Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T16:58:12.767Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Presence of a privacy divider increases proximity in pair-housed rhesus monkeys

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

BM Basile ,
RR Hampton ,
AM Chaudhry  and
EA Murray
BM Basile*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Emory University, 532 Kilgo Circle, Atlanta, GA 30322, USA
RR Hampton
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Emory University, 532 Kilgo Circle, Atlanta, GA 30322, USA
AM Chaudhry
Affiliation:
Veterinary Medicine and Resources Branch, National Institute of Mental Health, NIH, Bethesda, Maryland, USA
EA Murray
Affiliation:
Laboratory of Neuropsychology, National Institute of Mental Health, NIH, Bethesda, Maryland, USA
*
* Contact for correspondence and request for reprints: bbasile@emory.edu
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Use of a privacy panel in the home cage of female pair-housed rhesus monkeys has been reported to increase time spent in close proximity and time spent in affiliative behaviours. In the current study we measured these behaviours in more diverse populations; including male-male and male-female pairs of monkeys actively participating in cognitive experiments. We observed twenty-five pairs of rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatta) both with and without the presence of a privacy divider. Monkeys spent significantly more time in the same half of the pair-cage when the divider was in place. A significant increase in affiliative behaviour was not observed. The effects of privacy dividers previously reported for female monkeys partially extend to male pairs and mixed sex pairs under conditions typical of an active research setting.

Keywords

animal welfaremacaquepair-housingprimateprivacysocial
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 16 , Issue 1 , February 2007 , pp. 37 - 39
Copyright
© 2007 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Aron, A and Aron, E 1999 Statistics for Psychology. Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USAGoogle Scholar
Burgoon, JK 1991 Relational message interpretations of touch, conversational distance, and posture. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior 15(4): 233–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coelho, AM, Carey, KD and Shade, RE 1991 Assessing the effects of social-environment on blood-pressure and heart-rates of baboons. American Journal of Primatology 23(4): 257–267CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Curtis, TM, Knowles, RJ and Crowell-Davis, SL 2003 Influence of familiarity and relatedness on proximity and allogrooming in domestic cats (Felis catus). American Journal of Veterinary Research 64(9): 1151–1154CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Guerrero, LK 1997 Nonverbal involvement across interactions with same-sex friends, opposite-sex friends and romantic partners: consistency or change? Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 14(1): 31–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lutz, C, Well, A, and Novak, M 2003 Stereotypic and self-injurious behavior in rhesus macaques: a survey and retrospective analysis of environment and early experience. American Journal of Primatology 60: 1–15CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
National Institutes of Health 2005 Guidelines for Diet Control in Behavioral Study. Animal Research Advisory Committee: Bethesda, MD, USAGoogle Scholar
National Research Council 1996 Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals. National Academy Press: Washington DC, USAGoogle Scholar
Readdick, CA and Mullis, RL 1997 Adolescents and adults at the mall: dyadic interactions. Adolescence 32(126): 313–322Google ScholarPubMed
Reinhardt, V and Reinhardt, A 1991 Impact of a privacy panel on the behavior of caged female rhesus-monkeys living in pairs. Journal of Experimental Animal Science. 34 (2): 55-58Google ScholarPubMed
Reinhardt, V 1994 Pair-housing rather than single-housing for laboratory rhesus macaques. Journal of Medical Primatology 23: 426–431CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Röder, EL and Timmermans, PJA 2002 Housing and care of monkeys and apes in laboratories: adaptations allowing essential species-specific behaviour. Laboratory Animals 36(3): 221–242CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schapiro, SJ, Bloomsmith, MA, Porter, LM and Suarez, SA 1996 Enrichment effects on rhesus monkeys successively housed singly, in pairs, and in groups. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 48: 159–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schapiro, SJ 2002 Effects of social manipulations and environmental enrichment on behavior and cell-mediated immune responses in rhesus macaques. Pharmacology, Biochemistry and Behavior 73: 271–278CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stoinski, TS, Kuhar, CW, Lukas, KE and Maple, TL 2004 Social dynamics of captive western lowland gorillas living in all-male groups. Behaviour 141: 169–195Google Scholar
Van Loo, PLP, de Weerd, HAV, Van Zutphen, LFM and Baumans, V 2004 Preference for social contact versus environmental enrichment in male laboratory mice. Laboratory Animals 38(2): 178–188CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed