PofoliaShared via Pofolia

Ethology· 2026Q2

The Company We Keep: Effects of Different Social Environments on Male Guinea Pig Behaviour and Hormones Over the Course of the Ontogeny

Maximilian Baldy, Sylvia Kaiser

Short summary

Male guinea pigs stimulated with extra social interaction showed more sociopositive and courtship behaviors, and social interest, but no differences in testosterone or cortisol levels compared to un-stimulated males.

AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.

Key points

  • Stimulated male guinea pigs showed increased sociopositive and courtship behaviors in adolescence and adulthood.
  • Stimulated males exhibited higher social interest in behavioral tests.
  • No significant differences were found in testosterone or cortisol levels between stimulated and un-stimulated groups.
  • Cortisol reaction values were stable across ontogenetic phases, except for the initial juvenile phase reaction.
  • Testosterone values showed instability across and within ontogenetic phases for both groups.

AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.

Abstract

ABSTRACT Social environments change over the course of an individual's life, and individuals must adjust to these different environments throughout their ontogeny. Therefore the aim of this study was to examine whether two different social environments cause differences in behaviour and endocrine profiles over the course of the ontogeny in male domestic guinea pigs, from juvenile phase to early adulthood. For this purpose, 20 males lived in two different social environments. The different social environments consisted of heterosexual pair housing, with one group receiving additional social stimulation by unfamiliar guinea pigs (3× per week, up to 10 min), and the other group not receiving it. The results show that the stimulated males displayed more sociopositive and sexual/courtship home enclosure behaviour in adolescence and adulthood, as well as social interest behaviour in social behavioural tests, but there were no differences in testosterone or hypothalamic–pituitary‐adrenocortical‐axis (re‐)activity, for which basal and reaction values of cortisol were used as an indicator. The results also show that testosterone values were not stable across or within ontogenetic phases in either treatment group, whereas cortisol reaction values were stable within and across ontogenetic phases in both treatment groups, except for the first reaction value in the juvenile phase. The differences in behaviour may be adjustments to the social environment by the stimulated males, which might show more sociopositive behaviour because they live in an environment where the advantages of more sociopositive behaviour might outweigh other behavioural strategies. The lack of hormonal differences between the two groups could point towards different factors mediating the behavioural differences. A possible mediating factor could be social learning, though the involvement of testosterone as another mediating factor cannot be ruled out. Overall the results show that behavioural adjustments to the different social environments have taken place, which can be considered evidence of behavioural plasticity in a changing social environment and potentially of social niche conformance.

The authors' abstract, as published at the source. Ethology, 2026 · DOI ↗

TakeawaysPremium
Ask the paperFree account

Continue with a free account

Ask the paper: 3 free questions a day about this paper; save it, get its citation, new summaries every day for your field. Takeaways are Premium.

Continue free on the web

Sign in with Google or Apple; no card needed. You come back to this paper.

On your phone:

Field: Behavioral Neuroscience

Behavioral NeuroscienceNeuroscience