|
Ronald J. Schusterman, Colleen J. Reichmuth, & David Kastak. (2000). How Animals Classify Friends and Foes. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci., 9, 1–6.
|
Sapolsky, R. M., Romero, L. M., & Munck, A. U. (2000). How Do Glucocorticoids Influence Stress Responses? Integrating Permissive, Suppressive, Stimulatory, and Preparative Actions. Endocr Rev, 21(1), 55–89.
Abstract: The secretion of glucocorticoids (GCs) is a classic endocrine response to stress. Despite that, it remains controversial as to what purpose GCs serve at such times. One view, stretching back to the time of Hans Selye, posits that GCs help mediate the ongoing or pending stress response, either via basal levels of GCs permitting other facets of the stress response to emerge efficaciously, and/or by stress levels of GCs actively stimulating the stress response. In contrast, a revisionist viewpoint posits that GCs suppress the stress response, preventing it from being pathologically overactivated. In this review, we consider recent findings regarding GC action and, based on them, generate criteria for determining whether a particular GC action permits, stimulates, or suppresses an ongoing stress-response or, as an additional category, is preparative for a subsequent stressor. We apply these GC actions to the realms of cardiovascular function, fluid volume and hemorrhage, immunity and inflammation, metabolism, neurobiology, and reproductive physiology. We find that GC actions fall into markedly different categories, depending on the physiological endpoint in question, with evidence for mediating effects in some cases, and suppressive or preparative in others. We then attempt to assimilate these heterogeneous GC actions into a physiological whole.
|
Seyfarth, R. M., & Cheney, D. L. (2000). Social Awareness in Monkeys. Amer. Zool., 40(6), 902–909.
Abstract: Tests of self-awareness in nonhuman primates have to date been concerned almost entirely with the recognition of an animal's reflection in a mirror. By contrast, we know much less about non-human primates' perception of their place within a social network, or of their understanding of themselves as individuals with unique sets of social relationships. Here we review evidence that monkeys who fail the mirror test may nonetheless behave as if they recognize themselves as distinct individuals, each of whom occupies a unique place in society and has a specific set of relations with others. A free-ranging vervet monkey, baboon, or macaque recognizes other members of his group as individuals. He also recognizes matrilineal kin groups, linear dominance rank orders, and behaves as if he recognizes his own unique place within them. This sense of “social self” in monkeys, however, is markedly different from self-awareness in humans. Although monkeys may behave in ways that accurately place themselves within a social network, they are unaware of the knowledge that allows them to do so: they do not know what they know, cannot reflect on what they know, and cannot become the object of their own attention.
|
|
Shettleworth, S. J. (2000). Cognitive ecology: field or label? Trends. Ecol. Evol, 15(4), 161.
|
|
Silanikove, N. (2000). The physiological basis of adaptation in goats to harsh environments. Small Rum Res, 35.
|
|
Sprigge, T. L. S. (2000). Darwinian Dominion: Animal Welfare and Human Interests: Lewis Petrinovich, Cambridge, Mass, London, England, MIT Press, 1999, ix + 431 pages, {pound}31.50 (hc). J. Med. Ethics, 26(5), 412–.
|
Tommasi, L., & Vallortigara, G. (2000). Searching for the center: spatial cognition in the domestic chick (Gallus gallus). J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process, 26(4), 477–486.
Abstract: Chicks learned to find food hidden under sawdust by ground-scratching in the central position of the floor of a closed arena. When tested inan arena of identical shape but a larger area, chicks searched at 2 different locations, one corresponding to the correct distance (i.e., center) in the smaller (training) arena and the other to the actual center of the test arena. When tested in an arena of the same shape but a smaller area, chicks searched in the center of it. These results suggest that chicks are able to encode information on the absolute and relative distance of the food from the walls of the arena. After training in the presence of a landmark located at the center of the arena, animals searched at the center even after the removal of the landmark. Marked changes in the height of the walls of the arena produced some displacement in searching behavior, suggesting that chicks used the angular size of the walls to estimate distances.
|
Tomonaga, M., & Matsuzawa, T. (2000). Sequential responding to arabic numerals with wild cards by the chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes). Anim. Cogn., 3(1), 1–11.
Abstract: One adult female chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) was trained to respond serially to three arabic numerals between 1 and 9, presented on a cathode-ray-tube (CRT) screen. To examine the factors affecting her sequential responding behavior, wild-card items were added to the three-item sequences. When this wild-card item remained until the subject responded to the last numeral (i.e., the terminator condition), her response to the terminator at each point of the sequence was controlled by the ordinal distance between numerals. Thus, the number of responses to the terminator increased as the ordinal distance between numerals increased. When the wild-card item was eliminated by the subject's response (wild-card conditions), the probability of responses to the wild card before the first numeral increased as a function of the serial position of the first numeral. These results were consistent with previous studies of response time and suggest both serial position and symbolic distance effects. It is suggested that the subject might form the integrated 9-item linear representations by training of possible subsets of three-item sequences. Knowledge concerning the ordinal position of each numeral was established through this training.
|
Vervaecke, H., de Vries, H., & van Elsacker, L. (2000). The Pivotal Role Of Rank In Grooming And Support Behavior In A Captive Group Of Bonobos (Pan Paniscus). Behaviour, 137(11), 1463–1485.
Abstract: We investigated dyadic grooming relationships in a captive group of bonobos (Pan paniscus) and questioned what social function grooming fulfils in the 'market of services and favors'. Hereto we examined which of two theoretical models – grooming for support (Seyfarth, 1977, 1980) or grooming according to the similarity principle (de Waal & Luttrell, 1986) – best accounted for the observed grooming distribution. Similarity in traits did not correlate with increased grooming or close proximity among the individuals. Therefore, the similarity hypothesis was rejected. Seyfarth's model of rank-related grooming was largely confirmed. The animals distributed their grooming according to the rank of the receivers. We found an exchange between grooming and receipt of support. There was more grooming up than down the hierarchy. However, not all predictions about rank-related competition over grooming were confirmed. We found that dyadic grooming reciprocity indeed increased with decreasing rank distance. Yet, there was no increase of grooming within the dyad with decreasing rank distance and high ranking individuals were not competed over at the highest rates. The observed correlation between grooming and support received represents an important fit with Seyfarth's prediction, but does not allow for conclusions about underlying causal processes. Other causal explanations, besides the 'groom to receive support' hypothesis, that could explain a similar correlation are discussed.
|
Vervaecke, H., de Vries, H., & van Elsacker, L. (2000). Dominance and its Behavioral Measures in a Captive Group of Bonobos (Pan paniscus). Int. J. Primatol., 21(1), 47–68.
Abstract: We investigated the existence of a social dominance hierarchy in the captive group of six adult bonobos at the Planckendael Zoo. We quantified the pattern of dyadic exchange of a number of behaviors to examine to what extent each behavior fits a linear rank order model. Following de Waal (1989), we distinguish three types of dominance: agonistic dominance, competitive ability and formal dominance. Fleeing upon aggression is a good measure of agonistic dominance. The agonistic dominance hierarchy in the study group shows significant and strong linearity. The rank order was: 1. female (22 yr), 2. female (15 yr)., 3. male (23 yr.), 4. female (15 yr.), 5. male (9 yr.), 6. male (10 yr.). As in the wild, the females occupy high ranks. There is prominent but nonexclusive female agonistic dominance. Teeth-baring does not fulfil the criteria of a formal submission signal. Peering is a request for tolerance of proximity. Since its direction within dyads is consistent with that of fleeing interactions, it is a useful additional measure to determine agonistic ranks in bonobos. In competitive situations, the females acquire more food than other group members do. The rank obtained from access to food resources differs from the agonistic rank due to female intrasexual social tolerance, expressed in food sharing. We typify the dominance styles in the group as female intrasexual tolerance and male challenging of rank differences. The agonistic rank order correlates significantly with age and has a strong predictive value for other social behaviors.
|
