| Home | << 1 >> |
|
| Records | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Author  |
Koski, S.E.; Koops, K.; Sterck, E.H.M. | ||||
| Title | Reconciliation, relationship quality, and postconflict anxiety: testing the integrated hypothesis in captive chimpanzees | Type | Journal Article | ||
| Year | 2007 | Publication | American journal of primatology | Abbreviated Journal | Am. J. Primatol. |
| Volume | 69 | Issue | 2 | Pages | 158-172 |
| Keywords | Animals; *Anxiety; *Behavior, Animal; Conflict (Psychology); Female; Male; Pan troglodytes/*psychology; *Social Behavior | ||||
| Abstract | Reconciliation is a conflict resolution mechanism that is common to many gregarious species with individualized societies. Reconciliation repairs the damaged relationship between the opponents and decreases postconflict (PC) anxiety. The “integrated hypothesis” links the quality of the opponents' relationship to PC anxiety, since it proposes that conflicts among partners with high relationship quality will yield high levels of PC anxiety, which in turn will lead to an increased likelihood of reconciliation. We tested the integrated hypothesis in captive chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) in the Arnhem Zoo, The Netherlands. We applied the standard PC/matched control (MC) method. Our results mostly support the integrated hypothesis, in that more valuable and compatible partners (i.e., males and frequent groomers) reconciled more often than less valuable and weakly compatible partners (i.e., females and infrequent groomers). In addition, PC anxiety was higher after conflicts among males than among females. Emotional arousal thus appears to be a mediator facilitating reconciliation. However, in contrast to the predictions derived from the integrated hypothesis, PC anxiety appeared only in aggressees, and not in aggressors, of conflicts. This suggests that while relationship quality determines PC anxiety, it is dependent on the role of the participants in the conflict. | ||||
| Address | Department of Behavioural Biology, Utrecht University, The Netherlands. s.e.koski@bio.uu.nl | ||||
| Corporate Author | Thesis | ||||
| Publisher | Place of Publication | Editor | |||
| Language | English | Summary Language | Original Title | ||
| Series Editor | Series Title | Abbreviated Series Title | |||
| Series Volume | Series Issue | Edition | |||
| ISSN | 0275-2565 | ISBN | Medium | ||
| Area | Expedition | Conference | |||
| Notes | PMID:17146788 | Approved | no | ||
| Call Number | refbase @ user @ | Serial | 2872 | ||
| Permanent link to this record | |||||
| Author |
Koski, S.E.; Sterck, E.H.M. | ||||
| Title | Triadic postconflict affiliation in captive chimpanzees: does consolation console? | Type | Journal Article | ||
| Year | 2007 | Publication | Animal Behaviour. | Abbreviated Journal | Anim. Behav. |
| Volume | 73 | Issue | 1 | Pages | 133-142 |
| Keywords | chimpanzee; consolation; Pan troglodytes; postconflict affiliation | ||||
| Abstract | Consolation is a triadic postconflict interaction between a conflict participant and an uninvolved third party. The term consolation implies stress alleviation. Consequently, consolation may be an effective mechanism to alleviate postconflict stress. However, this assumption has not been tested. We tested whether consolation alleviates postconflict stress in captive chimpanzees, Pan troglodytes. In addition, we examined whether consolation is a substitute postconflict interaction for reconciliation. We collected 643 postconflict-matched control pairs on aggressees and 576 on aggressors. Consolation occurred equally frequently with aggressees and aggressors. However, we found no evidence that consolation alleviated stress, regardless of the identity of the consoler. In addition, consolation was also directed to conflict participants with no evident postconflict stress. Furthermore, we found no evidence for consolation being a substitute for reconciliation. The occurrence of consolation did not depend on the occurrence of reconciliation and consolation was not more prevalent with the sex class that reconciled less often or had the highest postconflict stress levels. We conclude that consolation is a postconflict interaction in its own right, the function of which is not likely to be connected to stress alleviation of the consoled individual. We propose that the function of triadic postconflict affiliation, previously labelled as consolation, should be reassessed with regard to the third parties' reasons to affiliate with conflict opponents. | ||||
| Address | |||||
| Corporate Author | Thesis | ||||
| Publisher | Place of Publication | Editor | |||
| Language | Summary Language | Original Title | |||
| Series Editor | Series Title | Abbreviated Series Title | |||
| Series Volume | Series Issue | Edition | |||
| ISSN | ISBN | Medium | |||
| Area | Expedition | Conference | |||
| Notes | Approved | no | |||
| Call Number | refbase @ user @ | Serial | 306 | ||
| Permanent link to this record | |||||
| Author |
Massen, J.; Sterck, E.; de Vos, H. | ||||
| Title | Close social associations in animals and humans: functions and mechanisms of friendship | Type | |||
| Year | 2010 | Publication | Behaviour | Abbreviated Journal | |
| Volume | 147 | Issue | 11 | Pages | 1379 |
| Keywords | Both humans and group-living animals associate and behave affiliatively more with some individuals than others. Human friendship has long been acknowledged, and recently scientists studying animal behaviour have started using the term friendship for close social associates in animals. Yet, while biologists describe friends as social tools to enhance fitness, social scientists describe human friendship as unconditional. We investigate whether these different descriptions reflect true differences in human friendship and animal close social associations or are a by-product of different research approaches: namely social scientists focussing on proximate and biologists on ultimate explanations. We first stress the importance of similar measures to determine close social associations, thereafter examine their ultimate benefits and proximate motivations, and discuss the latest findings on the central-neural regulation of social bonds. We conclude that both human friendship and animal close social associations are ultimately beneficial. On the proximate level, motivations for friendship in humans and for close social associations in animals are not necessarily based on benefits and are often unconditional. Moreover, humans share with many animals a similar physiological basis of sociality. Therefore, biologists and social scientist describe the same phenomenon, and the use of the term friendship for animals seems justified. | ||||
| Abstract | Both humans and group-living animals associate and behave affiliatively more with some individuals than others. Human friendship has long been acknowledged, and recently scientists studying animal behaviour have started using the term friendship for close social associates in animals. Yet, while biologists describe friends as social tools to enhance fitness, social scientists describe human friendship as unconditional. We investigate whether these different descriptions reflect true differences in human friendship and animal close social associations or are a by-product of different research approaches: namely social scientists focussing on proximate and biologists on ultimate explanations. We first stress the importance of similar measures to determine close social associations, thereafter examine their ultimate benefits and proximate motivations, and discuss the latest findings on the central-neural regulation of social bonds. We conclude that both human friendship and animal close social associations are ultimately beneficial. On the proximate level, motivations for friendship in humans and for close social associations in animals are not necessarily based on benefits and are often unconditional. Moreover, humans share with many animals a similar physiological basis of sociality. Therefore, biologists and social scientist describe the same phenomenon, and the use of the term friendship for animals seems justified. | ||||
| Address | |||||
| Corporate Author | Thesis | ||||
| Publisher | Place of Publication | Editor | |||
| Language | Summary Language | Original Title | |||
| Series Editor | Series Title | Abbreviated Series Title | |||
| Series Volume | Series Issue | Edition | |||
| ISSN | ISBN | Medium | |||
| Area | Expedition | Conference | |||
| Notes | Approved | no | |||
| Call Number | Equine Behaviour @ team @ | Serial | 5813 | ||
| Permanent link to this record | |||||
| Author |
Sterck, E.; Watts, D.; van Schaik, C. | ||||
| Title | The evolution of female social relationships in nonhuman primates | Type | Journal Article | ||
| Year | 1997 | Publication | Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology | Abbreviated Journal | Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. |
| Volume | 41 | Issue | 5 | Pages | 291-309 |
| Keywords | ecology; matrilocal; primate; social; theory | ||||
| 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. |
||||
| Address | |||||
| Corporate Author | Thesis | ||||
| Publisher | Place of Publication | Editor | |||
| Language | Summary Language | Original Title | |||
| Series Editor | Series Title | Abbreviated Series Title | |||
| Series Volume | Series Issue | Edition | |||
| ISSN | ISBN | Medium | |||
| Area | Expedition | Conference | |||
| Notes | Approved | no | |||
| Call Number | Equine Behaviour @ team @ | Serial | 5227 | ||
| Permanent link to this record | |||||