6 results
The effect of a nighttime zoo event on spider monkey (Ateles geoffroyi) behavior
- Darby Proctor, Michelle Smurl
-
- Journal:
- Experimental Results / Volume 1 / 2020
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 10 November 2020, e50
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Open access
- HTML
- Export citation
-
The relationship between zoo animals, particularly nonhuman primates, and visitors is complex and varies by species. Adding complexity to this relationship is the trend for zoos to host events outside of normal operating hours. Here, we explored whether a late-night haunted-house style event influenced the behavior of spider monkeys. We conducted behavioral observations both on event nights and nights without the event. The spider monkeys were active and outside more frequently on event nights compared to the control nights indicating that their typical nighttime behavior was altered. However, it is difficult to definitively conclude whether the behavioral changes were a result of the event being aversive or enriching. Our findings suggest that zoos should conduct behavioral observations of and collect physiological data from their animals, especially if they are sensitive to environmental changes, when implementing new events, including those occurring outside of normal operating hours to ensure high levels of animal welfare.
Assessing the stability of egocentric networks over time using the digital participant-aided sociogram tool Network Canvas
- Bernie Hogan, Patrick Janulis, Gregory Lee Phillips II, Joshua Melville, Brian Mustanski, Noshir Contractor, Michelle Birkett
-
- Journal:
- Network Science / Volume 8 / Issue 2 / June 2020
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 04 November 2019, pp. 204-222
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Open access
- Export citation
-
This paper examines the stability of egocentric networks as reported over time using a novel touchscreen-based participant-aided sociogram. Past work has noted the instability of nominated network alters, with a large proportion leaving and reappearing between interview observations. To explain this instability of networks over time, researchers often look to structural embeddedness, namely the notion that alters are connected to other alters within egocentric networks. Recent research has also asked whether the interview situation itself may play a role in conditioning respondents to what might be the appropriate size and shape of a social network, and thereby which alters ought to be nominated or not. We report on change in these networks across three waves and assess whether this change appears to be the result of natural churn in the network or whether changes might be the result of factors in the interview itself, particularly anchoring and motivated underreporting. Our results indicate little change in average network size across waves, particularly for indirect tie nominations. Slight, significant changes were noted between waves one and two particularly among those with the largest networks. Almost no significant differences were observed between waves two and three, either in terms of network size, composition, or density. Data come from three waves of a Chicago-based panel study of young men who have sex with men.
Gateway to the Yayla: The Varneti Archaeological Complex in the Southern Caucasus Highlands
- William Anderson, Michelle Negus Cleary, Jessie Birkett-Rees, Damjan Krsmanovic, Nikoloz Tskvitinidze
-
- Journal:
- European Journal of Archaeology / Volume 22 / Issue 1 / February 2019
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 13 June 2018, pp. 22-43
- Print publication:
- February 2019
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
Recent ground surveys in the Samtskhe-Javakheti region of southern Georgia have investigated a previously undocumented group of sites along a ridge overlooking the upper Kura river valley. Features and artefacts recorded at Varneti suggest long but episodic occupation from the Chalcolithic to the later medieval periods, with prominent phases in the Early to Middle Bronze Age and the Late Bronze Age to Early Iron Age. Varneti has the potential to contribute to understanding economic and strategic aspects of the long-term settlement pattern in the southern Caucasus, especially the interplay between lowland and highland zones. Its position in the landscape, at a transitional point between the river valley and the upland pasture (yayla), may explain its persistent use by agro-pastoral communities that operated in varied cultural situations. The survey results help us frame a series of questions regarding economic and social dynamics at a local and regional scale and the continuity and discontinuity of practice in highland environments through long timespans.
16 - Sexual Prejudice: Advances in Conceptual and Empirical Models
- from Part II - Prejudice in Specific Domains
-
- By V. Paul Poteat, Boston College, Michelle Birkett, Northwestern University
- Edited by Chris G. Sibley, University of Auckland, Fiona Kate Barlow, University of Queensland
-
- Book:
- The Cambridge Handbook of the Psychology of Prejudice
- Published online:
- 17 November 2016
- Print publication:
- 31 October 2016, pp 371-391
-
- Chapter
-
- You have access Access
- Export citation
-
Summary
Considerable advances have occurred in the study of prejudice against sexual minorities (e.g., lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender individuals) across multiple fields of psychology in recent years. With this growing attention, scholars have proposed more refined and nuanced conceptualizations of sexual prejudice, documented varied ways in which it is expressed, identified multiple underlying predictors, and pointed to emerging issues that require concerted interdisciplinary approaches to address. There is also a substantial literature base documenting discrimination against sexual minorities and its many physical, mental, and behavioral health consequences (Katz-Wise & Hyde, 2012; Meyer, 2003). For the purpose of this chapter, however, we focus on the construct of sexual prejudice itself and seek to provide an understanding of individual factors and social processes that contribute to its development and perpetuation.
Operationalizing Sexual Prejudice
Scholars have proposed and used varying terminology for the continually evolving concept of sexual prejudice as it is now understood; of these terms, “homophobia” (largely attributed to Weinberg, 1972) has been the most enduring and widely used in research and popular culture. Herek (2004) provided a rich review and critique of these terms, with an emphasis on homophobia, and considered the historical and societal context in which this term first originated and was later revised. In his critique, Herek noted important limitations to the term “homophobia,” including (a) it rarely refers to an intense, irrational fear of sexual minorities; (b) it is framed through the lens of psychopathology but is not meant as a diagnosis; (c) it has inadequately reflected the role of broader social norms and processes in shaping individuals’ attitudes; (d) more recently its operationalization has become diffuse as a consequence of being applied to a rather large range of ideas; and (e) it is often considered synonymous with prejudice toward gay men specifically rather than sexual minorities more expansively. Consequently, although many researchers use the term “homophobia” to capture a range of interrelated concepts (e.g., individuals’ negative attitudes toward non-heterosexuals, discriminatory social policies or institutions), it has steadily been replaced by terms such as “sexual stigma,” “heterosexism,” and “sexual prejudice,” which we describe next.
Sexual stigma may be defined as the collective belief among members of society that non-heterosexual identities, feelings, or behaviors are wrong and inferior to heterosexual identities, feelings, or behaviors (Herek, 2004).
8 - Artefacts from the battlefield
-
- By Antonio Sagona, University of Melbourne, Jessie Birkett-Rees, Monash University (Melbourne), Michelle Negus Cleary, University of Sydney, Simon Harrington, The Royal Australian Naval College, Mithat Atabay, Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart Üniversitesi, Reyhan Körpe, 18 March University, Muhammet Erat, 18 March University
- Edited by Antonio Sagona, University of Melbourne, Mithat Atabay, Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart Üniversitesi, C. J. Mackie, La Trobe University, Victoria, Ian McGibbon, Ministry of Culture and Heritage, Wellington, Richard Reid, Department of Veteran Affairs
-
- Book:
- Anzac Battlefield
- Published online:
- 05 December 2015
- Print publication:
- 05 January 2016, pp 159-191
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Material culture does not just exist. It is made by someone. It is produced to do something. Therefore it does not passively reflect society – rather, it creates society through the action of individuals.
Hodder & Hutson, Reading the Past, p. 6.The things humankind makes and uses at any particular time and place are probably the truest representation we have of values and meaning within a society.
Kingery, Learning from Things, p. ix.We live in a world of material things. Objects that we have manufactured (artefacts) and structures that we have built envelope our daily existence. They constitute the tangible and tactile expressions of our contemporary society, as they did for all past human communities. As such, artefacts reveal much about our thoughts and our actions. They inform on our preferences and purchasing power, our cultural affiliations and travels, and our stage of life and gender. In other words, artefacts have the potential to group people with something in common. Artefacts fill museums around the world, and together with standing monuments, they form a major component of the public face of archaeology. The rationale behind the study of artefacts in archaeology, then, can be easily understood. As objects made and used by people, they play a central role in a discipline that is concerned with material culture and how it can be utilised to make sense of human behaviour and achievements.
How far we can approach the ‘true’ meaning of material culture has been much debated, and need not detain us here. Suffice to say that, as evidence from the past, objects are worthy of study in themselves. For many, though, artefacts are seen as ‘fossils’: static and mute expressions of past actions, which are often displayed in serried ranks in a museum. This method is of limited value, for it obscures the cultural biography of an archaeological object, which has its own history of creation, use, deposition, post-deposition and recovery. We explained our project's recovery system in chapter 5. Here we touch on the first three stages of the lifecycle of the JHAS artefacts, although not with the same level of attention.
Appendix - Anzac Gallipoli Archaeological Database
-
- By Michelle Negus Cleary, University of Sydney, Sarah Midford, La Trobe University (Melbourne), Antonio Sagona, University of Melbourne, Jessie Birkett-Rees, Monash University (Melbourne), Abby Robinson, University of Melbourne, Simon Harrington, The Royal Australian Naval College
- Edited by Antonio Sagona, University of Melbourne, Mithat Atabay, Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart Üniversitesi, C. J. Mackie, La Trobe University, Victoria, Ian McGibbon, Ministry of Culture and Heritage, Wellington, Richard Reid, Department of Veteran Affairs
-
- Book:
- Anzac Battlefield
- Published online:
- 05 December 2015
- Print publication:
- 05 January 2016, pp 246-250
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
The Anzac Gallipoli Archaeological Database is a unique and detailed record of the information recovered during the JHAS field project. Its value is the documentation of archaeological contexts, thereby enabling features and artefacts to be studied in association. During the project, information was collated and managed in a Geographic Information System (GIS) and research database that includes searchable attributes about each feature and artefact. One outcome of the JHAS has been to make this database available to other researchers and the general public as a web-based, digital archive – the Anzac Gallipoli Archaeological Database (AGAD; <www.arts.unimelb.edu.au/gallipoli-battlefield>) – which is comprehensive in its content. It is an important and complementary resource for this book, as many of the features and artefacts that could not be included or illustrated in the text can be found online in AGAD.
AGAD occupies a unique space among the increasing number of digital archaeological gazetteers, archives and catalogues on web-based platforms that are being constructed as an effective way of making primary data available to a wide audience. With more than 2000 records precisely documented in the field, it aims to assist the study of the First World War through its emphasis on landscape and artefacts. The database is organised around the features and artefacts documented in the GIS, rather than specific sites or locations. The feature entries are of the various types used during the JHAS surveys (see table A.1). Each feature is given a unique Feature ID (and artefacts have an additional catalogue ‘Artefact Number’). Moreover, each feature has a record that displays data attributes, including a description, dimensions, chronological period, location and find-spot information, survey date, associated features, artefact type, material type, preservation rating and between one and three images, such as photographs and maps. Artefacts form a major portion of the archive, as they are the largest group of features recorded, and a separate set of artefact types is identified in the data set. It includes information documented in both Turkish and Anzac-held areas of the battlefield, providing an insight into the battlefield from perspectives on both sides of the conflict.
Feature types have been categorised from observations in the field. Eleven feature types are c. 1915 battlefield features (artefacts, boats, six types of earthworks, graves, roads, structures).