|
|
van Schaik, C. P. (2010). Social learning and culture in animals. In P. Kappeler (Ed.), Animal Behaviour: Evolution and Mechanisms (pp. 623–653). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
Abstract: Most animals must learn some of the behaviours in their repertoire, and some must learn most. Although learning is often thought of as an individual exercise, in nature much learning is social, i.e. under the influence of conspecifics. Social learners acquire novel information or skills faster and at lower cost, but risk learning false information or useless skills. Social learning can be divided into learning from social information and learning through social interaction. Different species have different mechanisms of learning from social information, ranging from selective attention to the environment due to the presence of others to copying of complete motor sequences. In vertical (or oblique) social learning, naïve individuals often learn skills or knowledge from parents (or other adults), whereas horizontal social learning is from peers, either immatures or adults, and more often concerns eavesdropping and public information use. Because vertical social learning is often adaptive, maturing individuals often have a preference for it over individual exploration. The more cognitively demanding social learning abilities probably evolved in this context, in lineages where offspring show long association with parents and niches are complex. Because horizontal learning can be maladaptive, especially when perishable information has become outdated, animals must decide when to deploy social learning. Social learning of novel skills can lead to distinct traditions or cultures when the innovations are sufficiently rare and effectively transmitted socially. Animal cultures may be common but to date taxonomic coverage is insufficient to know how common. Cultural evolution is potentially powerful, but largely confined to humans, for reasons currently unknown. A general theory of culture is therefore badly needed.
|
|
|
|
Waiblinger, S. (2009). Animal welfare and housing. In F. J. Smulders (Ed.), Welfare of Production Animals:: Assessment and Management of Risks (Food Safety Assurance and Veterinary Public Health) (pp. 79–111). Wageningen: Wageningen Acad. Publ.
|
|
|
|
Rogers, L. J. (2002). Evolution of Side Biases: Motor versus Sensory Lateralization. In M. K. Mandal, M. B. Bulman-Fleming, & G. Tiwari (Eds.), Side Bias: A Neuropsychological Perspective (3-p. 40). Springer Netherlands.
|
|
|
|
Kerth, G. (2010). Group decision-making in animal societies. In P. Kappeler (Ed.), Animal Behaviour: Evolution and Mechanisms (pp. 241–265). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
Abstract: Individuals need to coordinate their activities to benefit from group living. Thus group decisions are essential for societies, especially if group members cooperate with each other. Models show that shared (democratic) decisions outperform unshared (despotic) decisions, even if individuals disagree about actions. This is surprising as in most other contexts, differences in individual preferences lead to sex-, age-, or kin-specific behaviour. Empirical studies testing the predictions of the theoretical models have only recently begun to emerge. This applies particularly to group decisions in fission-fusion societies, where individuals can avoid decisions that are not in their interest. After outlining the basic ideas and theoretical models on group decision-making I focus on the available empirical studies. Originally most of the relevant studies have been on social insects and fish but recently an increasing number of studies on mammals and birds have been published, including some that deal with wild long-lived animals living in complex societies. This includes societies where group members have different interests, as in most mammals, and which have been less studied compared to eusocial insects that normally have no conflict among their colony members about what to do. I investigate whether the same decision rules apply in societies with conflict and without conflict, and outline open questions that remain to be studied. The chapter concludes with a synthesis on what is known about group decision-making in animals and an outlook on what I think should be done to answer the open questions.
|
|
|
|
Noë, R. (1992). Alliance formation among male hamadryas baboons: shopping for profitable partners. In A. H. Harcourt, & F. B. M. deWaal (Eds.), Coalitions and alliances in humans and other animals (pp. 284–321). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
|
|
|
|
Parrish, J. K., & Viscido, S. V. (2005). Traffic rules of fish schools: A review of agent-based approaches. In C. K. Hemelrijk (Ed.), Self-organisation and the evolution of social behaviour. (pp. 50–80). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
|
|
|
|
Gouzoules, S., & Gouzoules, H. (1987). Kinship. In B. B. Smuts, D. L. Cheney, R. M. Seyfarth, R. W. Wrangham, & Struhsaker T. T (Eds.), Primate societies (pp. 299–305). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
|
|
|
|
Houpt, K. A., & Boyd L. (1994). Social Behaviour. In Boyd L., & K. A. Houpt (Eds.), Przewalski's horse. Albany: State university of New York Press.
|
|
|
|
Boyd, L., & Keiper, R. (2005). Behavioural ecology of feral horses. In D. S. Mills, & McDonnell S. M. (Eds.), The domestic horse: the origins, development, and management of its behaviour. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
|
|
|
|
Harcourt, A. H. (1992). Coalitions and alliances: are primates more complex than non-primates? In A. H. Harcourt, & F. B. M. de Waal (Eds.), Coalitions and alliances in humans and other animals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
|
|
