|
Swaddle, J. P., & Witter, M. S. (1995). Chest Plumage, Dominance and Fluctuating Asymmetry in Female Starlings. Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci., 260(1358), 219–223.
Abstract: It has been proposed that levels of fluctuating asymmetry (FA) may be used in establishing and maintaining dominance hierarchies, as asymmetry reflects aspects of individual quality. However, previous manipulations of FA have failed to reveal that the level or outcome of agonistic intra-sexual interactions are affected by levels of FA. In female European starlings (Sturnus vulgaris), correlational data suggest that FA of the speckled chest plumage may be related to dominance status. These data are confounded, however, by total number of spots on the chest and the proportion of the chest that is white, both of which positively covary with chest asymmetry. Thus, we deconfounded the effects of these plumage traits on dominance by experimentally manipulating the number of spots and spot number asymmetry in a factorial design. The results indicated that dominance is influenced by the number of spots on the chest, but not by spot asymmetry. Birds with spottier chests were dominant over birds with experimentally decreased spot number. We suggest that female starlings' chests are exposed to extensive abrasion throughout the breeding season and so are susceptible to damage asymmetries that may mask the `true' fluctuating asymmetry of the trait. This may devalue the use of chest asymmetry as a quality indicator. Spottier chests may be costly to maintain, in part because of increased susceptibility to abrasion, and so may be a better indicator of quality than asymmetry.
|
|
|
Povinelli, D. J., & Vonk, J. (2003). Chimpanzee minds: suspiciously human? Trends. Cognit. Sci., 7(4), 157–160.
Abstract: Chimpanzees undoubtedly form concepts related to the statistical regularities in behavior. But do they also construe such abstractions in terms of mental states – that is, do they possess a [`]theory of mind'? Although both anecdotal and experimental data have been marshaled to support this idea, we show that no explanatory power or economy of expression is gained by such an assumption. We suggest that additional experiments will be unhelpful as long as they continue to rely upon determining whether subjects interpret behavioral invariances in terms of mental states. We propose a paradigm shift to overcome this limitation.
|
|
|
Premack D, & Woodruff G. (1978). Chimpanzee problem-solving: a test for comprehension. Science, 202(3), 532.
|
|
|
Itakura, S., Agnetta, B., Hare, B., & Tomasello, M. (2001). Chimpanzee Use of Human and Conspecific Social Cues to Locate Hidden Food. Dev Sci, 2(2), 448–456.
Abstract: Two studies are reported in which chimpanzees attempted to use social cues to locate hidden food in one of two possible hiding places. In the first study four chimpanzees were exposed to a local enhancement cue (the informant approached and looked to the location where food was hidden and then remained beside it) and a gaze/point cue (the informant gazed and manually pointed towards the location where the food was hidden). Each cue was given by both a human informant and a chimpanzee informant. In the second study 12 chimpanzees were exposed to a gaze direction cue in combination with a vocal cue (the human informant gazed to the hiding location and produced one of two different vocalizations – a 'food-bark' or a human word-form). The results were – (i) all subjects were quite skillful with the local enhancement cue, no matter who produced it; (ii) few subjects were skillful with the gaze/point cue, no matter who produced it (most of these being individuals who had been raised in infancy by humans); and (iii) most subjects were skillful when the human gazed and vocalized at the hiding place, with little difference between the two types of vocal cue. Findings are discussed in terms of chimpanzees' apparent need for additional cues, over and above gaze direction cues, to indicate the presence of food.
|
|
|
Melis, A. P., Warneken, F., Jensen, K., Schneider, A. - C., Call, J., & Tomasello, M. (2011). Chimpanzees help conspecifics obtain food and non-food items. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 278(1710), 1405–1413.
Abstract: Chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) sometimes help both humans and conspecifics in experimental situations in which immediate selfish benefits can be ruled out. However, in several experiments, chimpanzees have not provided food to a conspecific even when it would cost them nothing, leading to the hypothesis that prosociality in the food-provisioning context is a derived trait in humans. Here, we show that chimpanzees help conspecifics obtain both food and non-food items—given that the donor cannot get the food herself. Furthermore, we show that the key factor eliciting chimpanzees' targeted helping is the recipients' attempts to either get the food or get the attention of the potential donor. The current findings add to the accumulating body of evidence that humans and chimpanzees share the motivation and skills necessary to help others in situations in which they cannot selfishly benefit. Humans, however, show prosocial motives more readily and in a wider range of contexts.
|
|
|
Tomasello M., Call J., & Hare B. (2003). Chimpanzees understand psychological states – the question is which ones and to what extent. Trends. Cognit. Sci., 7, 153–156.
|
|
|
Daniel J. Povinelli, & Timothy J. Eddy. (2006). Chimpanzees: Joint Visual Attention. Psychol Sci, 7(3), 129–135.
Abstract: Gaze following is a behavior that draws the human infant into perceptual contact with objects or events in the world to which others are attending One interpretation of the development of this phenomenon is that it signals the emergence of joint or shared attention, which may be critical to the development of theory of mind An alternative interpretation is that gaze following is a noncognitive mechanism that exploits social stimuli in order to orient the infant (or adult) to important events in the world We report experimental results that chimpanzees display the effect in response to both movement of the head and eyes in concert and eve movement alone Additional tests indicate that chimpanzees appear able to (a) project an imaginary line of sight through invisible space and (b) understand How that line of sight can be impeded by solid, opaque objects This capacity may have arisen because of its reproductive payoffs in the context of social competition with conspecifics, predation avoidance, or both.
|
|
|
Gallup GG. (1970). Chimpanzees: self-recognition. Science, 167, 86.
|
|
|
Cooper, J. J., Ashton, C., Bishop, S., West, R., Mills, D. S., & Young, R. J. (2003). Clever hounds: social cognition in the domestic dog (Canis familiaris). Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 81(3), 229–244.
Abstract: This paper reviews the reasons why domestic dogs make good models to investigate cognitive processes related to social living and describes experimental approaches that can be adopted to investigate such processes in dogs. Domestic dogs are suitable models for investigating social cognition skills for three broad reasons. First, dogs originated from wolves, social animals that engage in a number of co-operative behaviours, such as hunting and that may have evolved cognitive abilities that help them predict and interpret the actions of other animals. Second, during domestication dogs are likely to have been selected for mental adaptations for their roles in human society such as herding or companionship. Third, domestic dogs live in a human world and “enculturation” may facilitate the development of relevant mental skills in dogs. Studies of social cognition in animals commonly use experimental paradigms originally developed for pre-verbal human infants. Preferential gaze, for example, can be used as a measure of attention or “surprise” in studies using expectancy violation. This approach has been used to demonstrate simple numerical competence in dogs. Dogs also readily use both conspecific and human social signals (e.g. looking or pointing) as information sources to locate hidden rewards such as food or favourite toys. Such abilities make dogs particularly good models for investigating perspective-taking tasks, where animals are required to discriminate between apparently knowledgeable and apparently ignorant informants.
|
|
|
Johnstone, R. A., & Dugatkin, L. A. (2000). Coalition formation in animals and the nature of winner and loser effects. Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci., 267(1438), 17–21.
Abstract: Coalition formation has been documented in a diverse array of taxa, yet there has been little formal analysis of polyadic interactions such as coalitions. Here, we develop an optimality model which examines the role of winner and loser effects in shaping coalition formation. We demonstrate that the predicted patterns of alliances are strongly dependent on the way in which winner and loser effects change with contestant strength. When winner and loser effects decrease with the resource-holding power (RHP) of the combatants, coalitions will be favoured between the strongest members of a group, but not between the weakest. If, in contrast, winner and loser effects increase with RHP, exactly the opposite predictions emerge. All other things being equal, intervention is more likely to prove worthwhile when the beneficiary of the aid is weaker (and its opponent is stronger), because the beneficiary is then less likely to win without help. Consequently, intervention is more probable when the impact of victory on the subsequent performance of a combatant increases with that individual's strength because this selects for intervention in favour of weaker combatants. The published literature on hierarchy formation does not reveal how winner and loser effects actually change with contestant strength and we therefore hope that our model will spur others to collect such data; in this light we suggest an experiment which will help to elucidate the nature of winner and loser effects and their impact on coalition formation in animals.
|
|