|
|
de Wall, F. B., & Aureli, F. (1997). Conflict resolution and distress alleviation in monkeys and apes. Ann N Y Acad Sci, 807, 317–328.
Abstract: Research on nonhuman primates has produced compelling evidence for reconciliation and consolation, that is, postconflict contacts that serve to respectively repair social relationships and reassure distressed individuals, such as victims of attack. This has led to a view of conflict and conflict resolution as an integrated part of social relationships, hence determined by social factors and modifiable by the social environment. Implications of this new model of social conflict are discussed along with evidence for behavioral flexibility, the value of cooperation, and the possibility that distress alleviation rests on empathy, a capacity that may be present in chimpanzees and humans but not in most other animals.
|
|
|
|
Domjan, M. (1976). Determinants of the enhancement of flavored-water intake by prior exposure. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process, 2(1), 17–27.
Abstract: The intake of a 2.0% sodium saccharin solution in rats was observed to increase as a function of both the number (Experiment 1) and the duration (Experiment 3) of prior periods of access to the saccharin flavor, but did not increase when subjects were maintained on a fluid deprivation procedure in the absence of saccharin exposure (Experiment 2). The enhancement of intake was further influenced by the schedule of saccharin preexposures in the absence of variations in the amount of solution tasted (Experiment 4). The effect was not a function of the opportunity for subjects to determine their own pattern of contact with the saccharin flavor, the opportunity for association of the flavor with hunger and thirst reduction, or the amount of saccharin swallowed during preexposure (Experiment 5). These results suggest that mere exposure to a flavored solution is sufficient to increase subsequent intakes. The phenomenon is discussed in terms of the attenuation of neophobia elicited by the novelty of flavored solutions.
|
|
|
|
Fichtel, C. (2004). Reciprocal recognition of sifaka ( Propithecus verreauxi verreauxi) and redfronted lemur ( Eulemur fulvus rufus) alarm calls. Anim. Cogn., 7(1), 45–52.
Abstract: Redfronted lemurs ( Eulemur fulvus rufus) and Verreaux's sifakas ( Propithecus verreauxi verreauxi) occur sympatrically in western Madagascar. Both species exhibit a so-called mixed alarm call system with functionally referential alarm calls for raptors and general alarm calls for carnivores and raptors. General alarm calls also occur in other contexts associated with high arousal, such as inter-group encounters. Field playback experiments were conducted to investigate whether interspecific recognition of alarm calls occurs in both species, even though the two species rarely interact. In a crossed design, redfronted lemur and sifaka alarm calls were broadcast to individuals of both species, using the alarm call of chacma baboons ( Papio cynocephalus) as a control. Both species responded with appropriate escape strategies and alarm calls after playbacks of heterospecific aerial alarm calls. Similarly, they reacted appropriately to playbacks of heterospecific general alarm calls. Playbacks of baboon alarm calls elicited no specific responses in either lemur species, indicating that an understanding of interspecific alarm calls caused the responses and not alarm calls in general. Thus, the two lemur species have an understanding of each other's aerial as well as general alarm calls, suggesting that even in species that do not form mutualistic associations and rarely interact, common predator pressure has been sufficient for the development of heterospecific call recognition.
|
|
|
|
Nelson, E. E., Shelton, S. E., & Kalin, N. H. (2003). Individual differences in the responses of naive rhesus monkeys to snakes. Emotion, 3(1), 3–11.
Abstract: The authors demonstrated individual differences in inhibited behavior and withdrawal responses of laboratory-born rhesus monkeys when initially exposed to a snake. Most monkeys displayed a small significant increase in their behavioral inhibition in the presence of a snake. A few monkeys had marked responses, and some actively withdrew. Although the responses of the most extreme laboratory-born monkeys were comparable to feral-born monkeys, the responses of the laboratory-born monkeys rapidly habituated. The individual differences in the responses of naive monkeys likely reflect a continuum from orienting to wariness to fear. A neurobiological model is presented that addresses potential mechanisms underlying these individual differences, their relation to fear, and how they may predispose to phobia development.
|
|
|
|
Seyfarth, R. M., & Cheney, D. L. (2003). Signalers and receivers in animal communication. Annu Rev Psychol, 54, 145–173.
Abstract: In animal communication natural selection favors callers who vocalize to affect the behavior of listeners and listeners who acquire information from vocalizations, using this information to represent their environment. The acquisition of information in the wild is similar to the learning that occurs in laboratory conditioning experiments. It also has some parallels with language. The dichotomous view that animal signals must be either referential or emotional is false, because they can easily be both: The mechanisms that cause a signaler to vocalize do not limit a listener's ability to extract information from the call. The inability of most animals to recognize the mental states of others distinguishes animal communication most clearly from human language. Whereas signalers may vocalize to change a listener's behavior, they do not call to inform others. Listeners acquire information from signalers who do not, in the human sense, intend to provide it.
|
|
|
|
Zentall, S. S., & Zentall, T. R. (1976). Activity and task performance of hyperactive children as a function of environmental stimulation. J Consult Clin Psychol, 44(5), 693–697.
|
|
|
|
Zentall, S. S., & Zentall, T. R. (1983). Optimal stimulation: a model of disordered activity and performance in normal and deviant children. Psychol Bull, 94(3), 446–471.
|
|
