Abstract: Domestic dogs comprehend human gestural communication flexibly, particularly the pointing gesture. Here, we examine whether dogs interpret pointing informatively, that is, as simply providing information, or rather as a command, for example, ordering them to move to a particular location. In the first study a human pointed toward an empty cup. In one manipulation, the dog either knew or did not know that the designated cup was empty (and that the other cup actually contained the food). In another manipulation, the human (as authority) either did or did not remain in the room after pointing. Dogs ignored the human’s gesture if they had better information, irrespective of the authority’s presence. In the second study, we varied the level of authority of the person pointing. Sometimes this person was an adult, and sometimes a young child. Dogs followed children’s pointing just as frequently as they followed adults’ pointing (and ignored the dishonest pointing of both), suggesting that the level of authority did not affect their behavior. Taken together these studies suggest that dogs do not see pointing as an imperative command ordering them to a particular location. It is still not totally clear, however, if they interpret it as informative or in some other way.

Abstract: Stumptailed macaques, Macaca arctoides, are characterized by high levels of postconflict affiliative contacts between opponents. We investigated the occurrence of postconflict affiliative contacts between opponents and third parties that were not involved in the original conflict. We collected 10-min focal observations during postconflict and control periods in which we recorded all aggressive and affiliative behaviours between opponents and third parties. We distinguished three types of third parties depending on the relationship with the focal animal: own kin, opponent's kin and individuals unrelated to both opponents. We analysed the interactions with third parties separately, while distinguishing two classes of affiliative behaviours: (1) allogrooming and contact sitting and (2) sociosexual behaviours (e.g. genital inspection). The macaques showed differences between postconflict and control periods in their affiliative contacts with third parties. Aggressors received more postconflict grooming and contact sitting from their opponents' kin, received more sociosexual behaviour from their own kin and unrelated individuals, and directed more sociosexual behaviour to unrelated individuals. Victims received and directed less postconflict grooming from and towards their own kin. They received more postconflict sociosexual behaviour from all partners except their own kin and directed more sociosexual behaviour to all partners except the opponent's kin. This study establishes the occurrence of multiple postconflict triadic affiliation in stumptailed macaques, and is the first to show that victims receive contacts from third parties in a cercopithecine species, a behaviour previously described only in chimpanzees. It also highlights the importance of analysing the different affiliative behaviours separately in postconflict situations. Otherwise, many of the patterns we report, especially those involving victims, would have been missed.

Abstract: Capuchin monkeys were tested in five experiments in which two individuals competed over food. When given a choice between retrieving a piece of food that was visible or hidden from the dominant, subordinate animals preferred to retrieve hidden food. This preference is consistent with the hypotheses that either (1) the subordinate knew what the dominant could and could not see or (2) the subordinate was monitoring the behaviour of the dominant and avoiding the piece of food that it approached. To test between these alternatives, we released subordinates with a slight head start forcing them to make their choice (between a piece of food hidden or visible to the dominant) before the dominant entered the area. Unlike chimpanzees, Pan troglodytes, subordinates that were given a head start did not preferentially approach hidden pieces of food first. Therefore, our experiments provide little support for the hypothesis that capuchin monkeys are sensitive to what another individual does or does not see. We compare our results with those obtained with chimpanzees in the same paradigm and discuss the evolution of primate social cognition. Copyright 2003 The Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour. Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Abstract: We conducted three experiments on social problem solving by chimpanzees, Pan troglodytes. In each experiment a subordinate and a dominant individual competed for food, which was placed in various ways on the subordinate's side of two opaque barriers. In some conditions dominants had not seen the food hidden, or food they had seen hidden was moved elsewhere when they were not watching (whereas in control conditions they saw the food being hidden or moved). At the same time, subordinates always saw the entire baiting procedure and could monitor the visual access of their dominant competitor as well. If subordinates were sensitive to what dominants did or did not see during baiting, they should have preferentially approached and retrieved the food that dominants had not seen hidden or moved. This is what they did in experiment 1 when dominants were either uninformed or misinformed about the food's location. In experiment 2 subordinates recognized, and adjusted their behaviour accordingly, when the dominant individual who witnessed the hiding was replaced with another dominant individual who had not witnessed it, thus demonstrating their ability to keep track of precisely who has witnessed what. In experiment 3 subordinates did not choose consistently between two pieces of hidden food, one of which dominants had seen hidden and one of which they had not seen hidden. However, their failure in this experiment was likely to be due to the changed nature of the competition under these circumstances and not to a failure of social-cognitive skills. These findings suggest that at least in some situations (i.e. competition with conspecifics) chimpanzees know what conspecifics have and have not seen (do and do not know), and that they use this information to devise effective social-cognitive strategies. Copyright 2001 The Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour.