| Home | << 1 >> |
|
Hori, Y., Takimoto, A., & Fujita, K. (2012). Are there breed difference in referential behavior in horses (Equus caballus)? In K. Krueger (Ed.), Proceedings of the 2. International Equine Science Meeting (Vol. in press). Wald: Xenophon Publishing.
Abstract: Domesticated animals are characterized by variability of breeds. There is a great diversity in body size and/or coat color between different breeds. However, there are few scientific researches about difference in cognition and behavior between breeds. Comparison of behavior between breeds may be useful for the study of genetics behind the diversity of cognition and behavior. In the present study, we investigated behavioral differences between horse breeds. We tested two different breeds which have different histories, thoroughbreds and creoles. Thoroughbreds are racing horses which have been exposed to strict selection toward racing performance for about 300 years. Creoles are descendents of horses which were brought to South America by Spanish people in 15th century and used by native cowboys for riding. We compared the behavior in a difficult situation by using an “unsolvable task”. The experimenter put a food reward into a transparent box and closed it firmly so that horses could not take the reward. We compared the referential behavior (gazing behavior toward the experimenter) between thoroughbreds and creoles. We analyzed referential behavior by using generalized linear models (GLM) and model selection by Akaike’s information criterion (AIC). There were no effect of breed in the frequency and the duration of the referential behavior. But the latency before looking at the experimenter tended to be shorter in thoroughbreds than in creoles. This result suggests that there may be breed differences in horses’ social cognition and behavior. However, the effect of sex was also seen. Furthermore, we could not exclude the environmental effect (e. g. feeding environments, trainings) in this study. So we cannot explain the variation in referential behavior by breed effect only. We need to replicate the result by controlling environmental effects.
|
|
Takimoto, A., & Fujita, K. (2008). Are horses (Equus caballus) sensitive to human attentional states? In IESM 2008.
Abstract: The ability to reliably detect what others are attending to seems important for social species to interact with their partners. Domestic horses (Equus caballus) have lived with humans for over five thousand years, hence they might have developed sensitivity to human attention. In the present study, we investigated whether horses would discriminate the situation in which a human experimenter could see them from the situation in which she could not. Specifically, we tested whether horses understand the role of eyes in human attentional states, produce more visual gestures when the experimenter can see their begging behaviors and produce more auditory or tactile gestures when she can not. We used with a slight modification the paradigm that previously yielded support for chimpanzee understanding of human attention (Hostetter et al. 2007). Twelve horses were offered food by the experimenter who showed various attentional states in front of them. We scored frequency of begging behaviors by the horses. In experiment 1, we set three kinds of condition: hand over the eyes, hand over the mouth and away. In the last condition there was only a food in front of horses, which was a control condition. The results showed that horses produced more auditory or tactile begging behaviors when the experimenter“s eyes were not visible than when her eyes were visible, but there was no difference in visual begging behaviors. In experiment 2, we set two kinds of condition: eyes closed and eyes open. The horses also produced more auditory or tactile begging behaviors when the experimenter”s eyes were closed than when they were open. However, there was no difference in visual begging behaviors. These results show that horses discriminate the situation in which humans can see from that in which humans can not. Of special interest, horses increased only auditory or tactile behaviors, not all types of communicative behaviors, when the experimenter could not see their begging behaviors. This result suggests that horses are sensitive to human attentional states. Moreover, horses may do recognize the eyes as an important indicator of whether or not humans will respond to their behavior and they may be able to behave flexibly depending upon human attentional states
Keywords: Horses; Attentional state; Begging behavior
|
|
Takimoto, A., Hori, Y. T., K,, & Fujita, K. (2012). Do horses (Equus caballus) show a preference for a fair person? In K. Krueger (Ed.), Proceedings of the 2. International Equine Science Meeting (Vol. in press). Wald: Xenophon Publishing.
Abstract: It is advantageous to identify individuals who are likely to behave fairly and those who are not. This ability to judge others’ fairness seems important for social species to interact or cooperate with their partners. Domestic horses (Equus caballus) have lived with humans for over five thousand years, hence they might have developed sensitivity to human personality. In the present study, we investigated whether horses would discriminate between a person who behaved fairly and a person who behaved unfairly. Specifically, we asked whether horses show a preference for the former. We tested 12 horses (11 thoroughbred and 1 Anglo-Arabian horses) at the horseback-riding club of Kyoto University. They were divided into 6 pairs which consisted of a participant and a partner. A participant was picketed between two polls next to a partner at the hoof washing place. Each horse put his/her mouth in an actor’s hand when the actor (an unfamiliar person) stood in front of them, and then received food from the actor. A fair actor always behaved fairly and gave a small quantity of hay (low-value food) to both of them in return for the task. An unfair actor always behaved unfairly, giving a small quantity of hay to the participant in return for the task, but always giving a piece of carrot (high-value food) to the partner in return for the task. Both actors always stood in front of the partner first, so the partner always did the task and received food from the actor before the participant. Finally, the participant was offered a piece of carrot by the two actors. The participant indicated which offer was accepted by stretching toward the chosen actor. The latter then moved the hand forward to allow the participant to take the food while the other actor’s hand withdrew. The orders (1st or 2nd) and the positions (left or right) of the two actors varied pseudo-randomly across trials. The color of the clothes of the two actors (white or black) was counterbalanced between sessions. We conducted 8 sessions, consisting of 8 experimental trials, across which the actors maintained their respective roles (fair or unfair) of the fair and unfair person. Furthermore, the two actors switched roles across sessions so that they played both roles the same number of times. One session was run per day. If horses can discriminate between fair and unfair people and show a preference for the former, they should choose the former significantly more often than the latter when both actors offered food. The participants showed no overall preference for accepting food from either actor. However, three of six participants showed a side preference. The result of the present study suggests that horses are insensitive to humans’ fairness. Horses may not have expectations about fair treatment.
Keywords: horses,fairness,horse-human interaction
|
|
Takimoto, A., Kuroshima, H., & Fujita, K. (2010). Capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella) are sensitive to others’ reward: an experimental analysis of food-choice for conspecifics. Anim. Cogn., 13(2), 249–261.
Abstract: Abstract The issue whether non-human primates have other-regarding preference and/or inequity aversion has been under debate. We investigated whether tufted capuchin monkeys are sensitive to others’ reward in various experimental food sharing settings. Two monkeys faced each other. The operator monkey chose one of two food containers placed between the participants, each containing a food item for him/herself and another for the recipient. The recipient passively received either high- or low-value food depending on the operator’s choice, whereas the operator obtained the same food regardless of his/her choice. The recipients were either the highest- or lowest-ranking member of the group, and the operators were middle-ranking. In Experiment 1, the operators chose the high-value food for the subordinate recipient more frequently than when there was no recipient, whereas they were indifferent in their choice for the dominant. This differentiated behavior could have been because the dominant recipient frequently ate the low-value food. In Experiment 2, we increased the difference in the value of the two food items so that both recipients would reject the low-value food. The results were the same as in Experiment 1. In Experiment 3, we placed an opaque screen in front of the recipient to examine effects of visual contact between the participants. The operators’ food choice generally shifted toward providing the low-value food for the recipient. These results suggest that capuchins are clearly sensitive to others’ reward and that they show other-regarding preference or a form of inequity aversion depending upon the recipients and the presence of visual contact.
|