sign in sign up
<<
Home , Comparative psychology, Josep Call

BUSINESS NAME The Behavioral Neuroscientist and Comparative Division 6, American Volume 26, Issue 1 Spring/Summer, 2011 Psychological Association

Editor A Message From Division 6 President Gordon Burghardt David J. Bucci, PhD Dartmouth College As my term as president of Division 6 is winding down I want to thank the officers, committee chairs, and others for what they have accomplished amid the continuing challenges facing the division and our re- Division President search fields. Incoming President Papini has assem- Gordon Burghardt, PhD bled a fine group of folks in a most timely fashion and the transition should be smooth. Here I draw atten- tion to several issues and end with some comments on essays in the last newsletter that may stimulate more interactions through The Behavioral Neuroscien- tist and Comparative Psychologist, our main formal vehi- Inside this issue: cle for keeping contact with all members and friends of Division 6.

Message from the 1, 4-5 The APA Convention, Newsletter, and Gradu- President ate Student Preparation. Elsewhere in this issue you should find the excellent program assembled by Jesse Purdy. We have taken advantage of the proximity of the meeting to the also instituted talks by winners of the best paper Division 6 2-3 National Zoo both to have sessions involving topics awards for and the Jour- Officers relevant to captive animal research and welfare at the nal of Comparative . These may always meeting but also to have an event on ape cognition be a year behind due to the time delay in deter- mining the winners after all the issues from the research at the zoo for Division 6. I hope that many of you will attend this meeting, in spite of the August previous year are published and the contents di- in DC setting. It should be especially valuable for gested. I have proposed to the Newsletter editor Towards an - 6-7, graduate students as they survey options in the ever that recipients of Division awards should be ex- ary Comparative Family 9-10 changing world of professional opportunities. Major pected to contribute an article to the newsletter, Psychology science publications have recently discussed what which will serve to introduce our eminent mem- bers to the Division as a whole, inform us of cur- Division Awards 8 many of us know all too well – graduate and postdoc- toral programs are often failing to prepare students rent excellent work that may be outside our areas for the new world of non-academic/research careers of current expertise, be useful in courses and for they will be entering. Not only are research grants in graduate students, etc. I would see these articles as APA Division 6 11-13 mixtures of personal experiences in pursuing pro- Program traditional fields drying up, but the days of Senator William Proxmire attacking ‘foolish’ behavioral re- grammatic research and specific findings presented search are back, with attacks not only on specific in a more informal manner than found in journal research projects but also on the very need for gov- articles. I think building this into the expectations ernment funding of behavioral and social science when awards are made will encourage participation Membership 14 research. The APA Convention is an excellent way by major speakers at the convention and also en- for students to sample, for good or ill, the current rich the newsletter. and future state of the profession in a rich and di- Finally, all members of the division should feel free verse venue. to suggest symposia topics, special events, etc. as

well as submitting papers and posters. The office of In the program you will note that we moved up the Hebb award winner talks to the year in which they divisions at APA has embarked on several initia- are made. Thus, this year there are two Hebb talks tives to make both the divisions and the conven- including this year’s winner, Ed Wasserman. We have tion more useful, accessible, (cont’d on page 4) Page 2 The Behavioral Neuroscientist and Comparative Psychologist

Division Officers & Committees 2010-2011

President: Gordon Burghardt, PhD Phone: (607) 777-4383 Department of Psychology e-mail: [email protected] University of Tennessee Knoxville, TN 37996 Past Early Career Representative: Kimberly Chris- Phone: (865) 974-3300 tian, Ph.D. e-mail: [email protected] Unit on the Genetics of Cognition and Behavior NIMH/MIH Past-President: Mark Bouton, Ph.D. 35 Convent Drive, Rm 1C1006 Department of Psychology Besthesda, MD 20892 University of Vermont Phone: (301) 402-6757 Burlington, VT 05405 Email: [email protected] Phone: (802) 656-4164 e-mail: [email protected] Current Student Representative: Sheri Browning Departments of Psychology President-Elect: Mauricio Papini University of Tennessee Mauricio R. Papini, PhD 1404 Circle Dr. Professor of Psychology Knoxville, TN 37996-0900 817-257-6084 Phone: (865) 974-3300 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected]

Secretary/Treasurer: Mary Cain, Ph.D. Past Student Representative: Drina Vurbic Department of Psychology Department of Psychology Kansas State University The University of Vermont Manhattan, KS 66506 John Dewey Hall Phone: (785) 532-6884 Burlington, VT 05405 e-mail: [email protected] Email: [email protected]

Council Representative: Jeff Alberts, Ph.D. Awards Committee Chair: Matthew Cooper, PhD Department of Psychology Department of Psychology Indiana University Austin Peay Building Bloomington, IN 47405 University of Tennessee Phone: (812) 855-0470 Knoxville, Tennessee 37996 email: [email protected] Phone: (865)-974-3328 Email: [email protected] Current Member-at-Large: Mary Meagher, Ph.D. Department of Psychology Awards Committee Past Chair: D. Cody Brooks, Texas A&M University Ph.D. College Station, TX 77843 Department of Psychology Phone: (979) 845-2564 Dennison University e-mail: [email protected] Granville, OH 43023 Phone (740) 587-5683 Email: [email protected] Current Member-at-Large: Michael J. Beran, Ph.D. Language Research Center, Georgia State University Membership & Growth Committee Chair: Todd K. University Plaza Atlanta, GA 30303 Shackelford, PhD Phone: (404)-413-5285 Department of Psychology Email: [email protected] Oakland University 112 Pryale Hall Past Member-at-Large: Lisa Savage, Ph.D. Rochester, Michigan 48309-4401 Department of Psychology Phone: (248) 370-2285 Binghamton University Email: [email protected] Binghamton, NY 13902 Volume 26, Issue 1 Page 3

Division Officers & Committees 2010-2011 (continued from page 2)

Membership & Growth Committee Past Chair: Past Newsletter Editor/Website Past Manager: Jonathan Crystal, Ph.D. Eric P. Wiertelak,PhD Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences Department of Psychology Indiana University Macalester College 1101 East Tenth Street Saint Paul, MN 55105. Bloomington, IN 47405 Phone: (651) 696-6111 Phone: (812)-856-2246 email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Listserv Manager: Suzanne McDonald, PhD Program Committee Chair: Jesse Purdy, PhD Atkinson Faculty of Liberal & Professional Studies Department of Psychology 4700 Keele Street Southwestern University York University P. O. Box 770 Toronto, Ontario, Canada M3J 1P3 Georgetown, TX, 78627-0770 Email: [email protected] Phone: (512) 863-1985 Email: [email protected] Division Historian/ Archivist: Gary Greenberg, Ph.D. Department of Psychology Program Committee Past Chair: Jeansok Kim, Ph.D. Wichita State University Department of Psychology 4447 N. Malden St. T-471 Health Sciences Center Chicago, IL 60640 University of Washington Phone: (773) 728-6159 Seattle, WA 98195-7270 e-mail: [email protected] Phone: (206) 616-2685 Email: [email protected] Editor of Behavioral Neuroscience: Mark S. Blum- berg, Ph.D. Fellows Nominating Committee Chair: Charles Department of Psychology Snowdon, PhD University of Iowa Department of Psychology E11 Seashore Hall University of Wisconsin Madison University of Iowa 510 Psychology Iowa City, Iowa 52242 1202 West Johnson St. Phone: (319) 335-2424 Madison, WI 53706-1611 Email: [email protected] Phone: (608) 262.1041 Email: [email protected] Editor of the Journal of : Fax: (608) 262.4029 Gordon M. Burghardt, Ph.D. Department of Psychology Fellows Nominating Committee Past Chair: Mark University of Tennessee Stanton, Ph.D. Knoxville, TN 37996 Department of Psychology Phone: (865) 974-3300 132A Wolf Hall e-mail: [email protected] University of Delaware Newark, DE 19716 Phone: (302) 831-0175 Email: [email protected] Fax: (302) 831-3645

Current Newsletter Editor/Website Manager: David Bucci, Ph.D. Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences Dartmouth College Hanover, NH 03755 Phone: (603) 646-3439 Page 4 The Behavioral Neuroscientist and Comparative Psychologist

President’s Message (continued from page 1)

friendly to both graduate students and early Methodology career professionals. Please contact the chairs Michael Beran (2010) discusses the problem of of the program, membership, student, and early inadvertent cueing of animals in cognition ex- career committees and representatives with periments. This is in the context of recent your ideas, suggestions, and offers to be in- visible and very pubic controversies (such as volved. The division should not be a top down that involving the research of Marc Hauser), organization but one that actively engages all of and the possible consequences both ethical and us. scientific. Michael sets up his analysis using the familiar story of . He makes two American Psychological Foundation important points. One is that testing or scoring In the last issue of the newsletter I wrote an of responses of animals by experimenters or impassioned plea for some senior members to observers blind to the ‘correct’ response is still step forward to establish a fund with the APF too often lacking, in spite of a century since the to ensure the future of the division and en- Clever Hans fiasco. The second is that replica- hance achieving our goals. Sadly, I must report tion is needed more often, not exact replica- that I received only a couple of comments and tion but ‘conceptual replication’ in which differ- only one financial commitment. In spite of my ent methodologies are used to demonstrate or willingness to invest a substantial amount to- investigate the same cognitive capacity. ward the $20,000 needed to be raised to get These are certainly valuable points and started, we cannot yet go forward. If any peo- ones too often neglected, even if discussed in ple out there would be willing to commit funds laboratory and methodological courses. But I of $1000 or more over several years (which would extend the analysis even further. The only need to be paid when the target is issue of ‘conceptual replication’ is akin to the reached), it is still possible to proceed. Several approach to science of strong inference that divisions have or are establishing funds to pro- John Platt espoused in a paper, still highly rele- vide convention travel, research, and other vant, that came out when I was in graduate awards, for example. I hope that some mem- school (Platt, 1964). I think it should be di- bers out there have resources they are willing gested by every graduate student and periodi- to provide as legacies for the fields in which we cally reread by professionals in any area of have been privileged to work and . For science. It is readily available on-line. The issue more information, do see the December news- of blind testing also is, I feel, applicable to many letter, which is on the website or contact me areas of behavioral and neuroscience research, individually at [email protected]. not just . Couple this problem with the lax reporting of interob- Need for Dialogue server reliability and the potential for future I have reread some of the previous president problems in the research enterprise, including columns by my predecessors and found many the ability to trust much current published thoughtful, insightful, and stimulating com- research, are multiplied many times. The infa- ments. I also found many of the other contribu- mous studies on students testing they tions most informative. I also note that there were told were from bright or dull strains and are few responses in subsequent issues of the the thorough documentation of observer ef- newsletter and a certain amount of redundancy fects decades ago (Rosenthal, 1979) have not and repetition. Some of this is due to the na- had nearly the impact they should have had. A ture of the academic discourse as new people recent review of papers published in Animal enter and elders fade out. Some is due to the Behaviour, 30 years after Rosenthal’s book, enduring questions we have not yet answered. documents this sad situation (Kaufman & Still, the historian side of me finds this trou- Rosenthal, 2009). Recently, I and Todd Free- bling. I will end my last column as your presi- berg and his students at the University of Ten- dent with some brief reactions to three of the nessee looked at 5 decades of research in sev- provocative essays in the last issue of the eral leading behavioral journals and found very newsletter (BNCP, Vol 25(2) -Fall/Winter low levels of controlling for observer bias and 2010). I would like to encourage members to reliability. Although recent volumes of the submit to the newsletter editor comments on Journal of Comparative Psychology have much these and other issues you feel our fields higher levels of blind testing and observer reli- should be discussing. ability information than the other journals ana- Volume 26, Issue 1 Page 5 lyzed, levels are still too low. To remedy this situation, both I and are not mentioned at all by Vonk and as current JCP editor and as incoming JCP editor, Shackelford, nor are many of the issues that have concerned are making more explicit our expectations for such methodo- comparative of the past such as , devel- logical rigor. Neuroscience journals are also not exempt from opment, , , hormones, and so forth. Yet new these problems in presenting behavioral, histological, and attempts to refine and revisit the nature and goals of compara- other kinds of quantitative data. Psychologists are known for tive psychology are welcome and indeed necessary if research their methodological and quantitative skills, yet we do not areas are to flourish rather than languish. What I do find unfor- seem to have inculcated the lessons that we often teach, per- tunate is that the special issue of the JCP (Hirsch, 1987), pub- haps because we too often do not demand, or report, imple- lished shortly after the JCPP divided into BN and the JCP, con- mentation of such safeguards in our own research. taining contributions by many leading figure, some still active, is not cited by virtually anyone these days, something I hope to The History and Future of Comparative Psychology address in the future. This is not the place for detailed analysis There were also two essays in the Fall 2010 issue jousting, in of the historical and conceptual issues at play in these three a way, for similar conceptual space in comparative psychology BNCP essays. However, as an admitted old hand who has wit- (there were no explicitly behavioral neuroscience essays). nessed many of the developments in our field, and who has been Gary Greenberg, Division 6 Historian, discussed Comparative critical of some aspects of Dewsbury’s writings on comparative Psychology and Ethology based on a forthcoming contribution psychology (e.g., Burghardt, 1986), the Schneirla school to the Encyclopedia of the Sciences of . Greenberg’s (Burghardt, 1973), the animal cognitive/ revolution essay (Greenberg, 2010) is certainly interesting and presents a (Burghardt, 1985), and (Burghardt, point of view, centered on the contributions of Schneirla, 2008), I find that too often we (and I do include myself) view Gottlieb, and Lehrman. My attention was aroused since the historical claims and new insights through blinders, frequently essay contrasts with my short encyclopedia entry on a similar ideological, that ignore relevant sources, prior research, and topic that also appeared late in 2010 (Burghardt, 2010). Per- alternative interpretations. Of course, such problems are often haps most telling, however, is that Greenberg’s essay largely non-intentional and are products of our own backgrounds and leaves out many aspects of comparative psychology as dis- experiences. But think back to the writings of Beran, Platt, and cussed in the books and writings of his predecessor as Divi- Rosenthal: do we have an obligation to try, as best as we can, to sion 6 Historian, Don Dewsbury (e.g., 1984a,b ), whose work apply similar methodological rigor to avoid bias when construing is not even cited. There is also available the comprehensive the origins, history, and potential of scientific fields and the and quite even-handed history of ethology by Richard claims we make about them as we do in supporting a new scien- Burkhardt (2005). This is not the place to comment on tific finding? If so, is there any alternative to trying to be as ob- Greenberg’s claims that ethology was “hard nosed biological jective and thorough as we can? Is it sufficient to wait for others determinism,” that “with evolutionary psychology instincts are to replicate and confirm, or not, our evaluation of the phenom- once again in vogue,” or that it is necessary to draw a sharp ena being studied rather than apply strong inference ourselves. line between psychology and biology. As a product of under- graduate and graduate programs in ‘biopsychology,’ and view- References ing the interdisciplinary mission of our division, I think we Beran, M. J. (2010). BNCP, 52(2), 11-12. need to be wary of erecting walls and emphasize, as Danny Burghardt, G. M. (1973). In J. A. Nevin & G. S. Reynolds (Eds.), Lehrman did himself in his later years, the seeking of common The study of behavior: Learning, motivation, emotion, and (pp. ground, along with careful experimental studies, to resolve 322-400). empirical and theoretical questions. Burghardt, G. M. (1985). American Psychologist, 40, 905-919. Interestingly, while Greenberg seems to agree that evolu- Burghardt, G. M. (1986). Ethology, 73, 78-84. tionary psychology is “seriously flawed,” the essay following Burghardt, G. M. (2008).. The General Psychologist, 43(2), 6-11. his by Jennifer Vonk and Todd Shackelford (2010) makes a Burghardt, G. M. (2010). M. D. Breed & J. Moore (Eds.), Encyclo- vigorous case for a new field melding comparative and evolu- pedia of animal behavior, Vol. 1 (pp. 340-344). Academic Press: tionary psychology, a field they call Comparative Evolutionary Oxford, UK, Psychology. They draw attention to their forthcoming Oxford Burkhardt, R., Jr. (2005). Patterns of behavior. University of Chi- handbook on this topic. Their primary point seems to be that cago Press: Chicago. comparative psychologists needs to return to the objectivity Dewsbury, D. A. (1984). Comparative psychology in the twentieth of the behaviorists, broaden the diversity of the cognitive century. Hutchinson Ross: Stroudsburg, PA. processes studied, and infuse their work with the more so- Dewsbury, D. A. (Ed.) (1984b). Foundations of comparative psy- phisticated understanding of evolution exemplified by evolu- chology. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. tionary psychologists. The latter point could not contrast Greenberg, G. (2010). BNCP, 52(2), 6-7. more with Greenberg’s claim that it is how evolutionary psy- Hirsch, J. (Ed.). (1987). Journal of Comparative Psychology, 101(3). chologists apply evolution that is the problem! As Vonk and Kaufman, A. B. & Rosenthal, R. (2009).. Animal Behaviour, 78, Shackelford have organized a Division 6 symposium on com- 1487-1491. parative evolutionary psychology for this year’s APA conven- Platt, J. R. (1964). Science, 146, 347-353. tion, members who attend can evaluate this initiative and the Rosenthal, R. (1979). Experimenter effects in behavioral research. research being conducted. I hope that future issues of the New York: Halsted Press. BNCP will contain summaries and integration of the contribu- Vonk, J. & Shackelford, T. K. (2010). BNCP, 52(2), 8-9. tions or this and other sessions at the convention. Page 6 The Behavioral Neuroscientist and Comparative Psychologist

Towards an Evolutionary Comparative Family Psychology

Catherine A. Salmon, University of Redlands Todd K. Shackelford, Oakland University

What do you think of when you think about family? Par- vive and reproduce in competition with other members of ents, children, spouses, or siblings? How about grandparents or their species. Adaptations are shaped, or evolve, through cousins? For most people, relationships with those we think of . The process of natural selection is simply as our family members are an essential part of our lives. As chil- the differential production or survival of offspring by geneti- dren, we were dependent on our families for our food and shel- cally different members of the population (Williams, 1966). If ter. Our families protected us, loved us, and taught us about the an individual (whether animal or human) is better able to sur- world we were growing up in. Then, as young , many of us vive and reproduce, they are more likely to leave offspring move away from our family circles, often to form families of our that share their traits (Darwin, 1859). own. But many of us retain strong ties to our natal kin. Relation- In other words, some feature of the environment poses a ships with family can be important to our emotional health and problem for an organism. Genetically based variants contrib- can play a significant role in our social success. Family can be a ute to reproduction and survival with regard to that environ- source of great joy as well as great anguish. Our siblings, for mental condition. Individuals with those variants will be more example, can be our strongest allies and our most persistent successful, passing on their “good genes” and the resulting opponents. behavioral repertoire to their offspring. Our recently published Oxford Handbook of Evolutionary Kinship Theory. has long been a topic of inter- Family Psychology (Salmon & Shackelford, 2011) includes chapters est in the study of both human and animal behavior. To many by leading scholars, many of whom adopt an explicitly compara- early evolutionary thinkers, it was a puzzle. Why would indi- tive and evolutionary approach to the family that focuses on the viduals be willing to sacrifice anything for another individual? “whys”—the ultimate or distal behind human, and ani- The logic of natural selection would seem to suggest that mal, behavior. This perspective brings something to the table altruism should not exist and yet it is found throughout the that is often ignored in the study of families. Humans are not the natural world. Hamilton (1964) demonstrated that altruistic only species to have families. Many other species live in groups behavior (behavior performed at a cost to oneself for the and have relationships with their parents, offspring, and siblings. benefit of another) could evolve if the individuals involved Sometimes these relationships are short-lived, but sometimes were genetically related. Even though the direct reproductive they can last a long time and often appear to be characterized by fitness of the donor is reduced, if his actions aid his own ge- strong bonds. Anyone who has read (or seen footage of) Jane netic kin, then he receives an indirect fitness benefit. At the Goodall’s descriptions of the relationships between chimpanzee time, this was a new way of thinking about fitness. No longer mother Flo and her offspring, especially Flint, the son she nursed were organisms simply reproductive strategists (with fitness until her own death, can not help but see a bond that many hu- being measured in own offspring); now they were also nepo- man mothers and children feel. tistic strategists (with fitness being measured in own repro- ductive success plus the reproductive success of kin). If an What is an evolutionary perspective on the family? individual’s genes are just as likely to be present in a sister as In many ways, early 20th century thinking about human be- in a daughter, one would expect the evolution of sororal in- havior embraced , or at least his functional ap- vestment in the same way as one expects maternal investment proach to the study of life. To modern biologists and animal For example, consider conflicts that occur within the behaviorists, an evolutionary approach is second-nature. An family (animal or human). Hamilton (1964) pointed out that adaptationist approach to animal families raises no eyebrows. kin are valuable in the genetic sense (among others senses) But the last 75 years or so has seen an almost pathological and that what contributes to an individual’s inclusive fitness avoidance of biology when it comes to the study of human be- also may contribute to the inclusive fitness of the individual’s havior. We need to remember that people are just another type relatives. The more closely related are two individuals, the of animal, subject to the forces of natural selection just as all greater their shared genetic interests. But it is important to other species are. It’s time to revisit the importance of our an- remember that although there is genetic commonality, there cestral history and the selection pressures that built not only the also are genetic differences and these can lead to conflicts of organs of our body but also those of our . To explain this interest. These conflicts are often apparent when individuals approach, we first provide a brief review of the process of natu- are competing for the same scarce resources, such as mates, ral selection, the special role of kinship in evolutionary analyses, food, or social status. Trivers’ (1974) analysis of within-family and how adaptations can function as decision-makers, highlight- conflict made use of Hamilton’s approach. Because the prob- ing this with regard to kin relationships. ability of an individual replicating its alleles through its own Natural Selection. When we refer to an adaptation, we offspring is 0.5 (the degree of relatedness between parent and are talking about an anatomical structure, physiological process, offspring) and through its full sibling’s (contd next pg) or behavior that made ancestral individuals’ more likely to sur- Volume 26, Issue 1 Page 7 offspring (a niece or nephew) is only 0.25, natural selection adaptation is not cost-free. It takes a non-trivial amount of en- will favor individuals that seek a greater share of their parent’s ergy to raise body temperature. Perhaps more importantly, and resources. In other words, we expect a certain degree of especially in young children, the rise in body temperature can sibling competition. In some species, this competition results damage other systems if it is excessively high and prolonged in in the elimination of a sibling competitor. In others, it just duration (Williams & Nesse, 1991). means a lot of headaches for the parents. From a parental From a decision-maker perspective, adaptations can be perspective, they are equally related to all their children and seen as decision rules or mental mechanisms designed by natural grandchildren, so parents have typically been under selective selection for producing the different behaviors required for an- pressure to resist a particular offspring’s demands, especially cestral survival, growth, and reproduction. Buss (1999) has sug- when offspring are trying to extract more than their fair share gested the term “evolved psychological mechanisms” for the of resources. specialized information-processing mechanisms that organize Consider the case of weaning conflict in a species that experiences into adaptively meaningful schemas. These mecha- produces one offspring at a time. When an offspring is very nisms focus attention, organize perception and memory, and young, parental fitness typically benefits most from investing recruit specialized procedural knowledge that leads to domain highly in this current offspring. It’s in the offspring’s best inter- appropriate inferences, judgments, and choices when activated ests to extract as many resources as possible up to a certain by a relevant problem. point, even at the expense of future siblings the mother could be having. At some point, the value to the offspring (who may Kinship and Human Psychology be reaching a state of greater independence, able to obtain Anthropologists have long recognized the importance of food on its own, etc.) of monopolizing such resources is out- kinship to the study of human social behavior, and one might weighed by the costs in terms of its own inclusive fitness. have assumed the same of psychologists. It is true that attention Typically, the mother reaches her own point of diminishing to the family has been paid in areas such as developmental psy- returns before the offspring does (after all, she is equally re- chology and . However, it has been largely lated to each of her offspring, whereas her current offspring is ignored in many other areas of psychology, including those areas more closely related to itself than to future siblings). The in which its importance might have seemed obvious, such as period between when the mother’s fitness is best served by (see Daly, Salmon, & Wilson (1997) for a dis- decreasing investment in the current offspring and investing in cussion of the absence of the family in much of social psychol- future offspring (in reproducing again) and when the current ogy; see Burnstein, Crandall, and Kitayama (1994) and Michalski offspring’s fitness is also best served by the mother investing and Shackelford (2005) for examples of evolutionarily-informed elsewhere is known in mammalian species as weaning conflict social that takes kinship into account). A (see Trivers, 1974). The mother’s fitness returns are decreas- proper, evolutionarily-informed approach to a psychology of the ing but the offspring isn’t quite ready to give up any invest- family is by necessity a relationship-specific approach (Wilson & ment. Conflict is most intense at such a stage. During this Daly, 1997). Humans, along with other species, have evolved period, the mother’s fitness is increased more by investing in specialized mechanisms for processing information and motivat- additional offspring, whereas a particular offspring’s fitness is ing behavior relevant to the specific demands of being a mate, increased more by continued maternal investment. The con- father, mother, sibling, child, or grandparent. Kinship is not one flict ends as the fitness benefits of weaning shift to both relationship. It is many different relationships. The challenges mother and offspring (Drake, Fraser & Weary, 2008; Rehling that face mothers are different from those that face fathers or & Trillmich, 2007). siblings. Adaptations as Decision Makers. Adaptations can be anatomical, physiological, or behavioral. The beaks of Dar- Relationship-Specific Adaptations win’s finches, often used to characterize the different species Motherhood. There is no more essential mammalian rela- of finches living on the Galapagos, provide a classic example of tionship than that between mother and offspring. It should not an adaptation that is anatomical in nature (for review, see be surprising, therefore, that it may be the relationship with the Grant & Grant, 2007). The dietary options available influenced most specialized anatomical, physiological, and psychological the survival of birds of varying beak types and sizes, so that mechanisms. The demands of motherhood go beyond concep- today we see finch beaks that are well suited to cracking large tion, gestation, and nursing. Not all offspring are created equal. seeds in some areas, whereas finches in other environments They are not all equally capable of transforming parental care have beaks that take advantage of other food sources such as and investment into the long-term success of parental genes. insects. But adaptations can also be understood in terms of The result has been strong selection for the strategic allocation processes that carry out the cost-benefit analyses an ancestral of maternal effort. The evolved motivational mechanisms that organism required to survive environmental challenges. For direct maternal investment decisions are sensitive to a number example, the fever adaptation can be described as a set of of offspring attributes, to the material and social situation, and decision processes for dealing with certain types of invading the situation/condition of the mother herself (see Daly & Wil- organisms. If you are being invaded by bacteria M, raise your son, 1995, for a review). body temperature by X degrees. The increase in body tem- However, mothers are not the only interested party. Off- perature may be enough to destroy the invader, which is spring themselves have a role to play in resource alloca- beneficial to the individual (which is why when fever is pre- tion. (contd on pg 9) vented by drugs, resistance to infection is lower). But the Page 8 Newsletter Title

2011 Division 6 Award Winners

Ed Wasserman, Ph.D. University of Iowa Recipient of the D.O. Hebb Award for Distin- guished Scientific Contribution

Holly Miller, Ph.D. University of Kentucky Recipient of the Brenda A. Milner Award for Outstanding Paper by a Young Investigator

Chana Akins, Ph.D. University of Kentucky Recipient of the Clifford T. Morgan Award for Distinguished Service

The editors of the Journal of Comparative Psychology have selected the authors of the following article as recipients of the Frank A. Beach Comparative Psychology Award:

Walter T. Herbranson, & Julia Schroeder (2010). Are birds smarter than mathematicians? Pigeons (Columba livia) perform optimally on a version of the Monty Hall Dilemma. Journal of Comparative Psy- chology, 124 (1), 1-13.

The editors of Behavioral Neuroscience have selected the authors of the following article as recipients of the D.G. Marquis Behavioral Neuroscience Award:

Sara N. Burke, Jenelle L. Wallace, Saman Nematollahi, Ajay R. Uprety, & Carol A. Barnes (2010). Pattern separation deficits may contribute to age-associated recognition impairments. Behav- ioral Neuroscience, 124 (5), 559-573.

Award recipients will receive plaques at the Division 6 Business Meeting at the APA Convention in Washington, DC. A complete description of each award and past recipients can be found on the Division 6 website.

Page 9 The Behavioral Neuroscientist and Comparative Psychologist

Towards an Evolutionary Comparative Family Psychology (contd from page 7)

Parent-offspring conflict (Trivers, 1974) is a feature of sexually repro- grandfathers, paternal grandmothers, and finally paternal ducing species because of the resultant genetic asymmetries in family grandfathers. From a theoretical perspective, a maternal relationships. A mother is equally related genetically to any two of grandmother has the greatest certainty of her grandchild’s her offspring, but each offspring is more closely related to itself than relatedness to her. A paternal grandfather faces a different to a sibling (except in the case of identical twins). As a result, mother dynamic. He endures two relationship links that can be and offspring do not see eye to eye on the relative fitness value of broken by nonpaternity. other offspring or the allocation of maternal resources. This conflict over maternal resources provides an explanation for some puzzling Kinship and Animal Psychology aspects of mother-offspring interaction, such as the previously men- When most people think about family, they think tioned weaning conflict and maternal-fetal conflict (Haig, 1993; Triv- about their own relationships, their parents, siblings, and ers, 1974). children, maybe cousins, aunts and uncles, and grandpar- Fatherhood. There are significant similarities between paternal ents too. But we are not the only species that has families solicitude and maternal solicitude, but there also are several substan- and for which kinship plays a significant role. Much of our tial differences. Parents have been selected to assess offspring quality understanding of human families and the mechanisms that and need, and for both fathers and mothers mechanisms motivating influence family relationships was facilitated by the study of solicitude evolved to generate solicitude in relation to cues of the animal behavior and how animals invest in their own off- expected impact of any on the offspring’s future spring (and sometimes in siblings or in the offspring of success. Both father and mother have been selected to discriminate others). From work on the breeding success of birds, to with respect to cues that the offspring is their genetic child. But it is the strategic allocation of reproductive effort to parenting true that for mammalian mothers the evidence is clear. If you gave or mating, to sibling competition and helpers at the nest, birth to it, the baby is yours. For men, due to internal fertilization and animal families not only are interesting in and of them- relatively concealed ovulation, paternity is never certain (or wouldn’t selves, but also are important for the light they shed on have been in our ancestral past). Putative fathers must depend on human family relationships. sources of information about the mother’s likely fidelity, or the Animal Parenting. Consider the killdeer, a familiar bird child’s resemblance to his relatives or to himself. From this, one in the grasslands of America. It is perhaps best known for might predict that paternal affection will be influenced by paternal its predator distraction display used to protect its chicks. of resemblance. And, in fact, people do pay more atten- If a predator gets close to its nest, it will attempt to lure tion to paternal resemblance than to maternal resemblance, with the predator away with a display of vulnerability, behaving mothers and their relatives actively promoting perceptions of pater- as though its wing is broken. The energy cost may be low nal resemblance (Daly & Wilson, 1982; Regalski & Gaulin, 1993). but there is a risk (part of the bird’s investment) that the Sibship. An evolutionary perspective also can generate insight predator will make the parent killdeer lunch (Brunton, into our understanding of sibling relations (Mock & Parker, 1996). 1990). How easy it is to appreciate such parental protec- Hamilton’s (1964) analysis of the evolution of sociality and altruism in tion, seeing the connection between that and the protec- haplodiploid insects had at its core the shared genetic interests of tive behavior of human parents as well as many other sisters in such species. But although siblings, our close genetic kin, animals. can be major allies they also can be our fiercest competitors, espe- Although many species of animal, particularly some cially for parental resources. The result is sibling relationships that aquatic ones, make no parental investment after spawning, are often somewhat ambivalent across the lifespan. many do invest in their offspring. Among mammals, it is Grandparenthood. Do we have adaptations designed specifi- typically the female who invests the most through provi- cally to deal with the problems faced by grandparental relationships? sioning and protection, although it is true that some males Or do these relationships merely co-opt adaptations for parenting? contribute significantly as well. Postmenopausal women make significant contributions to the welfare Because animals sometimes behave nepotisticly, en- of their grandchildren in many cultures (Lancaster & King, 1985; gaging, for example, in cooperative grooming in Japanese Sears, Mace, & McGregor, 2000). Thus, it is reasonable to suspect macaques (Glick, Eaton, Johnson & Worlein, 1986) and in that mental processes specific to the allocation of grandparental in- alarm-calling in Belding’s ground squirrels (Sherman, 1977; vestment may have been the targets of natural selection (Hawkes, alarm calling is done typically by females living near female O’Connell, Blurton Jones, Alvarez, & Charnov, 1998). kin), recognizing relatives has been a hot topic in animal Euler and Weitzel (1996) examined the hypothesis that paternity family research. Do animals recognize each other as kin by certainty could influence grandparental investment (in addition to its frequency of contact? Phenotypic resemblance? Smell? impact on paternal investment) by asking adults to rate the degree of And like humans, not all family relationships are grandparental solicitude they experienced from each of their four bright and rosy. Books on dealing with sibling rivalry be- grandparents. The results were striking, indicating a strong link be- tween one’s children abound, and in some animal species tween relatedness/paternity certainty and solicitude. Maternal grand- such sibling conflict is taken to (contd next page) mothers were rated the highest on solicitude, followed by maternal Volume 26, Issue 1 Page 10

Cain and Abel like heights with siblicide occurring in many second year of life. International Journal of , 7, 467-479. species of birds. Siblicide in these cases has been interpreted Grant, P. R., and Grant, R. (2007). How and why species multi- as an adaptive strategy that benefits the surviving offspring and ply: The radiation of Darwin's finches (Princeton Series in Evolu- the parents, as grisly as this may seem (Mock, Drummond & tionary Biology). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Stinson, 1990; Mock & Parker 1997). Haig, D. (1993).. Quarterly Review of Biology, 68, 495-532. Hamilton, W.D. (1964). Journal of Theoretical Biology, 7, 1-52. This article is intended to illustrate the many ways in Hawkes, K., O’Connell, J.F., Blurton Jones, N.G., Alvarez, H., and which an evolutionary comparative perspective on the family Charnov, E.L. (1998). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sci- can contribute to our understanding of behavior. We also ences of the United States, 95, 1336-1339. hope that it provides insight into the kinship psychology of Hrdy, S.B. (2000). Mother nature: Maternal instincts and how they animals and how similar (and at times different) they are in shape the human species. New York: Ballantine. comparison to our own kinship psychology. Much of the Lancaster, J.B. and King, B.J. (1985). An evolutionary perspective pleasure and pain of family life has been with us over the on menopause. In J.K. Brown and V. Kern (Eds.), In her prime: A course of human evolutionary history. Our modern behavior new view of middle aged women (pp. 13-20). Boston: Bergin and is the product of our evolutionary response to the pressures Garvey. of living as a social species just as the behavior of other social Mock, D.W., Drummond, H., and Stinson, C.H. (1990). Avian animals is a product of such pressures. siblicide. American , 78, 438-449. Mock, D.W. and Parker, G.A. (1997). The evolution of sibling ri- [Adapted from Salmon, C.A. & Shackelford, T.K. (2011). Toward valry. New York: Oxford University Press. an evolutionary psychology of the family. In C.A. Salmon & T.K. Regalski, J.M. and Gaulin, S.J.C. (1993). Whom are Mexican in- Shackelford (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Evolutionary Family fant said to resemble? Monitoring and fostering paternal confi- Psychology (pp. 3-11). NY: Oxford University Press.] dence in the Yucatan. Ethology and , 14, 97-113. Rehling, A. and Trillmich, F. (2007). and Sociobi- ology, 62, 149-157. References Salmon, C. (1999). On the impact of sex and birth order on Brunton, D.H. (1990). Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 26, contact with kin. Human Nature, 10, 183-197. 181-190. Salmon, C. (2003).. Human Nature, 14, 73-88. Burnstein, E., Crandall, C., and Kitayama, S. (1994). Journal of Salmon, C.A. & Shackelford, T.K. (2011). Toward an evolution- Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 773-789. ary psychology of the family. In C.A. Salmon & T.K. Shackelford Buss, D.M. (1999). Evolutionary psychology: The new science of (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Evolutionary Family Psychology (pp. the mind (1st ed.). New York: Allyn & Bacon. 3-11). NY: Oxford University Press. Crawford, C.B. and Salmon, C. (2004). The essence of evolu- Sears, R., Mace, R., and McGregor, I.A. (2000). Maternal grand- tionary psychology. In C. Crawford and C. Salmon (Eds.), mothers improve nutritional status and survival of children in Evolutionary psychology, public policy and personal decisions (pp. rural Gambia. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B. 23-49). Mahweh, NJ: Erlbaum. Biological Sciences, 267, 1641-1647. Daly, M. and Wilson, M. (1982). Ethology and Sociobiology, 3, 69 Sherman, P.W. (1977). Science, 197, 1246-1253. -78. Trivers, R.L. (1974).. American Zoologist, 14, 249-264. Daly, M. and Wilson, M. (1984). A sociobiological analysis of Williams, G.C. (1966). Adaptation and natural selection: A critique human . In G. Hausfater and S.B. Hrdy, (Eds.), Infan- of some current evolutionary thought. Princeton, NJ: Princeton ticide: comparative and evolutionary perspectives (pp. 487-502). University Press. New York: Aldine. Williams, G.C. and Nesse, R. (1991).. Quarterly Review of Biology, Daly, M. and Wilson, M. (1988). Nebraska Symposium on Moti- 66, 1-22. vation, 35, 91-144. Wilson, E.O. (1975). Sociobiology: The new synthesis. Cambridge, Daly, M., Salmon, C., and Wilson, M. (1997). Kinship: The MA: Harvard University Press. conceptual hole in psychological studies of Wilson, M., and Daly, M. (1997). Relationship-specific social psy- and close relationships. In J.A. Simpson and D.T. Kenrick, chological adaptations. In G. R. Bock & G. Cardew (Eds.), CIBA (Eds.), Evolutionary Social Psychology (pp. 265-296). Mahwah, NJ: Foundation symposium on characterizing psychological adaptations Erlbaum. (pp. 253-263). Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Darwin, C. (1859). On the origin of species by means of natural selection or the preservation of favored races in the struggle for life. London: John Murray. Drake, A., Fraser, D., & Weary, D.M. (2008). Parent-offspring resource allocation in domestic pigs. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 62, 309-319. Euler, H. and Weitzel, B. (1996). Discriminative grandparental solicitude as reproductive strategy. Human Nature, 7, 39-59. Glick, B.B., Eaton, G.G., Johnson, D.F., & Worlein, J.M. (1986). Development of partner preferences in Japanese Macaques (Macaca fuscata): Effects of gender and kinship during the Page 11 The Behavioral Neuroscientist and Comparative Psychologist

Division 6 Program – APA, August 4-7, 2011 Washington, DC

Thursday, August 4 Paper Session: Comparative Psychology - History and Evolution (9-9:50am ) Chair: Jesse Purdy Speakers: • Donald Dewsbury, “Historical trends in American comparative animal psychology” • Edward Eisenstein, “Evolutionary significance of the simple learned-behaviors of habitua- tion and sensitization for organism survival”

Paper Session: Comparative Psychology - Applied Animal Behavior (10-10:50am) Chair: Jeffrey Alberts • Gordon Bauer, “Tactile senses of the Florida Manatee” • Jilian Fazio, “Behavioral assessment of the Clouded Leopard” • Jessica Owens, “Anthropogenic noise disrupts behavior in Parids: An experimental test of the effects of traffic noise on Carolina Chickadees and Tufted Titmice”

Paper Session: Comparative Psychology - Physiological Bases of Behavior (11- 11:50am) Chair: Jesse Purdy Speakers: • Fawzy E. Abd Alazim Daw, “Relationship between cerebral hemispheres and anxiety” • Bobbie Jean Koen, “Location and effects of fluency in children with the characteristics of dyslexia”

Symposium: Comparative Psychology and Evolutionary Psychology - Bridging Divi- sions Fosters Crosstalk and Collaboration (2-3:50pm) Chairs: Todd Shackelford, Jennifer Vonk Speakers: • Heidi Lynn, “Cognitive parallels in divergent species: What analogous abilities may tell us about the evolution of the human mind” • Francys Subiaul, “Learning the rules: Evidence from human and nonhuman apes” • Louise Barrett, “If is the answer, what was the question?” • William McGibbin, “Human to sperm competition”

Poster session: Behavioral Neuroscience and Comparative Psychology (4-4:50pm)

(contd next page) Page 12 The Behavioral Neuroscientist and Comparative Psychologist

2011 APA Convention - Division 6 Program (contd)

Friday, August 5 Invited Address: Senior Fellows Talk (9-9:50am) Chair: Mark Stanton Speaker: Charles Snowdon, “Social neuroscience of cooperative breeding”

Symposium: Effective Management of Animals in Nontraditional Captive Setting— Using Science to Improve Lives (10-11:50am) Chair: Steven Schapiro Speakers: • Gordon Burghardt, “Environmental enrichment, cognitive challenges, and psychological well-being: Relevant for captive reptiles too?” • Katherine Leighty, “Multiple benefits of studying the of zoo animals” • Heidi Hellmuth, “Does it work? Evaluating management strategies to enhance zoo ” • Erika Bauer, “Applied behavioral research for problems solving in a zoo setting” • Steven Schapiro, “Empirical evaluations of the effects of behavioral management tech- niques on psychological well-being in captive nonhuman ”

Skill Building Session: Research in —A Demonstration of the Think- Tank Exhibit, National Zoological Park (1-2:50pm) Chair: Lisa Stevens

Saturday, August 6 Invited Address: Behavioral Neuroscience Best Paper Award (9-9:50am) Chair: Mark Blumberg Speaker: Sergio Pellis, “The neurobiology of play behavior”

Invited Address: Frank Beach Best Paper Award (10-10:50am) Chair: Gordon Burghardt Speaker: Nobuyuki Kawai, “How do we find snakes so quickly? Evolutionary predisposed vis- ual system”

Invited Address: D.O. Hebb Distinguished Scientific Contribution Award (1-1:50pm) Chair: Matthew Cooper Speaker: Edward Wasserman, “Unhinging design: Reconsidering the role of planning and foresight in the origin of adaptive behavior”

Presidential Address (4-4:50pm) Chair: Mark Bouton Speaker: Gordon Burghardt, “Slithering towards Bethlehem: What reptiles can teach us about behavioral development”

(contd next page) Page 13 The Behavioral Neuroscientist and Comparative Psychologist

2011 APA Convention - Division 6 Program (contd)

Sunday, August 7 Invited Symposium: Exploring the Self-Wolds of Nonhuman Animals via Advances in Biotelemetry Technology (10-11:50am) Chair: Jesse Purdy Speakers: • Jesse Purdy, “From Umwelt science to laboratory-developed behavioral theories: Can advances in biotelemetry technology improve their validity?” • Randall Davis, “What can Vdap’s tell us about marine mammals in the wild?” • Marc Dupuis-Desormeaux, “Behavior and movement patterns of urban raccoons” • Heidi Hellmuth, “Voyeuristic zoo keeping: Using technology to support animal behavior research in a zoo setting”

Back Issues of The Behavioral Neuroscientist and Comparative Psychologist are available online at http://www.apa.org/divisions/div6/newsletter.html Page 14 The Behavioral Neuroscientist and Comparative Psychologist

Encourage Your Colleagues and Students to Join Division 6!

Division 6 members are devoted to studying the biology of behavior. Their focus is on behavior and its re- lation to perception, learning, memory, cognition, motivation, and emotion. Behavioral neuroscientists study the brain in relation to behavior, its evolution, functions, abnormalities, and repair, as well as its interac- tions with the immune system, cardiovascular system, and energy regulation systems. Comparative psycholo- gists study the psychology and behavior of humans and other animals, with special interest in similarities and differences that may shed light on evolutionary, ecological, and developmental processes.

Established in 1944, when APA initiated its divisional structure, Division 6, using the name “ and Comparative Psychology,” was among the original divisions included in APA’s reorganiza- tion. The first three Division presidents were Donald G. Marquis, Donald B. Lindsley, and Clifford T. Mor- gan. Among the many distinguished earlier psychologists elected president of Division 6 are Frank Beach, , , James Olds, and Frances Graham. The Division’s participation in the annual meetings and contributions to journals has been consistently high. Current members remain dedicated to enhancing knowledge of the and its mediation of behavior across species. The forums for achieving this commitment include meetings, publications, and involvement with APA’s Science Directorate and Governing Board.

A comprehensive history of Division 6 has been written by Don Dewsbury: Dewsbury, D.A. (1996). A History of Division 6 (Behavioral Neuroscience and Comparative Psychol- ogy): Now you see it, now you don’t, now you see it. In D.A. Dewsbury (Ed.) Unification through division: Histories of the divisions of the American Psychological Association (pp. 41-65). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Please encourage your colleagues and students to join us in Division 6! You can direct them to the membership section of our Division website: http://www.apa.org/divisions/div6/mbrinfo.html. There they can download an application, which they can send via email (or postal mail or fax) to Todd K. Shackelford, Division 6 Membership Chair.

There are many reasons why your colleagues and students might wish to join our Division. Here are 10 of them: Share professional knowledge Make new friends in the field Receive the latest journals and newsletters in the field Get published Enhance skills Collaborate with colleagues—Co-publish, Co-present, Co-chair, etc. Advocate for psychologists’ input into social policy Engage in the new division social networking sites (Beginning in 2011) Be recognized with awards, grants, Fellows status Find and/or be a mentor

Thank you for your support of Division 6!

Page 15 The Behavioral Neuroscientist and Comparative Psychologist

Editor: David J. Bucci, PhD Phone: 603-646-3439 E-mail: [email protected]

http://www.apa.org/ divisions/div6/

Division 6 LISTSERV

Division 6 maintains an email reflector to keep members up to The Behavioral Neuroscientist and Comparative Psychologist is the official news- date with the latest information letter of APA Division 6 — Behavioral Neuroscience and Comparative Psychology — and on research funding, employment is published 3 times a year. Mailing addresses used are those appearing on the official opportunities, and other items of APA roster and a separate Division roster. Corrections and changes of address general interest. If you have should be sent directly to the APA Directory Office, 1400 North Uhle St., Arlington, recently changed your email VA 22201, and to the newsletter editor (see below). As the official newsletter of address, you may need to re- Division 6, BNCP publishes official business, committee reports, news items, job subscribe to the reflector. To announcements, information on technical issues, topics of current interest, and infor- update your current address or to join the list for the first time, mation about the professional activities of Division 6 members. News items and arti- follow these simple instructions: cles should be submitted to the Editor at the address below (preferably by email). Paid advertisements are not officially endorsed by Division 6. The Editor welcomes Send precisely the following 4- comments and suggestions for ways in which BNCP can better serve the needs of word message: the members. The preferred method of submission is by email. Send correspondence and submissions to David J. Bucci via e-mail at [email protected]. Postal SUBscribe div6 John Doe mail should be sent to David J. Bucci, PhD, Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH 03755. Other contact information: Change John Doe to your first and last name; the system will Phone: (603) 646-3439; FAX: (603) 646-1419. find the subscriber’s email address in the message automatically. Put nothing else in the message. Mail the 4-word message to the following address:

[email protected]

See http://listserv.apa.org for more information New Division 6 Website Coming Soon! http://www.apa.org/divisions/div6/homepage.html