ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ Title:À A CONMUNITY OF LOVEBIRDS
ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ ÀÀ By:À
BERNADETTE CHING
ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ Course:À PSYCHOLOGY 699
ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ Date:À MARCH 3,
l978ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ
ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ Professor:À DR. LEON A. JAMES
ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ DEPT. OF PSYCHOLOGY UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII
FOREWORD
ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ This study on the methodology of observation
of a community of Lovebirds was undertaken by me, Bernadette Ching at the
suggestion of Professor Leon James, Professor of Psychology at the University
of Hawaii, to explore the following method of observation in this paper. I
wished to conduct an independent project with Dr. James after taking one of his
upper division undergraduate seminars on the Psychology of Knowledge and
sitting in on his Applied Social Psychology class in the Fall of 1977. We
explored some possible topics of independent study, and after learning that I
was interested in the study of animal behavior, Professor James suggested the
study of his cage of lovebirds he had and still has at his home in Kailua. We
decided that I observe the birds once or twice a week for several hours at a
time although this schedule was flexible to adjust to my schedule and that of
Dr. James. Professor James became my advisor on this project and guided me and
instructed me on this project and taught me his principle of Social Psychology
and how to apply these principles in the observation of the lovebirds.
ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ
ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ This theory of Social Psychology
encompasses the idea of the study of? social occasions. The technique of
studying behavior is to include the study of the individual or organism in its
natural setting. The social occasion always consists of two important elements,
which are: the individual and the settings this social occasion is the basic
clement in the study of Social Psychology. The systematic technique used in
this study of the lovebirds to obtain objective natural history data is the
technique of micro descriptions. These micro descriptions are statements in
paragraph form written by me, the observer, in the role of a witness to the
observed behaviors. The micro descriptions in this study were written and
dictated and later transcribed for analysis of the data, and thus also made
for the availability to others. The study of the lovebirds' displays the
elements of demonstration in social transactions. These displays exhibit the
habits and other patterns of behavior that characterizes their community life.
An oral transcript from the observations are included in the Appendix to give a
picture of the method of description.
ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ
ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ I drove
to Kailua once or twice a week to observe the lovebirds. The cage was situated
out in the yard next to the pool, under a partially covered area over the
plants. I would and watch and record my observations, and in the initial
observations, Professor James trained me to carefully observe call out their
actions as they occurred as quickly as possible, so as to cover as much of the
action as possible, so that a fairly smooth picture of their community behavior
evolved from these descriptions. The technique can be compared to a sports
announcer at a ball game giving the complete play by play descriptions. The
difficulty in witnessing the behavior is that much of it is lost. because it is
impossible to view all their behaviors at once, especially when there are 8 -13
different birds to watch at one time. A camera would have been ideal to capture
all their behaviors at any point in time but, limited resources would not allow
us to do this
ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ
As the
observations were coming to an end, Professor James provided a proposed outline
of the write?up of this study for me to follow. This memorandum is provided in
the Appendix and gives the suggestions that should be included in the different
sections of the paper. Note that these are suggestions and that in the actual
paper which follows, much of it has been revised from this original outline.
MEMORANDUMÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ 11/19/77À Kailua, Hi.
To:ÀÀÀÀÀ Bernie Ching
From:ÀÀÀÀ Dr. J.
Re:ÀÀÀÀ A Community of
lovebirds
The following are suggestions I?d
like you to follow in the write?up of your observations :
1.ÀÀÀ Title : A Community of Lovebirds
2. Format : A.À Introduction
ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ B.ÀÀÀÀÀ Background descriptions on community
ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ C.ÀÀÀÀ Transcripts of observations
ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ D.ÀÀÀÀ Results of Analyses of transcripts
ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ B.ÀÀÀÀÀ Discussion and Conclusions
ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ F.ÀÀÀÀÀ Suggestions for future steps
ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ G.ÀÀÀÀ Literature read or cited
ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ H.ÀÀÀÀÀ ?
NOTES:
A.ÀÀÀ In A., you wish to present an introduction
to the concept of Community as the locus of observation (refer to lectures by
Prof. J.) versus the concept of BEHAVIOR as the locus of observation (refer to
your paper with Dr. Herman). Then, present a general overview of the
method the rationale, what you did in sequence from beginning to end.
B.ÀÀÀ In B., you should give a Genealogy of the
Community, the Notation System, and the map. Then, give a history of the
community (births, etc.). Then give a Typical Daily Round.
Note: whenever you don?t have the info, indicate by (*): this will enable you
to identify areas to be observed in the future
B.ÀÀÀ In E., you should evaluate the differences
in WRITTEN NOTE TAKING versus ORAL RECORDING as to the kind of pictures they
yield (differentially) of the community. Also the differential picture one gets
from viewing the behavior as interactional versus transactional.
In C.:À set up transcripts to show what they are
about: neutral observation,À
experiment, etc. Use
an Introduction section for each transcript. Use diagrams and other formal
notations. For Example :
ContrastiveÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ S1 = [OB, CS] Pole next to own
boxÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ [F]
ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ Confrontation
SituationsÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ S2 = [OB, CS] Outside poleÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ [F]
À
À
The above is a formal paradigm for an experiment
that contrasts two situations in the community. The two
situations are identical in all other respects but for location. Prof. J. Calls
this methodology : THE METHOD OF SITUATIONAL CONTRASTS (Refer to
SOCIOPSYCHOLINGUISTICS in the Workbook on Social P.). You should obtain such
observation on a number of contrastive situations:
ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ
(i)À DOMINACE
RELATIONSHIPS
(ii)
TERRITORIALITY objects, etc.)
(iii)À INQUISITIVENESS (novel objects, etc.)
(iv)
PARENTAL ACTIVITY
etc.
These will yield CONDITIONAL RULES BOR BEHAVING i.e., COMMUNITY
NORMS These conditional norms may be converted to weights:
e.g.
DOMINANCE HIERARCHY
WEIGHTED
[OB] next to own box = 100
[OS] next to OB = 100
[OB] next to F?s box = 80
[OS] next to F?s box = 40
[Onp] next to F?s box = 80
[Onp] outside pole = 40
etc.
Example of Oral Transcript ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ Bernadette
Ching Oct. 1, 1977
Lovebirds
2:15 pm ? ....(Prof. James speaking) The little
ones seem to have formed a pair. little one seems to be on its own. Here comes
the brotherÀ out, the sister?s
inside?..À she?s looking out and he's
standing on the perch of the nest box, see she can?t come out while he?s
standing there or she would have to push him out. He jumped and chased away the
little one that got on the nest box, and she came out then she went back in and
ho comes down and he goes back in, now he?s looking down now he jumps up but he
can?t go to the food because the M is eating. He?s watching her. There he?s
going to jump. There, he jumped. Now she goes away. The M goes away, chases
away the baby, now chases away the older brother, sort of chases away.... There
she begged for food, but he didn?t respond..... Now the B comes out of the box
and the S is looking out. Now the babies are up there. The B is grooming and
sort of touching, beaking the S in there. The S is looking down and is coming
out B makes room for her. Those two up there, the babies must be a pair.
(Bernie
speaking) One of the babies tries to get at the food and pull it away from the
F , then that baby flies over to the other rod and eats the celery stalk
himself. The M and S have gone back into their nests, and the F is still eating
the celery stalk but he's also watching his babies, watching where they go. B
flies back now to rod 1 and the baby flies away to rod2. One of the babies
comes close to F to get at the celery stalk but the F inches towards him and
the baby moves back. The baby squeaks, makes noise, comes a bit closer to the F
and backs off when F comes towards him. The F almost pecks at him but the baby
flies away. Now that baby comes to the side of the cage to get at the celery
stalk. F continues ignoring the baby. A loud noise is heard and the F perks up
his head then continues nibbling on the celery stalk. The baby that was looking
for food goes- to- his own side and eats the celery stalk here. F flies to rod
1 and defecates then back to rod 2 and starts eating the celery stalk again. A
loud noise is heard so the B AND F stop eating and go close to the nest then
start eating again after I suppose they figure it?s nothing harmful.
2:45 ? H is begging for food but the F doesn?t
respond because I suppose he doesn?t have any food so he flies to one of the
rods and starts eating while the H is waiting, she moves closer to the F begs,
him, he moves closer to her now he jumps down to rod 3 and he didn't respond to
her begging so she eats the celery stalk herself M flies to her nest perch. she
jumps up over the F to get some food and she eats the celery stalk herself. M
is there begging him and finally the F responds andÀ feeds her. Again she is begging and he bobs his head up and down
and regurgitates the food and feeds her then he jumps over her and stretches
away one of the babies that was next to the celery stalk and starts eating
again.À Here comes the M again closer to
the F, walks closer to him, walks closer to him, actually touches his leg with
her foot (steps on his toe) and cocks her head to the side and the F doesn?t
respond yet, still doesn?t respond and she?s begging and waiting, begs again,
turns around, she turns around again and begs. she goes up to rod 1 and starts
eating there where the B was and the B immediately sees her coming and jumps
down to his nest perch and M starts eating. Now the F goes up, next to the H
and she begs him for food and the F gives her. So the B goes down to rod 3 and
starts eating his own celery stalk and F flies back to rod 1 and the baby
immediately flies away, and the H and F are eating at their own celery stalks
and so is B. H goes back into her nest and looks around on the nest perch
before going in.
ÀÀÀÀ
ÀÀÀÀ A cage of lovebirds created an
opportunity to investigate the concept of community, community behavior and its
formation as the locus of observation rather than the investigation of
individual behaviors as the locus of observation for the accumulation of
documentary evidence.
ÀÀÀÀ
ÀÀÀÀ It is predicated that the setting occasions the behavior;
behavior or actions would be meaningless and insignificant excepting the
background setting. To make it fathomable, all behavior requires the setting to
explicate the behavior so that it may be situated and identified in its proper
context for the recipients to interpret and synthesize any ejected messages.
Such social occasions mediate both covert and overt behaviors and include
considerable determinant variables as time, place, schedules, etc., affecting
the behaviorisms. It is the behavioral setting which is the social situation
that precipitates spontaneous activity. Therefore, if one can predict or change
the social situation which occurs in the behavioral setting, then one can
predict or change the behavior occurring in that setting. With the lovebirds,
their usually unchanging social setting functions as an exemplary constant map
of their behavior, and a ?daily round? of their activities can be recorded and utilized
as one of the measures -showing a functional relationship between the social
behavior and the setting; From their Usual well-established setting, one can
almost recognize the behaviors that will occur; this invariable background
however, will not allow for the anticipation of the interactions that are
occurring within and among the individuals themselves as their behaviors change
and will thus effect a change in the social situation.
ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ
ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ The setting, and in this case the
limited, enclosed area of the lovebirds cage, will show the interaction of the
role of the participants (lovebirds) with time and place or a particular time
and a particular place. Hence, with the interaction of these dimensions, the
role that the lovebirds will characterize is a programmed sequence of behaviors
dictated by the setting. Thus, all activity has no meaning without a frame of
setting.
ÀÀÀÀ
ÀÀÀÀ In this study the lovebirds were
viewed in a cage and the observations were hand recorded at first, but were later
tape-recorded to obtain a better micro description of their behavior and to
acquire a daily round map of their everyday activities. With the lovebirds,
there was the occasion to investigate the formation of a community and to
examine how this formation affected each individual?s role in this particular
community, which then in turn dictated their individual behavior in this
routine setting. Detailed observations of the lovebirds? daily round activities
were recorded for several hours on the days of observation. A change in the
social setting was incurred several times by introducing or removing objects
from the cage or by inducing the lovebirds to sudden noises or movements that
are not a part of their -usual setting. From
this it could be scrutinized to see if the same rules were applicable in these
novel situations as they were in the usual setting and to observe any new
behaviors or change in behaviors, e.g., social dominance,
territoriality, etc., that will occur with the introduction of new or different
stimuli The theoretical rationale justifying this approach is based on the
daily round approach to Social Psychology outlined in James & Gordon
(l978). Briefly, such an approach perceives that Social Psychology is the
systematic study of social occasions where these social occasions provide the
data for studying the behaviors occurring within them. Through the investigation
of the standardization of people?s behavior, it is possible to understand what
makes up the community of these people. The sum total of each individual?s
standardized behavior reveals a picture of the functioning?s of the community
thus exposing its beliefs, traditions and practices. Use of the daily round
technique will help to realize these functioning?s. The daily round technique
involves the keeping of a careful record of an individual?s activities for the
day by noting such occurrences as the time, place, type of activity and a
description of the action, and other background information. By this careful
notation of an individual?s behavior on a given day, it is noticed what type of
behavior occurs in a particular setting; this technique allows the
investigators to examine the natural
setting for individual social behavior. The examination œof complex behaviors
require sophisticated preparation through the use of ethnography or the theory
of Ethnodynamics. Ethnodynamics is the community approach of studying behavior by
using the daily round contexts, which give a biographical sketch of an
individual?s behavior. The conditional rules or norms are the situational
determiners of conduct within the daily round context which yield the
Ethnodynamics. Ethnodynamics explains behavior through the natural setting in
which it occurs; a natural history of the individual emerges through the use of
micro descriptions.
ÀÀÀÀ
ÀÀÀÀ This is in contrast to
psychodynamics which relies on an individual?s past experiences and current
habits and traits to explain the behavior. The technique used in psychodynamics
records the frequencies of observed individual behavior rather than the use of
the daily round context. These frequencies of individual behavior might give an
idea of the individual?s lifestyle but fails to unveil the true biography of
the individual?s behavior. In psychodynamics behavior is determined by the
individual history of learning of the person that has now formed the, traits
and personality, which are considered relatively independent of the situation.
Psychodynamics subjectifies other's comments, assertions and propositions about
ourselves, about others and about things, whereas Ethnodynamics objectifies any
such statements. This occurs because psychodynamics? explanations of an
individual?s behavior are derived from hypotheses about mechanisms not directly
observed but imputed to the subject, whereas, Ethnodynamics? explanations may
not be hypotheses about individual characteristics; instead, the explanation
must be in terms relevant to characteristics attributable to all individuals
in a particular setting.À Hence, the
explanation is situational, i.e. standardized or held in common across
individuals.À A birdcage of about 5.5?x6?x3? housed peach?faced lovebirds.
Written observations were used at first, carefully attempting to describe their
behavior. To distinguish the lovebirds from one another since they are all
identical, several attempts to mark them using various methods like banding,
collars, dyeing feathers, and felt pens, all proved temporary and useless.
Written observations continued with micro descriptions of their daily round
activities. Naps of their activities for 5 minute intervals and later 15 minute
intervals were also attempted as a method of observation, but was abandoned
when no improvements were seen in these pictures over the written observations,
and so these maps were used as a supplement to the written observations. Later,
tape?recorded observations were used to describe the lovebirds? behavior and
was also used in the experiments that changed the environment or setting.
ÀÀÀÀ
ÀÀÀÀ The first experimental change
introduced anew object into the cage. It was a 2.5 inch plastic square box with
differing colored sides with small objects inside of it to make it jingle when
touched. The second situation was also an introduction of an object, a mirror
with two bells on the bottom that also jingled when touched or blown in the
wind.
ÀÀÀÀÀÀ
ÀÀÀÀÀÀ The third
change was an introduction of sudden arm movements by the investigator in front
of the cage. The fourth experimental change was the removal of rod2 from the
cage to induce crowding situations into the environment. Experimental changes
2, 3 and 4 were done in intervals of
5 minutes for a total time of 15 minutes each. Observations officially started
on July 20, 1977 and ended November 19, 1977.
BACKGROUND
INFORMATION
ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ
ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ For
the purposes of this study, a notation system was devised and revised as new
members of the community were born and accepted by the existing relatives. The
following is the final notation system used at the end of the introduction of a
third brood of new bird lings by the father and mother, and will be used
throughout this
presentation:
ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ F=
Father
M= Mother
ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ CB= Older
BrotherÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ 1st brood of
babies by FxM
ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ OS= Older
Sister
ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ bl,b2,b3,b4=
2nd brood of babies by FxM
À Bi, B2, B3, B4, B5
= 3rd brood of babies by FxM
ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ
ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ A map or drawing of the cage is given in the Appendix
indicating the various names of places and objects in the cage used for
descriptions in this study. As can be seen in the map, some objects were stationary,
while there were other objects like feeding trays and nest boxes and branches
that were removed or placed elsewhere many times during the study to make it
salient for the birds and would also induce them to elicit new behaviors or
variations of their usual behaviors in response to the change or introduction
of objects.
ÀÀÀÀ
ÀÀÀÀ Observations of the lovebirds
started on July 20, 1977 where the M, F, OB, and OS were visible for
observation while the 2nd brood of young birds were still inside the mother?s
nest box and could not be observed. However, on July 25, 1977 three of the four
new chicks were now seen to be out of the nest box and trying half successfully
to do many of the adult activities. On July 30, 1977 the fourth birdling came
out of the nest and was seen crouching at the bottom right corner of the cage.
Observations of these birds continued until the birth of 5 more new lovebirds
from the mating of the mother and father again. The new brood was noticed on
October 16, 1977 but 3 of them did
not come out until November 1, 1977 and the other 2 young ones remained in the
nest at this time. Observations from November 1 and thereafter thus included 3
of the new babies from the 3rd brood of babies from the FxM mating.
ÀÀÀÀ
ÀÀÀÀ During these periods of
observation as mentioned before, various objects were removed or placed into
the cage to observe their reactions to changes introduced by the investigator.
A shallow plastic bowl was placed in the bottom of the cage floor for the birds
to use as a birdbath but was not used and kept getting dirty from their food
and other droppings. The seeders were placed on the cage floor to see if they
could be induced to this area since it was observed that they would ordinarily
avoid using the bottom half of the cage; the seeders remained there until the
end of the study. This now left more room around the middle ledge where these
seeders originally were, and so now there was room to put a larger wooden
feeder next to the nest box of the OB and OS, where the birds could walk around
on and fly to and from the rods and other parts of the cage. Another branch was
also placed next to the original branch to provide them with more walking and
jumping space. The other objects remained about the same from the initial
observations to the end of the study.
ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ
ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ The lovebirds are voracious eaters
and were mainly fed parakeet seed along with a variety of fruits like papayas,
pineapple tops, peaches, celery stalks, sunflower seeds and corn. They had a
preference for papayas and sunflower seeds and would chew on the pineapple tops
thus tearing and shredding it to threads.
ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ
ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ A genecology is also given in the
Appendix showing the relationships of the members of the community.
Table I and Figure I are
summaries of the data, both written and tape-recorded, chosen randomly from 3
observation days of this study. Figure I is a graph of the column totals of
Table I and gives the summation for individuals as well as pair and group(b1-4)
dominance interactions. These data showed the interactions of 2 or more
lovebirds and the outcome of the interaction indicating the more dominant
individual and thus the ?winner?. Figures in Table I were obtained from the
Summary Data Sheets for Dominance Hierarchy Weighted ? Age/Place for the days 7/29/77, 7/30/77 and 8/6/77. Table I is
always read X>Y; e.g. F>M was observed 0 times during these 3 days and
OB>F was observed only once during these 3 days. The last vertical column
gives the total number of occurrences in which the particular individual was
dominant in a situation, i.e. the individual ?won? the interaction. Thus from
Table I it is shown that M was dominant in 33
situations, followed by F with 18, then OS with 10 and OB following closely
with and finally with 4 dominant
situations. From this table then, it appears that the suggested order of
dominance might be N, F, OS, OB and b, 1-4*.
*ÀÀÀÀ It is believed that b3 is responsible for
all 4 dominant interactions, but due
to possible misidentifications and the grouping of babies, it will be tallied
as a group rather than individually.
ÀÀÀÀ
ÀÀÀÀ Such a conclusion however cannot be stated without
first knowing or describing the situations that have led to these statistics.
The individuals with the higher number of dominance interactions can be
interpreted as those individuals who are probably more ?social? or have more
occasions for interacting, e.g. M had the highest number of dominance interactions
and more opportunity to interact as compared to OB, F, or OS. The exception is
of course, b1-4 who interact frequently but win only 4 of these interactions
due to their immature level of development as compared to the other
individuals.
ÀÀÀÀ
ÀÀÀÀ Table I also shows that there was
almost an equal number of dominance interactions by M over OB?OS (17) and b1-4
(16). M however, has 0 dominance interactions over F, and F also has O
dominance interactions over M; this does not indicate however, that F and M
were not interacting at all which is evidenced by Table II showing that F and M
had 63 occasions for interacting and possible dominance behavior by either one
of them. This could give rise to a more equiparant relationship existing
between M and F rather than one being more dominant than the other. This
greater number of total dominance interactions by M occurs with all individuals
except F, showing that M is selectively aware of her position in the community
and aware of the others? position also. M especially had more interactions with
b1-4. as much as 2X more interactions with b1-4À an F with b M is also seen to have 3X more interactions the OS
than does F with OS. Dominant interactions with OBÀ about an equal number for both M and F. The table also shows that
there is about an equal number of OB-F(9) and OS-M(ll) interactions possibly
suggesting some rivalry between individuals of the same sex for some reason. In
further examining the mixture of relationships of the four adult individuals
shows that there is also a less but almost equal number of interactions between
members of the opposite sex ? OB?M(7) and
OS?F(6), a difference of only 1 interaction. The real difference between F and
M in the total number of interactions can thus be seen as due to the large
differences of interactions between F and M and their young ones; M interacts
with her babies twice as much as F and also thus has twice as much dominant
interactions over b1-4 as compared to F. This could suggest that either F has
fewer interactions with his babies on the whole or that F has fewer dominant
interactions or winning situations than M. If the latter were true, there
should then be some instances where b1-4> F in column 1, but as can be seen
there are no entries for this interaction, thus providing no observable
evidence for the statement. In fact, Table II provides the data showing that F
has much opportunity for interactions with b1-4 but they don?t occur; F had 61
opportunities to interact with at least one of his babies at a time and 9 other
instances to interact with more than one at a time. It could be speculated that
more of the actual responsibility of caring for the juvenals is given by the
mother. The fact remains that M has more dominant interactions with her young
ones than does F, even though M has less opportunity to interact with her
babies as seen in Table II M has only 16 opportunities to interact individually
with one of her babies and 6 other
opportunities to interact with more than one youngster at a time. This suggests
that the form of the interaction might be different from IA and her offspring
and F and his offspring.
ÀÀÀÀ
ÀÀÀÀ Table I also shows that the OB and
OS had an equal number of dominant interactions over the four youngsters and
that they have both had a small number of dominance interactions over F and M
It is shown that the OS and F both have an equal number of dominance
interactions over each other. Clearly however, this is not so with the OS and
N; the OS is much less dominant to the M as it is shown that in only 1 of 11
interactions did the OS "win". The OB also is much less dominant to
IA, never winning any of the 7 interactions that occur between them. During
these three days of observations, it is seen from Table I that there are no
interactions between OB and OS where one is seen to be dominant over the other
as was also found in the similar data of F?M interactions. From Table II, it is
evidenced that OB and OS had 76 opportunities for dominant interactions to
occur over these 6 times and that a comparable number should exist for the 3 days in Table I, and yet of the 13
projected interactions that should have occurred on these 3 days, there were 0
dominant interactions. - Thus again, it could be interpreted that OB and OS do
not exhibit dominance behavior within the pairing or that each individual is
already fixed in their role in the community and neither makes an attempt to go
above their position in the hierarchy. This is seen in the F-M pairing also.
The group of chicks seem to be in the least dominant position on the hierarchy
scale. Although it is not indicated by Table I, all the 4 dominant situations
of b1-4 were observed in the data to have been "won" by one
individual, namely, b3.
Table II is a Sociograph for Situational Variations and shows the various groupings that occurred on 6 different occasions, as indicated. Groupings were examined for a random day which was 10/16, another comparing two days, then the difference in groupings after one of the environmental changes, and finally looking at the differences in the morning and afternoon. Table II shows that the F-OS, M-OB, M-OS, and the last six groupings all give very low numbers of these group formations over all the six occasions. Column 4 and 6 seem to correspond quite well with each other especially since they are around the same time of the day. It is interesting to note that in the evenings both F and OB had the same high number of incidents of being by themselves, and also the IA and OS had the same low number of isolation incidents on that day from 6:00?6:30 pm. There are many groupings that are consistent over all the six observational periods; i.e. the numbers of occurrences for the grouping is about the same.
ÀÀÀÀ
ÀÀÀÀ Table III and Figure II both show
the percentage of dominance interactions of the total number of observations
and the percentage of the total time of the individuals spent in isolation. The
percentage of dominance interactions follows the same order as the order found
in Table I for the dominance interactions. However, in the isolation
percentages, there appears to be an equal amount of time spent in isolation for
every individual except OS who is about 10% lower than all the other lovebirds.
The average amount of time for all the birds spent by themselves except the OS
is 25.17%; if the OS is included the
average is 23.2% approximately. Table III shows that of the 665 total observations, 10.97% of these
were dominant interactions and that of the 592
possible situations, 12.3% of these were spent in dominance interactions.
This actually shows that the birds don't spend as much time as it appears when
observing them, in displays of dominance, and that a greater part of their time
is spent by themselves. Table IV gives the distribution summary for Age/Place
contrasts from the Summary Data for Dominance Hierarchy Weighted sheet, showing
exactly where much of the interactions take place between the indicated
individuals. It shows that many of the interactions occur on rod1 and the ull.
It also shows that much of the interactions between F&M and b occur in the
ull and M's nest roof which are territories of the F&M at this time.À It is also shown that much of the
interaction between the OB&OS and F&M occur in the public areas of the
cage. The daily round activities and the data are given in the Appendix.
LOOK AT TABLE 1
LOOK AT TABLE 2
LOOK AT TABLE 3
LOOK AT TABLE 4
ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ This study did not attempt to prove any specific
hypothesis of any other research work, but rather to assess the technique of
behavioral observation through the concept of the community setting.
ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ
ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ Observations
of the lovebirds progressed slowly with the use of written note taking but was
later facilitated with the use of the oral tape?recordings. An examination of
the note taken transcripts and the recorded transcripts shows a similar picture
evolving from the two methods. However, the recorded transcripts reveal upon
closer evaluation, a much more description picture of the action and a wider
range of the kinds of activities are put forth. Interjections and explanations
of the activities or behavior are included in the recorded transcripts by the
investigator, giving sometimes a truer picture of the images. On the whole,
the recorded transcripts were able to pick up more of the behaviors with a
clearer, more descriptive record.
ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ
ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ The problem of marking the lovebirds
proved to be the very incident that helped the investigator see the theory of
community setting in action. For without the markings, all individuals were
identical; i.e. F, M, OB, OS were the same in appearance and the young ones
also were somewhat identical, although not exactly due to their different rates
of maturation, but they were becoming increasingly so. This lack of visual
differentiation allowed the investigator to identify the individuals only by
means of behavioral differences. The particular individual?s behavior in a
particular setting was the only means of identification. The way the individual
acted in a particular setting was indicative of the individual and shows that
the way an individual behaves in a setting is just as important1 and
maybe even more so, than a nametag or name in identifying the individual; we
can identify people by their actions.
ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ
ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ A typical daily round of the
lovebirds was obtained and showed that behaviors seem to be dictated by the
setting time factors. The relationships that were described allowed for the
natural history of community to emerge without the use of conventional descriptive
methods. A change in the setting did produce behavior changes; this change
however, had to be rather noticeable, as in the removal of rod2 from the cage,
which induced a session of excitatory behaviors. The birds behaviors were
dictated by the situational change and returned to their typical conduct after
the rod was replaced.
ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ
ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ It is suggested that further
observations are needed in the early morning hours of the lovebirds?
activities.. A smaller number of individuals might help in the accuracy of
identification and in the level of intense observations for the formation of
community.
APPENDIX
LOOK AT APPENDIX 1
