Cooperative social coordination and aggression: Sex and strain differences in the effects of housing on gonadectomized rats with hormone replacement

Schuster, Richard; Berger, Barry D.; Swanson, Heidi H.

doi:10.1002/1098-2337(1988)14:4<275::aid-ab2480140406>3.0.co;2-6

Cited by 11 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These questions were addressed by experiments with animals that were designed to rehabilitate cooperation as a social behavior in order to address the issues of explanation discussed above (Schuster, 2001(Schuster, , 2002aSchuster et al, 1988Schuster et al, , 1993). In contrast to experiments focused on outcome differences, outcomes were deliberately equalized between the two options.…”

Section: Modeling Choice Between Social Cooperation and Non-cooperatimentioning

confidence: 69%

“…When cooperative and non-cooperative behaviors are performed in the real world, however, they are liable to differ not only in the outcomes obtained by individuals but also in how the behavior is performed. Cooperation is usually an intrinsically social phenomenon associated with many interactive components that are not present when animals do not cooperate (Hinde, 1979;Roberts, 1997;Schuster, 2001Schuster, , 2002aSchuster et al, 1988Schuster et al, , 1993. Social dimensions can be particularly pronounced when pairs or larger groups coordinate actions for shared outcomes.…”

Section: Cooperation As Social Behaviormentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Numerous experiments have confirmed that both male and female rats readily learn to coordinate shuttling (Berger et al, 1980;Schuster, 2001Schuster, , 2002aSchuster et al, 1988Schuster et al, , 1993Schuster et al, , 1982Swanson and Schuster, 1987). Prior to working together, individual partners' shuttling is first reinforced alone until reaching a criterion rate.…”

Section: Rats As Subjectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Why cooperate?An economic perspective is not enough

Schuster

2004

Behavioural Processes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cooperation is usually explained from an economic perspective focused mainly on the tangible outcomes received by individuals that are also dependent on the behavior of others, with little reference to the actual behaviors used when cooperating. The potential consequences of social dimensions associated with cooperative behaviors are minimized in Skinnerian and game-theory models by means of anonymous subjects that behave individually while physically isolated in separate chambers. When cooperation and non-cooperation occur in the real world, however, they are often associated not only with different outcomes but also with different behaviors. Unlike non-cooperation, cooperative behaviors are usually intrinsically social, influenced by the presence and behaviors of familiar partners. Research is described that addresses whether the social dimensions of cooperative actions go beyond mere description of behaviors to also explain why cooperation occurs. One way to resolve the relative importance of economic and social factors for explanations of cooperation is to measure choice between the options of cooperation and non-cooperation. The economic perspective, linked to models derived from game theory, frames the question as a choice determined by differences in tangible outcomes such as food or money that, in evolutionary terms, are surrogates for gains in fitness. From a behavioral perspective, the choice between cooperation and non-cooperation is also determined by social dimensions associated only with cooperation. The influence of social cooperation on preference was examined by means of two rectangular chambers interconnected by a T-maze. In one chamber, pairs of laboratory rats were reinforced with saccharine solution for coordinating back-and-forth shuttling; in the second chamber, a single animal was reinforced for back-and-forth shuttling performed in isolation. With outcomes equalized between the two options, cooperation was preferred by the majority of subjects. Moreover, variation in the relative rate of reinforcement during cooperation was not a strong predictor of choice whereas the level of intra-pair coordination was positively related to preference. Implications of this result are discussed for both method and theory, including the hypothesis that the preference is influenced by intrinsic reinforcements evoked by cooperating. The consequences for evolutionary fitness would then arise not only from tangible outcomes but from the relationships that develop when cooperating even when immediate and tangible pay-offs are absent, insufficient or sub-optimal. The impact of cooperative relationships on fitness may therefore not occur immediately but in the future, and perhaps in another context, when they influence outcomes that have a significant impact on survival and reproduction.

show abstract

Section: Modeling Choice Between Social Cooperation and Non-cooperatimentioning

confidence: 69%

Section: Cooperation As Social Behaviormentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Rats As Subjectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Why cooperate?An economic perspective is not enough

Schuster

2004

Behavioural Processes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…On the response side, Domjan et al fail to consider how repeated social interactions between the same individuals lead to a social relationship that can be influential in determining states and behaviors during social encounters (Hinde 1979;Schuster et al 1993). For example, the target article briefly mentions how play behaviors "become more efficient" with practice (sect.…”

Section: Schuster@psyhaifaacilmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Such phenomena suggest that the control of social behaviors often involves processes that extend beyond the conditioning of individual responses. These include differences in initiating social actions, sharing jointly acquired outcomes, and using each other to coordinate actions in time and space (Chalmeau & Gallo, 1996;Schuster et al 1993). Coordinated actions are therefore likely to be embedded in more complex relationships that incorporate a number of asymmetries between partners.…”

Section: Schuster@psyhaifaacilmentioning

confidence: 99%

An integrative approach to the modeling of behavior

Timberlake¹,

Pecoraro²,

Tinsley³

2000

Behav Brain Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionMany of the things that animals do, they do together. This makes the analysis of social behavior a central problem in behavioral science. Our goal in this target article is to expand the conceptual and investigative tools that are used in the analysis of social behavior by integrating three different theoretical perspectives: biological theory, control systems theory, and learning theory (in the form of Pavlovian conditioning). We discuss how the integration of these three perspectives provides insights into important proximate mechanisms of social behavior that increase the efficiency and effectiveness of social interactions.The three theoretical approaches addressed in this paper have developed mostly independently of one another, and two of the three (control theory and learning theory) have had little to say about social behavior. The biological approach has focused on ecological and genetic factors that shape social behavior but has largely ignored the role of learning or learned associations. Control systems theory developed as a discipline in engineering, and although it has been used in the analysis of some biological systems (e.g., McFarland 1971), it has not been extended to social behavior. Pavlovian conditioning theory originated in investi-gations of digestive physiology and since then has been applied to a variety of other areas including cardiovascular and immune functioning, placebo effects, substance abuse, ingestive behavior, and language and memory (Hollis 1997; Abstract: The conceptual and investigative tools for the analysis of social behavior can be expanded by integrating biological theory, control systems theory, and Pavlovian conditioning. Biological theory has focused on the costs and benefits of social behavior from ecological and evolutionary perspectives. In contrast, control systems theory is concerned with how machines achieve a particular goal or purpose. The accurate operation of a system often requires feed-forward mechanisms that adjust system performance in anticipation of future inputs. Pavlovian conditioning is ideally suited to subserve this function in behavioral systems. Pavlovian mechanisms have been demonstrated in various aspects of sexual behavior, maternal lactation, and infant suckling. Pavlovian conditioning of agonistic behavior has been also reported, and Pavlovian processes may likewise be involved in social play and social grooming. Several further lines of evidence indicate that Pavlovian conditioning can increase the efficiency and effectiveness of social interactions, thereby improving their cost/benefit ratio. We extend Pavlovian concepts beyond the traditional domain of discrete secretory and other physiological reflexes to complex real-world behavioral interactions and apply abstract laboratory analyses of the mechanisms of associative learning to the daily challenges animals face as they interact with one another in their natural environments.Abstract: While feed-forward mechanisms may be ubiquitous in biological systems that form the substrat...

show abstract

Rank, relationships, and responses to intruders among adult male vervet monkeys

Schuster

Raleigh

McGuire

et al. 1993

American J Primatol

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We examined the influences of dyadic relationships among captive adult male vervet monkeys (Cercopithecus aethiops sabaeus) on behavior directed toward caged "intruder" males placed inside subjects' enclosures. Subjects were all 9 adult male residents from three stable social groups, each of which contained 3 adult males, at least 3 adult females, and their immature offspring. Every male was observed in two 3-hour sessions, each time with one of the 2 other adult males from his group. Observation sessions consisted of six consecutive 30-min stages in which group composition and the presence of the intruder were manipulated. All groups exhibited a stable, linear male dominance hierarchy prior to and throughout the study. In each group, there was one pair of males, when together, in which each member exhibited higher rates of intruder-directed approach and aggressive behaviors than when either animal was paired with the third male of his social group. Such pairs were also distinguished by high levels of within-pair agonistic interactions. The higher-ranking member of each dyad was the most aggressive male toward the intruder in his social group, although only one of these animals was the dominant male of his group. Mutual facilitation of aggression against intruding males is interpreted as cooperative behavior benefitting both males by increasing the likelihood of repelling a potential competitor for resident females. Such cooperation provides further evidence in nonhuman primates for cohesive male-male dyads between animals whose social interactions are characterized by agonism. o 1993 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

show abstract

Cooperative social coordination and aggression: Sex and strain differences in the effects of housing on gonadectomized rats with hormone replacement

Cited by 11 publications

References 29 publications

Why cooperate?An economic perspective is not enough

Why cooperate?An economic perspective is not enough

An integrative approach to the modeling of behavior

Rank, relationships, and responses to intruders among adult male vervet monkeys

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About