Although clinical psychiatry has become sufficiently sophisticated to appreciate that mood and behavior are neither identical nor predictably derived from one another, animal research allows for no such distinction. Such a presumption is, in actuality, only an unscientific assumption, supported by neither convincing data nor DSM-IV criteria. Regarding social status factors, Rosenblum has shown that bonnet monkeys' status in the group hierarchy was a key determinant of their success in using effective foraging to reverse partial isolation-induced disturbed behavior. However, since hierarchy characteristics vary among monkey species, it is difficult to know the relationship between the positions of monkeys' in their hierarchies and humans in society. Male and female is not the issue here, it's the monkey version of feudal society. . .
Baboons are a patriarchal society dominated by males and fascinated by food.
Apart from dominance-hierarchy issues, studies show distinctions between monkey species in other behaviors, i.e., aggression and caretaker. It is apparent that behaviors of one species of monkey do not automatically generalize to another, let alone to humans. Given the considerable difficulty in determining which species and which experimental manipulation most clearly resemble human depression, it is hardly surprising that researchers have had difficulty in choosing a model on a scientific basis and have rather relied on non-scientific factors such as availability, expedience, convenience, and personal experience.