|
|
Reader, S. M., & Laland, K. N. (2009). Animal Innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
|
|
|
|
Reader, S. M., & MacDonald, K. (2003). Environmental variability and primate behavioural flexibiity. In S. M. Reader, & K. L. Laland (Eds.), Animal Innovation (pp. 83–116). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
|
|
|
|
Reader, S. M., & Laland, K. N. (2003). Animal Innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
|
|
|
|
Range, F., & Virányi, Z. (2014). Wolves are better imitators of conspecifics than dogs. PLoS One, 9.
Abstract: Domestication is thought to have influenced the cognitive abilities of dogs underlying their communication with humans, but little is known about its effect on their interactions with conspecifics. Since domestication hypotheses offer limited predictions in regard to wolf-wolf compared to dog-dog interactions, we extend the cooperative breeding hypothesis suggesting that the dependency of wolves on close cooperation with conspecifics, including breeding but also territory defense and hunting, has created selection pressures on motivational and cognitive processes enhancing their propensity to pay close attention to conspecifics’ actions. During domestication, dogs’ dependency on conspecifics has been relaxed, leading to reduced motivational and cognitive abilities to interact with conspecifics. Here we show that 6-month-old wolves outperform same aged dogs in a two-action-imitation task following a conspecific demonstration. While the wolves readily opened the apparatus after a demonstration, the dogs failed to solve the problem. This difference could not be explained by differential motivation, better physical insight of wolves, differential developmental pathways of wolves and dogs or a higher dependency of dogs from humans. Our results are best explained by the hypothesis that higher cooperativeness may come together with a higher propensity to pay close attention to detailed actions of others and offer an alternative perspective to domestication by emphasizing the cooperativeness of wolves as a potential source of dog-human cooperation.
|
|
|
|
Range, F., Möslinger, H., & Virányi, Z. (2012). Domestication has not affected the understanding of means-end connections in dogs. Anim Cogn, 15.
|
|
|
|
Quaresmini, C., Forrester, G. S., Spiezio, C., & Vallortigara, G. (2014). Social environment elicits lateralized behaviors in gorillas (Gorilla gorilla gorilla) and chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). Journal of Comparative Psychology, 128(3), 276–284.
Abstract: The influence of the social environment on lateralized behaviors has now been investigated across a wide variety of animal species. New evidence suggests that the social environment can modulate behavior. Currently, there is a paucity of data relating to how primates navigate their environmental space, and investigations that consider the naturalistic context of the individual are few and fragmented. Moreover, there are competing theories about whether only the right or rather both cerebral hemispheres are involved in the processing of social stimuli, especially in emotion processing. Here we provide the first report of lateralized social behaviors elicited by great apes. We employed a continuous focal animal sampling method to record the spontaneous interactions of a captive zoo-living colony of chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) and a biological family group of peer-reared western lowland gorillas (Gorilla gorilla gorilla). We specifically focused on which side of the body (i.e., front, rear, left, right) the focal individual preferred to keep conspecifics. Utilizing a newly developed quantitative corpus-coding scheme, analysis revealed both chimpanzees and gorillas demonstrated a significant group-level preference for focal individuals to keep conspecifics positioned to the front of them compared with behind them. More interestingly, both groups also manifested a population-level bias to keep conspecifics on their left side compared with their right side. Our findings suggest a social processing dominance of the right hemisphere for context-specific social environments. Results are discussed in light of the evolutionary adaptive value of social stimulus as a triggering factor for the manifestation of group-level lateralized behaviors. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)
|
|
|
|
Proops, L., Grounds, K., Smith, A. V., & McComb, K. (2018). Animals Remember Previous Facial Expressions that Specific Humans Have Exhibited. Current Biology, 28(9), 1428–1432.e4.
Abstract: Summary For humans, facial expressions are important social signals, and how we perceive specific individuals may be influenced by subtle emotional cues that they have given us in past encounters. A wide range of animal species are also capable of discriminating the emotions of others through facial expressions [1, 2, 3, 4, 5], and it is clear that remembering emotional experiences with specific individuals could have clear benefits for social bonding and aggression avoidance when these individuals are encountered again. Although there is evidence that non-human animals are capable of remembering the identity of individuals who have directly harmed them [6, 7], it is not known whether animals can form lasting memories of specific individuals simply by observing subtle emotional expressions that they exhibit on their faces. Here we conducted controlled experiments in which domestic horses were presented with a photograph of an angry or happy human face and several hours later saw the person who had given the expression in a neutral state. Short-term exposure to the facial expression was enough to generate clear differences in subsequent responses to that individual (but not to a different mismatched person), consistent with the past angry expression having been perceived negatively and the happy expression positively. Both humans were blind to the photograph that the horses had seen. Our results provide clear evidence that some non-human animals can effectively eavesdrop on the emotional state cues that humans reveal on a moment-to-moment basis, using their memory of these to guide future interactions with particular individuals.
|
|
|
|
Primack, R. B. (2010). Essentials of conservation biology. Fifth: Edition.
|
|
|
|
Price, E. O. (1984). Behavioral aspects of animal domestication. Q Rev Biol, 59.
|
|
|
|
Preiszner, B., Vincze, E., Seress, G., Papp, S., Bókony, V., Liker, A., et al. (2013). Necessity or capacity? Physiological state predicts problem-solving performance in house sparrows. Behav. Ecol., 25(1), 124–135.
Abstract: Innovative behaviors such as exploiting novel food sources can grant significant fitness benefits for animals, yet little is known about the mechanisms driving such phenomena, and the role of physiology is virtually unexplored in wild species. Two hypotheses predict opposing effects of physiological state on innovation success. On one hand, poor physiological condition may promote innovations by forcing individuals with poor competitive abilities to invent alternative solutions. On the other hand, superior physiological condition may ensure greater cognitive capacity and thereby better problem-solving and learning performance. To test these hypotheses, we studied the behavior of wild-caught house sparrows (Passer domesticus) in 4 novel tasks of food acquisition, one of which was presented to the birds in repeated trials, and we investigated the relationships of individual performance with relevant physiological traits. We found that problem-solving performance across the 4 tasks was moderately consistent within individuals. Birds with lower integrated levels of corticosterone, the main avian stress hormone, solved the most difficult task faster and were more efficient learners in the repeated task than birds with higher corticosterone levels. Birds with higher concentration of total glutathione, a key antioxidant, solved 2 relatively easy tasks faster, whereas birds with fewer coccidian parasites tended to solve the difficult task more quickly. Our results, thus, indicate that aspects of physiological state influence problem-solving performance in a context-dependent manner, and these effects on problem-solving capacity, probably including cognitive abilities, are more likely to drive individual innovation success than necessity due to poor condition.
|
|
