Third-party interventions keep social partners from exchanging affiliative interactions with others

Schneider, Gudrun; Krueger, Konstanze

doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2011.11.007

Cited by 47 publications

(61 citation statements)

References 43 publications

(60 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…If the approached horse retreated more than two metres from the approaching horse, the approach was considered non-affiliative. If the approached horse did not move, moved towards the approaching horse, or moved less than 2 m to make room for the approaching horse, the approach was considered affiliative, as described by Schneider and Krüger (2012). Affiliative interactions typically included allo-grooming, swishing flies for each other, and standing in a proximity of less than 2 m for at least 15 s while grazing or resting.…”

Section: Methods Materials and Subjectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sensory laterality in affiliative interactions in domestic horses and ponies (Equus caballus)

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many studies have been carried out into both motor and sensory laterality of horses in agonistic and stressful situations. Here we examine sensory laterality in affiliative interactions within four groups of domestic horses and ponies (N = 31), living in stable social groups, housed at a single complex close to Vienna, Austria, and demonstrate for the first time a significant population preference for the left side in affiliative approaches and interactions. No effects were observed for gender, rank, sociability, phenotype, group, or age. Our results suggest that right hemisphere specialization in horses is not limited to the processing of stressful or agonistic situations, but rather appears to be the norm for processing in all social interactions, as has been demonstrated in other species including chicks and a range of vertebrates. In domestic horses, hemispheric specialization for sensory input appears not to be based on a designation of positive versus negative, but more on the perceived need to respond quickly and appropriately in any given situation.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1007/s10071-018-1196-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

Section: Methods Materials and Subjectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sensory laterality in affiliative interactions in domestic horses and ponies (Equus caballus)

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Some models of group conflicts in economics allow for variation in costs between individuals (Konrad & Kovenock, 2009). Although empiricists usually assume that coalition participation is costly (e.g., Packer, 1977;Smuts, 1985;Noë, 1986a;Hruschka, 2010;Smith et al, 2010;Schneider & Krueger, 2012;Walker & Bailey, 2013), virtually no systematic attempt to measure the costs of coalitions has been attempted. Bercovitch (1988) is one of the few studies that quantified the rate of injury resulting from coalition formation.…”

Section: Costs Of Coalitionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Coalitions in theory and reality: a review of pertinent variables and processes

Bissonnette

Perry

Barrett

et al. 2015

Behav

102

104

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Coalitions and alliances are ubiquitous in humans and many other mammals, being part of the fabric of complex social systems. Field biologists and ethologists have accumulated a vast amount of data on coalition and alliance formation, while theoretical biologists have developed modelling approaches. With the accumulation of empirical data and sophisticated theory, we are now potentially able to answer a host of questions about how coalitions emerge and are maintained in a population over time, and how the psychology of this type of cooperation evolved. Progress can only be achieved, however, by effectively bridging the communication gap that currently exists between Coalitions in theory and reality empiricists and theoreticians. In this paper, we aim to do so by asking three questions: (1) What are the primary questions addressed by theoreticians interested in coalition formation, and what are the main building blocks of their models? (2) Do empirical observations support the assumptions of current models, and if not, how can we improve this situation? (3) Has theoretical work led to a better understanding of coalition formation, and what are the most profitable lines of inquiry for the future? Our overarching goal is to promote the integration of theoretical and field biology by motivating empirical scientists to collect data on aspects of coalition formation that are currently poorly quantified and to encourage theoreticians to develop a comprehensive theory of coalition formation that is testable under real-world conditions.

show abstract

“…Recall from the description of the Bahati/Tasha relationship that Bahati also displayed dominance to try to disrupt play between Tasha and Tex. Similar attempts to interfere with others' affiliative relationships were observed in the daycare dogs (Trisko, 2011), captive chimpanzees (de Waal, 1982), stumptail macaques (Mondragón-Ceballos, 2001), horses (Schneider & Krueger, 2012) and ravens (Massen et al, 2014).…”

Section: Agonistic Behavioursmentioning

confidence: 51%

Affiliation, dominance and friendship among companion dogs

Trisko

Sandel

Smuts

2016

Behav

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Dog social behaviour has been well studied, but little is known about affiliative relationships between dogs. We report a yearlong study of dominance and affiliation in 24 dogs at a dog daycare facility and provide additional details on dog relationships through long-term observations of pairs of dogs who lived together in the same household or met frequently for years. Companion dogs formed highly differentiated relationships with one another. At daycare, some dyads affiliated and displayed one-way submission (formal dominance), others affiliated without a dominance relationship (egalitarian), and the majority of dyads did not affiliate at all (agonistic or non-interactive). The dogs in household environments showed formal and egalitarian relationships, and two dyads exchanged two-way agonism without submission (unresolved). Sex influenced the types of relationships dogs formed, with mixed sex dyads more likely to affiliate and less likely to exhibit dominance than same-sex pairs. Dominance influenced the nature of affiliation in relationships; egalitarian dyads were more likely to play and showed more equitable gentle affiliation. Gentle affiliation was reciprocal in the group as a whole, but it was highly skewed in many dyads, especially those with dominance relationships. Gentle affiliation was usually, but not always, directed up the hierarchy. Certain dyads affiliated at much higher rates than others, indicating that the dogs formed friendships. Most friends were mixed sex and/or egalitarian pairs, but friendships occurred in all of the sex class/dominance combinations. Long-term observations demonstrated how dyadic relationships can change over time. Such highly differentiated relationships suggest significant social complexity in dogs.

show abstract

Third-party interventions keep social partners from exchanging affiliative interactions with others

Cited by 47 publications

References 43 publications

Sensory laterality in affiliative interactions in domestic horses and ponies (Equus caballus)

Sensory laterality in affiliative interactions in domestic horses and ponies (Equus caballus)

Coalitions in theory and reality: a review of pertinent variables and processes

Affiliation, dominance and friendship among companion dogs

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About