scholarly journals Group size adjustment to ecological demand in a cooperative breeder

2013 ◽  
Vol 280 (1756) ◽  
pp. 20122772 ◽  
Author(s):  
Markus Zöttl ◽  
Joachim G. Frommen ◽  
Michael Taborsky
2001 ◽  
Vol 39 (1) ◽  
pp. 83-92 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cheryl Fimbel ◽  
Amy Vedder ◽  
Ellen Dierenfeld ◽  
Felix Mulindahabi

2008 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Levine ◽  
Rachel Best ◽  
Paul Taylor

1968 ◽  
Vol 8 (1, Pt.1) ◽  
pp. 79-82 ◽  
Author(s):  
Harold B. Gerard ◽  
Roland A. Wilhelmy ◽  
Edward S. Conolley
Keyword(s):  

2017 ◽  
Vol 95 (1) ◽  
pp. 201
Author(s):  
S. R. Callahan ◽  
A. J. Cross ◽  
A. E. DeDecker ◽  
M. D. Lindemann ◽  
M. J. Estienne

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jiri Lukavsky ◽  
Vojtěch Klinger

In boundary extension (BE), people confidently remember seeing a surrounding region of a scene that was not visible in the studied view. However, the content near image boundaries might be uninteresting, serving only as a background for a central figure.In our experiments, we presented participants with 24 photographs with a defect (cut-out hole or black ink blot). Participants were instructed to memorize the photograph and then either reproduce the size of the hole/blot (BE task) or identify a change (distractor task). In Exp. 1, we showed participants printed photographs (18×13 cm) with cut-out holes. Participants systematically drew smaller holes (87.5% diameter, N=32). When we replaced the holes with black ink blots (Exp. 2), the bias was still present (91.4%, N=30). The computer-based version with size-adjustment of black blots (Exp. 3) yielded similar effects (92.8%, N=30), which disappeared (Exp. 4, 100.7%, N=30) if the probe blot sizes were randomized.We argue that BE occurs in the internal parts of photographs. We explored the effect in different media (paper/screen) and using different response tasks (free recall/adjustment). People show uncertainty in the adjustment tasks and reproduce remembered holes/blots as smaller (consistent with BE) if they are presented with the occluded content in the response phase.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
dean mobbs ◽  
Ellen Tedeschi ◽  
Anastasia Buyalskaya ◽  
Brian Silston

According to Hamilton’s Selfish Herd Theory, a crucial survival benefit of group living is that it provides a ‘risk dilution’ function against predation. Despite a large literature on group living benefits in animals, few studies have been conducted on how group size alters subjective fear or threat perception in humans, and on what factors drive preferences for being in groups when facing threats. We conducted seven experiments (N=3,838) to test (A) if the presence of others decreases perception of threat under a variety of conditions. In studies 1 to 3, we experimentally manipulated group size in hypothetical and real-world situations, to show that fear responses decreased as group size increased. In studies 4 to 7 we again used a combination of hypothetical, virtual and real-world decisions to test (B) how internal states (e.g. anxiety) and external factors (e.g. threat level, availability of help) affected participants’ preference for groups. Participants consistently chose larger groups when threat and anxiety were high. Overall, our findings show that group size provides a salient signal of protection and safety.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document