Measuring social complexity

Bergman, Thore J.; Beehner, Jacinta C.

doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2015.02.018

Cited by 151 publications

(167 citation statements)

References 56 publications

(62 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

165

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Instead our data on brain size support the idea that foraging demands shape intelligence, and our data on general problem solving are most consistent with the cognitive buffer hypothesis. It is relatively straightforward to quantify social complexity based on group size or numbers of differentiated relationships in which individual animals are involved [161]. Similarly it is possible to assign animal diets to at least crude categories of complexity (as in [58]).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The evolution of intelligence in mammalian carnivores

Holekamp

Benson‐Amram

2017

Interface Focus.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although intelligence should theoretically evolve to help animals solve specific types of problems posed by the environment, it is unclear which environmental challenges favour enhanced cognition, or how general intelligence evolves along with domain-specific cognitive abilities. The social intelligence hypothesis posits that big brains and great intelligence have evolved to cope with the labile behaviour of group mates. We have exploited the remarkable convergence in social complexity between cercopithecine primates and spotted hyaenas to test predictions of the social intelligence hypothesis in regard to both cognition and brain size. Behavioural data indicate that there has been considerable convergence between primates and hyaenas with respect to their social cognitive abilities. Moreover, compared with other hyaena species, spotted hyaenas have larger brains and expanded frontal cortex, as predicted by the social intelligence hypothesis. However, broader comparative study suggests that domain-general intelligence in carnivores probably did not evolve in response to selection pressures imposed specifically in the social domain. The cognitive buffer hypothesis, which suggests that general intelligence evolves to help animals cope with novel or changing environments, appears to offer a more robust explanation for general intelligence in carnivores than any hypothesis invoking selection pressures imposed strictly by sociality or foraging demands.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The evolution of intelligence in mammalian carnivores

Holekamp

Benson‐Amram

2017

Interface Focus.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Social complexity across species has conventionally been defined by the number of individuals in a social system and the relationship and differentiation among those individuals (Bergman & Beehner, 2015). Bergman and Beehner (2015) propose a contemporary definition of social complexity that preserves the central role of cognition: "… social complexity should be measured as the number of differentiated relationships that members of a species have with conspecifics" (p. 205).…”

Section: Social Complexitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Bergman and Beehner (2015) propose a contemporary definition of social complexity that preserves the central role of cognition: "… social complexity should be measured as the number of differentiated relationships that members of a species have with conspecifics" (p. 205). Going beyond sheer group size, differentiated relationships are those that require recognizing and responding to differences across individuals (e.g., dominance roles, kinship, and other more complex multidimensional differences).…”

Section: Social Complexitymentioning

confidence: 99%

The Psychology of Cows

Marino¹,

Allen²

2017

ABC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

-Domestic cows (Bos taurus) are consumed worldwide as beef and veal, kept as dairy product producers, employed as draft animals in labor, and are used for a long list of other products, including leather and manure. But despite global reliance on cows for thousands of years, most people's perception of them is as plodding herd animals with little individual personality and very simple social relationships or preferences. Yet, a review of the scientific literature on cow behavior points to more complex cognitive, emotional and social characteristics. Moreover, when cow behavior is addressed, it is almost entirely done within the framework of and applied to their use as food commodities. Therefore, there is relatively little attention to the study of cow intelligence, personality and sociality at a basic comparative level. In this review, we examine the current state of scientific knowledge about cows within an objective comparative framework, describing their cognitive, emotional, and social characteristics. Our aim is to provide a more veridical and objective current summary of cow psychology on its own terms and in ways which will facilitate better-informed comparisons with other animals. Moreover, an understanding of the capabilities and characteristics of domestic cows will, it is hoped, advance our understanding of who they are as individuals.

show abstract

“…One of the most compelling and popular ideas, the social complexity hypothesis, suggests that complex social systems require complex modes of communication (Freeberg et al 2012). With the exception of gorillas, all nonhuman hominids live in individual-based fission-fusion societies-one of the most complex social systems of any animal (van Schaik 1999;Ramos-Fernández 2005;Amrein et al 2014;Bergman and Beehner 2015;Classen et al 2016). These fissionfusion societies consist of large communities that often divide into smaller, temporary parties that provide various social benefits to in-group members, such as reducing in-group feeding competition and increasing the group's ability to defend territory (Lehmann et al 2006).…”

Section: The Differences Between Communication and Languagementioning

confidence: 99%

Primate social structure as a predictor of modes of communication and the ability to learn a human language

Sullivan¹

2017

The Human Voyage

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

For little over five decades, scientists have attempted to teach nonhuman hominids to communicate using human languages . The decision to utilise nonhuman hominids for this area of research is often attributed to their close genetic relatedness and similarly complex social structures to humans (Gardner and Gardner 1978). However, there has been minimal explanation in the literature as to why more complex social group structures allow for successful human language acquisition. Furthermore, there has been no investigation into whether other nonhominid primates, who may be more genetically dissimilar to humans but share similar social group complexity, could also be good candidates for human language acquisition. The following essay will argue that nonhuman hominids are likely successful at human language acquisition as a result of the social complexity hypothesis-a theory that states there is a positive association between social group and communication complexity (Freeberg et al. 2012). It will be proposed that the social complexity hypothesis may also be useful for identifying potential nonhominid candidates for future primate language acquisition research. However, future research should also analyse language acquisition in genera that do not appear to follow the social complexity hypothesis, to determine whether learning human languages requires only social complexity or communication complexity, and not both in combination .

show abstract

Measuring social complexity

Cited by 151 publications

References 56 publications

The evolution of intelligence in mammalian carnivores

The evolution of intelligence in mammalian carnivores

The Psychology of Cows

Primate social structure as a predictor of modes of communication and the ability to learn a human language

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About