|
|
de Waal, F. B., & Luttrell, L. M. (1986). The similarity principle underlying social bonding among female rhesus monkeys. Folia Primatol (Basel), 46(4), 215–234.
Abstract: Twenty adult female rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta) were observed over a three-year period. They lived in a mixed captive group with kinship relations known for three generations. The study's aim was to test Seyfarth's [J. theor. Biol. 65: 671-698, 1977] model of rank-related grooming and to investigate two other possible determinants of social bonding, i.e. relative age and the group's stratification into two social classes. Data on affiliation, coalitions, and social competition were collected by means of both focal observation and instantaneous time sampling. Whereas certain elements of the existing model were confirmed, its explanatory principles were not. Social competition did not result in more contact among close-ranking females (the opposite effect was found), and the relation between affiliative behavior and coalitions was more complex than predicted. Based on multivariate analyses and a comparison of theoretical models, we propose a simpler, more encompassing principle underlying interfemale attraction. According to this 'similarity principle', rhesus females establish bonds with females whom they most resemble. The similarity may concern genetical and social background, age, hierarchical position and social class. Effects of these four factors were independently demonstrated. The most successful model assumed that similarity factors influence female bonding in a cumulative fashion.
|
|
|
|
de Waal, F. B., Uno, H., Luttrell, L. M., Meisner, L. F., & Jeannotte, L. A. (1996). Behavioral retardation in a macaque with autosomal trisomy and aging mother. Am J Ment Retard, 100(4), 378–390.
Abstract: The social development of a female rhesus monkey (Macaca mulatta) was followed from the day of birth until her death, at age 32 months. The subject, born to an older mother, had an extra autosome (karyotype: 43, XX, +18), an affliction that came about spontaneously. MRI scans revealed that she was also hydrocephalic. Compared to 23 female monkeys growing up under identical conditions, the subject showed serious motor deficiencies, a dramatic delay in the development of social behavior, poorly established dominance relationships, and greater than usual dependency on mother and kin. The subject was well-integrated into the social group, however.
|
|
|
|
de Waal, F. B. M., & Luttrell, L. M. (1988). Mechanisms of social reciprocity in three primate species: Symmetrical relationship characteristics or cognition? Ethology and Sociobiology, 9(2–4), 101–118.
Abstract: Agonistic intervention behavior was observed in captive groups of chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes), rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta), and stumptail monkeys (M. arctoides). Reciprocity correlations of interventions were determined while removing from the data the effects of several symmetrical relationship characteristics, that is, matrillineal kinship, proximity relations, and same-sex combination. It was considered likely that if significant reciprocity persisted after controlling for these characteristics, the reciprocity was based on cognitive mechanisms. Statistical significance was tested by means of recently developed matrix permutation procedures. All three species exhibited significant reciprocity with regard to beneficial interventions, even after controlling for symmetrical traits. Harmful interventions were, however, reciprocal among chimpanzees only. This species showed a “revenge system”, that is, if A often intervened against B, B did the same to A. In contrast, both macaque species showed significantly inversed reciprocity in their harmful interventions: if A often intervened against B, B rarely intervened against A. Further analysis indicates that the strict hierarchy of macaques prevents them from achieving complete reciprocity. Compared to chimpanzees, macaques rarely intervene against higher ranking group members. The observed contrast can be partially explained on the basis of differences in available space, as indicated by a comparison of indoor and outdoor living conditions for the chimpanzee colony. Yet, even when such spatial factors are taken into account, substantial behavior differences between chimpanzees and macaques remain.
|
|
|
|
De Waal, F. B. M., & Luttrell, L. M. (1989). Toward a comparative socioecology of the genus Macaca: Different dominance styles in rhesus and stumptail monkeys. Am. J. Primatol., 19(2), 83–109.
Abstract: Captive studies can make a unique contribution to primate socioecology by documenting species-typical social dispositions under controlled conditions. Recent theories seek to connect the dominance relationships, group cohesiveness, and feeding ecology of primates. The present study explores the first two aspects by comparing the social organization of rhesus (Macaca mulatta) and stumptail monkeys (M. arctoides). Data were collected over a period of eight years, with five different methods, on three well-established captive groups in identical environments. The groups were found to share one characteristic: a clear-cut, linear formal dominance hierarchy as expressed in teeth-baring displays. The two main study groups (one of each species) differed significantly, however, with respect to nine of eleven behavioral measures. In addition to a previously reported higher frequency of reconciliation in the stumptail group, this group showed (1) more frequent but less severe aggressive behavior, (2) greater symmetry of contests, (3) greater social tolerance, (4) more nonagonistic approaches, and (5) more allogrooming. The differences can be summarized as a contrast in dominance style, with the stumptails having a more relaxed style and placing greater emphasis on social cohesion than the rhesus monkeys. An egalitarian attitude was also reflected in approach behavior: contacts in the rhesus group were mostly initiated by dominants, whereas contacts in the stumptail group were initiated independent of rank. Comparisons with a second rhesus group, and with published reports, suggest that while some of the observed differences are probably representative of the two species, considerable intraspecific variation does exist, and a more comprehensive program of comparative studies is needed.
|
|
