
Abstract: Monkeys recognize the social relations that exist among others in their group. They know who associates with whom, for example, and other animals' relative dominance ranks. In addition, monkeys appear to compare types of social relations and make same/different judgments about them. In captivity, longtailed macaques (Macaca fascicularis) trained to recognize the relation between one adult female and her offspring can identify the same relation among other mother-offspring pairs, and distinguish this relation from bonds between individuals who are related in a different way. In the wild, if a vervet monkey (Cercopithecus aethiops) has seen a fight between a member of its own family and a member of Family X, this increases the likelihood that it will act aggressively toward another member of Family X. Vervets act as if they recognize some similarity between their own close associates and the close associates of others. To make such comparisons the monkeys must have some way of representing the properties of social relationships. We discuss the adaptive value of such representations, the information they contain, their structure, and their limitations.
|
|
|
|
Noë, R., de Waal, F. B., & van Hooff, J. A. (1980). Types of dominance in a chimpanzee colony. Folia Primatol (Basel), 34(1-2), 90–110.
Abstract: This study examines to what extent the concept of dominance can be used to describe the social structure of a group of semi-free-living chimpanzees. 15 behavioural variables, based on agonistic, competitive and affinitive behaviour patterns, have been compared with respect to the interindividual directions in which they occurred. In this analysis use was made of indices that reflect the position an individual occupies in the relationship structure. These indices were calculated per individual for all variables and subjected to factor analysis and cluster analysis. As a result, 13 of the variables could be grouped in three categories which have been labelled: (1) agonistic dominance; (2) bluff dominance, and (3) competitive dominance. Whereas the top positions in the hierarchies based on the first two closely related types of dominance were occupied by the adult males, the hierarchy based on the third type was headed by several adult females.
|
|
|
|
Vollmerhaus, B., Roos, H., Gerhards, H., & Knospe, C. (2003). [Phylogeny, form and function of canine teeth in the horse]. Anat Histol Embryol, 32(4), 212–217.
Abstract: The canine teeth of the horse developed phylogenically from the simple, pointed, short-rooted tooth form of the leaf eating, in pairs living, Eocene horse Hyracotherium and served up to the Oligocene as a means of defense (self preservation). In the Miocene the living conditions of the Merychippus changed and they took to eating grass and adopted as a new behavior the life in a herd. The canine teeth possibly played an important role in fights for social ranking; they changed from a crown form to knife-like shape. In the Pliohippus the canine tooth usually remained in male horses and since the Pliocene, it contributed to the fights between stallions, to ensure that the offspring only came from the strongest animals (preservation of the species). Form and construction of the canine tooth are described and discussed in detail under the above mentioned phylogenic and ethologic aspects.
|
|
|
|
Kiley, M. (1972). The vocalizations of ungulates, their causation and function. Z. Tierpsychol., 31(2), 171–222.
|
|
|
|
Overli, O., Sorensen, C., Pulman, K. G. T., Pottinger, T. G., Korzan, W., Summers, C. H., et al. (2007). Evolutionary background for stress-coping styles: relationships between physiological, behavioral, and cognitive traits in non-mammalian vertebrates. Neurosci Biobehav Rev, 31(3), 396–412.
Abstract: Reactions to stress vary between individuals, and physiological and behavioral responses tend to be associated in distinct suites of correlated traits, often termed stress-coping styles. In mammals, individuals exhibiting divergent stress-coping styles also appear to exhibit intrinsic differences in cognitive processing. A connection between physiology, behavior, and cognition was also recently demonstrated in strains of rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) selected for consistently high or low cortisol responses to stress. The low-responsive (LR) strain display longer retention of a conditioned response, and tend to show proactive behaviors such as enhanced aggression, social dominance, and rapid resumption of feed intake after stress. Differences in brain monoamine neurochemistry have also been reported in these lines. In comparative studies, experiments with the lizard Anolis carolinensis reveal connections between monoaminergic activity in limbic structures, proactive behavior in novel environments, and the establishment of social status via agonistic behavior. Together these observations suggest that within-species diversity of physiological, behavioral and cognitive correlates of stress responsiveness is maintained by natural selection throughout the vertebrate sub-phylum.
|
|
|
|
Hemelrijk, C. K., & Wantia, J. (2005). Individual variation by self-organisation. Neurosci Biobehav Rev, 29(1), 125–136.
Abstract: In this paper, we show that differences in dominance and spatial centrality of individuals in a group may arise through self-organisation. Our instrument is a model, called DomWorld, that represents two traits that are often found in animals, namely grouping and competing. In this model individual differences grow under the following conditions: (1) when the intensity of aggression increases and grouping becomes denser, (2) when the degree of sexual dimorphism in fighting power increases. In this case the differences among females compared to males grow too, (3) when, upon encountering another individual, the tendency to attack is 'obligate' and not conditional, namely 'sensitive to risks'. Results resemble phenomena described for societies of primates, mice, birds and pigs.
|
|
|
|
Brennan, J., & Anderson, J. (1988). Varying responses to feeding competition in a group of rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta). Primates, 29(3), 353–360.
Abstract: The behaviour of members of a group of rhesus monkeys was observed in experimentally created, competitive feeding situations. Socially dominant members of the group tended to start eating before lower-ranking subjects, and generally ate more. Dominants sometimes used aggression to control access to food, but overall, intermediate-ranking monkeys were involved in most agonistic episodes. Non-dominant subjects improved their feeding performance when food was presented in three piles rather than one pile, often by snatching food and consuming it away from the pile. These general patterns were less evident when realistic snake models were placed on some of the food piles. Feeding was disrupted by the presence of snakes, but notably, subordinates risked feeding in these conditions. Piles containing preferred foods and snakes were eaten from, but a low-preference food (carrot) under snakes went untouched by all subjects. The results suggest that group-members evaluate potential risks and benefits of competing for a restricted resource, and that dominance status, while an important factor, is only one element in the equation.
|
|
|
|
Sueur, C., & Petit, O. (2008). Organization of Group Members at Departure Is Driven by Social Structure in Macaca. Int. J. Primatol., 29(4), 1085–1098.
Abstract: Abstract Researchers have often explained order of progression of group members during joint movement in terms of the influence of ecological pressures but rarely that of social constraints. We studied the order of joining by group members to a movement in semifree-ranging macaques with contrasting social systems: 1 group of Tonkean macaques (Macaca tonkeana) and 1 group of rhesus macaques (M. mulatta). We used network metrics to understand roles and associations among individuals. The way the macaques joined a movement reflected the social differences between the species in terms of dominance and kinship. Old and dominant male rhesus macaques were more often at the front of the movement, contrary to the Tonkean macaques, which exhibited no specific order. Moreover, rhesus macaques preferred to join high-ranking or related individuals, whereas Tonkean macaques based associations during joining mostly on sexual relationships with a subgroup of peripheral males.
|
|
|
|
Vallortigara, G., & Rogers, L. J. (2005). Survival with an asymmetrical brain: advantages and disadvantages of cerebral lateralization. Behav Brain Sci, 28(4), 575–89; discussion 589–633.
Abstract: Recent evidence in natural and semi-natural settings has revealed a variety of left-right perceptual asymmetries among vertebrates. These include preferential use of the left or right visual hemifield during activities such as searching for food, agonistic responses, or escape from predators in animals as different as fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals. There are obvious disadvantages in showing such directional asymmetries because relevant stimuli may be located to the animal's left or right at random; there is no a priori association between the meaning of a stimulus (e.g., its being a predator or a food item) and its being located to the animal's left or right. Moreover, other organisms (e.g., predators) could exploit the predictability of behavior that arises from population-level lateral biases. It might be argued that lateralization of function enhances cognitive capacity and efficiency of the brain, thus counteracting the ecological disadvantages of lateral biases in behavior. However, such an increase in brain efficiency could be obtained by each individual being lateralized without any need to align the direction of the asymmetry in the majority of the individuals of the population. Here we argue that the alignment of the direction of behavioral asymmetries at the population level arises as an “evolutionarily stable strategy” under “social” pressures occurring when individually asymmetrical organisms must coordinate their behavior with the behavior of other asymmetrical organisms of the same or different species.
|
|
