Comparative Methods in Evolutionary Social Behaviours - Essay Example

Comparative Methods in Evolutionary Social Behaviours Humans are social animals with distinct social behaviours. They have their ways of behaviour that differ from the rest of the mammals. Studying their social evolution will require the understanding and proper answering of two main premise questions. First, there is the concern over the origin of the social behaviour exhibited, and second deals with the maintenance of social groups. Human beings always work towards maintaining their social groups and relating well with those in their midst. The use of comparative methods is essential because it allows the researcher to come up with a good understanding and explanation regarding the origins and losses of sociality amongst humans. The evolutionary aspect of human behaviours has been a key point of concern amongst many researchers because of the structures coming up quickly across the social status. By using comparative methods, it is easy to look at the ultimate and proximate causes of behaviour, and provide meaningful information ideal for the evolution of social behaviours. Comparative Methods The difference between the ultimate and the proximate explanations of behaviour are very important in the understanding of evolutionary social behaviours. Ultimate explanations deal with the immediate consequences of behaviour or trait, and its acceptability in the social settings. Proximate explanations, on the other hand, examine how the trait or behaviour works. This means that the mechanisms that underpin the particular behaviour will be in consideration, and offer and explanation regarding the achievement of this functionality (Cavanaugh & Lonstein 2010: 220). In simplicity, the study of social behaviours using the comparative methods allow social behaviourists to understand behaviour generators (proximate functions) and the reason why these behaviours are favoured during that period (ultimate functions) (Champagne, et al. 2004:4114). Arguments regarding sociology say that the main aim is to state and test the general relationships between some of the events experienced in nature. The goal is to create a platform that based on observation and reasoning as a way of understanding intuition, personal speculation and appeals to authority (Afonso, King, Chatterjee & Fleming 2009:12). The way people behave determines the general rules of thumb that will be used to define the growth of literature in the learning of social behaviours. The process of discovery will tell on whether there is a probability of learning more from the behaviours of non-human animals and making comparisons. The goal is to establish the general relationships between properties of nature while testing for the truth regarding the data presented (Albers, 2012:285). By seeking different means of understanding social behaviour, scientists are looking for different ways of explaining evolution of the same behaviours. As noted by Weber, most of the knowledge present emanates from one-sided approaches that are subjective rather than objective. This implies an unfair representation of facts because they only examine different aspects of life from one side (Alger, Juang & Riters 2011:48). Those with the ability to do such studies will select and over-emphasis certain aspects that generate the information attained. Those without the means will agree and take the information presented as the real one, and do not question it (Avilés & Harwood 2012:1224). In fact, the best way of doing such a study is explained by Durkheim as freeing one’s mind from all preconceptions and taking a passive role in the observation of social reality. Instead, most people take an active role and end up with preconceptions that reduce the viability of the study (Alger, Juang & Riters 2011:49-50). The role of the social studies is to create a platform that offers an understanding of what is right and what is not, based on comparisons to the predispositions present. This brings in the concept of affiliative social behaviour. The premise is that the behaviours that foster the development and maintenance of behaviours create bonds, hence form relationships (Guastella & MacLeod 2012:412). In human beings, these behaviours are essential to most of the social interactions whether to one’s family, spouse, or friends. These behaviours are easy to observe in context of specific long-lasting relationships, which could be observed in mice, primates or macaques. They may present themselves in various methods such as the involvement of a mother in the affairs of a child, or that of sexual partners (Baglione, Canestrari, Marcos, & Ekman 2006:1532). These attributes may be present themselves in a variety of methods such as proximity between a child and the parent, grooming, huddling, embracing, clinging, and suckling amongst other gestures. These attributes may be given in anticipation of comfort, attention, protection or food. The difference between a parent-infant relationship and that of two sexual individuals varies minimally, though the activities amongst sexual individuals could increase. They could include attributes such as coalitional support, coordinated resource and range defence, as well as copulation with preferred individual (Lacey & Sherman 2005:474-5). Studies amongst primates show that the cooperative and affiliative behaviours account for the largest percentage of social interactions. This shows that they value their interactions and have a better understanding of what is essential when dealing with others. They have been observed to form long-term group and kin alliances, with some even performing acts of reconciliation after aggressive encounters in the group (Johnson-Pynn, Fragaszy & Cummins-Sebree 2003:10). This serves as a cord towards maintaining these alliances. Comparative studies have also shown that amicable behaviours as opposed to the aggressive and competitive behaviours are important for socialization purposes. This negates most of the social behaviours observed in cohesive human societies where competition and aggressive behaviours seem to define the way people interact. Understanding the source of the brain areas that lead to the affiliative behaviours is something that researchers are keen to establish. The problem arises in understanding the regulation mechanisms that take place, making it a challenging exercise. The brain is complex and the processes involved are as intricate, hence making it difficult to understand how an individual processes information (Baglione, Canestrari, Marcos, & Ekman 2006:1534). However, the researchers have noted that studying an animal and following a single process at a time is more apt in determining the endocrinological and neurological mechanisms that define affiliative behaviours. Researchers are keen to see that the social behaviours in question complement the behavioural assessments made in nature (Avilés & Harwood 2012:1226). Impact of Studying Comparative Methods It is clear that human beings are complex and difficult to study due to the many regulations and preconceptions that some may harbour regarding various concepts. However, by using comparative methods, it becomes easier to transfer the observations to the assessments mad in nature and facilitate the learning of neurological mechanisms observed in the animals. It may be easier to subject these animals to longer hours of observation compared to the use of human beings, hence an opportunity to gather as much information regarding a single process (Johnson-Pynn, Fragaszy & Cummins-Sebree 2003:12). The evolution of behaviours is sometimes a variable depending on the environment one is in. some may not be happy that they are in a certain environment but they have to come up with adaptive mechanisms that tell of their position within that particular platform. The growth of knowledge in the area, therefore, will depend on the ability to understand what environment does to individuals and the impact of different exposures during one’s lifetime (Baglione, Canestrari, Marcos, & Ekman 2006:1534). Despite the variability between human and non-human reactions, it is easy to define the behaviours attained and making comparisons, then offering inferences regarding the information attained. The diversity of the brain anatomy between humans and non-humans always plays a major role. Nonetheless, this will be important in creating a baseline that defines the acceptable terms of engagement (Afonso, King, Chatterjee & Fleming 2009:13). In most cases, the humans will differ from non-humans but the evidence attained will be applicable. It will be easier to determine the role of the different stimuli in the environment and the reactions humans give when under similar conditions. Human interactions are also complex and understanding them will require more time. Since this is difficult to find, the use of comparative methods will still be relied upon to offer the way forward regarding the different emergent issues in the society (Avilés & Harwood 2012:1226). Cortical organizations have been a source of great determinant of what the society is all about, and has been observed amongst mammalian species. For instance, connectivity, genetics, chemistry and organization amongst rats’ neurons contributes to the functional differences experienced by other mammals. The same is true for macaques; though researchers argue that it has a model that closely resembles the human cortex especially the visual system (Johnson-Pynn, Fragaszy & Cummins-Sebree 2003:17). The problem that does exist in using comparative methods is the inability to generalize the results of one animal to all the rest. Although the method is apt in giving the importance of certain conditions in the evolution of behaviour, it is important to understand that it takes more time to understand the impact the same conditions will have on another species (Baglione, Canestrari, Marcos, & Ekman 2006:1535). No single group of animals has similar characteristics across the globe. For instance, the macaques in Japan will have different adaptation features compared to those in America, and this could be a difficult way of comparing animals across the divide. The same, therefore, will apply for the humans within their social sphere (Afonso, King, Chatterjee & Fleming 2009:13). In conclusion, it is important to understand that the comparative method of study is responsible for some of the studies defining human reactions and relations within the society. Most of the people will ignore its impact in the society but researchers understand that that carrying out studies with non-humans could be the only appropriate means of understanding human relationships. These animals, based on the guidelines against animal cruelty, can be subjected to certain conditions that humans would not. This is the essence of having them as part of the comparative research methods. References Afonso, V.M., King, S., Chatterjee, D. & Fleming, A.S. (2009) "Hormones that increase maternal responsiveness affect accumbal dopaminergic responses to pup- and food-stimuli in the female rat," Hormones and Behaviour vol. 56, pp. 11-23. Albers, H.E. (2012) "The regulation of social recognition, social communication and aggression: vasopressin in the social behaviour neural network", Hormones and Behaviour vol. 61, pp. 83-292. Alger, S.J., Juang, C. & Riters, L.V, (2011) "Social affiliation relates to tyrosine hydroxylase immunolabeling in male and female zebra finches (Taeniopygia guttata)," Journal of Chemical Neuroanatomy vol. 42, pp. 45-55. Avilés, L. & Harwood, G. (2012) "A quantitative index of sociality and its application to group-living spiders and other social organisms", Ethology vol. 118, pp. 1219-1229 Baglione, V., Canestrari, D., Marcos, J.M. & Ekman, J. (2006) Experimentally increased food resources in the natal territory promote offspring philopatry and helping in cooperatively breeding carrion crows", Proc. R. Soc. B: Biol. Sci. vol. 273, pp. 1529-1535 Cavanaugh, B.L. & Lonstein, J.S. (2010) "Androgenic and oestrogenic influences on tyrosine hydroxylase-immunoreactive cells of the prairie vole medial amygdala and bed nucleus of the stria terminalis," Journal of Neuroendocrinology vol. 22, pp. 217-225. Champagne, F.A., Chretien, P., Stevenson, C.W., Zhang, T.Y., Gratton, A. & Meaney, M.J. (2004) Variations in nucleus accumbens dopamine associated with individual differences in maternal behaviour in the rat", Journal of Neuroscience vol. 24, pp. 4113-4123. Guastella, A.J. & MacLeod, C. (2012) "A critical review of the influence of oxytocin nasal spray on social cognition in humans: evidence and future directions", Hormones and Behaviour, vol. 61, pp. 410-418. Johnson-Pynn, J., Fragaszy, D.M. & Cummins-Sebree, S. (2003) "Common territories in comparative and developmental psychology: The quest for shared means and meaning in behavioural investigations". International Journal of Comparative Psychology vol. 16, pp. 1-27. Lacey, E.A. & Sherman, P.W. (2005) Redefining eusociality: concepts, goals and levels of analysis", Ann. Zool. Fenn. vol. 42, pp. 573-577. Read More