Abstract: >We examined the “decision-making” process of aggressive interactions within a community of wild chimpanzees ( Pan troglodytes verus) in the Taï National Park, Côte d’Ivoire (West Africa). Costs and benefits were investigated for 876 dyadic aggressive interactions among 18 adults (including 4 independent adolescents) of either sex. An extended version of the Relational Model was developed to describe the dynamics of the “decision-making” process in Taï chimpanzees, which suggests that the net benefit determines the occurrence of conflicts. Both sexes fought more frequently for the resources that were most important to them, food for females and social contexts for males. Individuals used two different strategies according to their likelihood of winning the aggressive interaction, determined by the dominance relationship of the conflict partners. Dominant initiators had longer and more intense aggressive interactions, but they limited their social disadvantages by fighting non-cooperative partners. Subordinate initiators had shorter and less intense aggressive interactions, but risked more social costs, which they could reduce afterwards by reconciliation. Both strategies included a positive overall net benefit. The extended Relational Model fits the complexity of wild chimpanzee conflicts and allows for more flexibility in the “decision-making” compared to the original version.

Abstract: Consistent individual differences in boldness, reactivity, aggressiveness, and other 'personality traits' in animals are stable within individuals but vary across individuals, for reasons which are currently obscure. Here, I suggest that consistent individual differences in growth rates encourage consistent individual differences in behavior patterns that contribute to growth-mortality tradeoffs. This hypothesis predicts that behavior patterns that increase both growth and mortality rates (e.g. foraging under predation risk, aggressive defense of feeding territories) will be positively correlated with one another across individuals, that selection for high growth rates will increase mean levels of potentially risky behavior across populations, and that within populations, faster-growing individuals will take more risks in foraging contexts than slower-growing individuals. Tentative empirical support for these predictions suggests that a growth-mortality perspective may help explain some of the consistent individual differences in behavioral traits that have been reported in fish, amphibians, reptiles, and other animals with indeterminate growth.

Abstract: Considerable interspeci®c variation in female social relationships occurs in gregarious primates, particularly with regard to agonism and cooperation between females and to the quality of female relationships with males. This variation exists alongside variation in female philopatry and dispersal. Socioecological theories have tried to explain variation in female-female social relationships from an evolutionary perspective focused on ecological factors, notably predation and food distribution. According to the current ``ecological model'', predation risk forces females of most diurnal primate species to live in groups; the strength of the contest component of competition for resources within and between groups then largely determines social relationships between females. Social elationships among gregarious females are here characterized as DispersalEgalitarian, Resident-Nepotistic, Resident-Nepotistic-Tolerant, or Resident-Egalitarian. This ecological model has successfully explained i€erences in the occurrence of formal submission signals, decided dominance relation ships, coalitions and female philopatry. Group size and female rank generally a€ect female reproduction success as the model predicts, and studies of closely related species in di€erent ecological circumstances underscore the importance of the model. Some cases, however, can only be explained when we extend the model to incorporate the e€ects of infanticide risk and habitat saturation. We review evidence in support of the ecological model and test the power of alternative models that invoke between-group competition, forced female philopatry, demographic female recruitment, male interventions into female aggression, and male harassment.
Not one of these models can replace the ecological model, which already encompasses the between-group competition. Currently the best model, which explains
several phenomena that the ecological model does not, is a ``socioecological model'' based on the combined importance of ecological factors, habitat saturation and infanticide avoidance. We note some points of similarity and divergence with other mammalian taxa; these remain to be explored in detail.

Abstract: In the literature on dominance hierarchies, “winner” and “loser” effects usually are denned as an increased probability of winning at time T, bated on victories at time T-l, T-2, etc, and an increased probability of losing at time T, based on losing at T-1, T-2, etc., respectively. Despite some early theoretical work on winner and loser effects, these factors and how they affect the structure of dominance hierarchies have not been examined in detail. I developed a computer simulation to examine winner and loser effects when such effects are independent of one another (as well as when they interact) and when combatants assess each other's resource-holding power. When winner effects alone were important, a hierarchy in which all individuals held an unambiguous rank was found. When only loser effects were important, a dear alpha individual always emerged, but the rank of others in the group was often unclear because of the scarcity of aggressive interactions. Increasing winner effects for a given value of the loser effect increase the number of individuals with unambiguous positions in a hierarchy and the converse is true for increasing the value of the loser effect for a given winner effect Although winner and loser effects have been documented in a number of species, no study has documented both winner and loser effects (using some controlled, pairwise testing system) and the detailed nature of behavioral interactions when individuals are in groups. I hope the results of this model will spur such studies in the future.