Equine and Animal Cognition Reference Database -- Query Results

Schino, G., & Aureli, F. (2016). Reciprocity in group-living animals: partner control versus partner choice. Biol Rev, 92(2), 665–672. Abstract: ABSTRACT Reciprocity is probably the most debated of the evolutionary explanations for cooperation. Part of the confusion surrounding this debate stems from a failure to note that two different processes can result in reciprocity: partner control and partner choice. We suggest that the common observation that group-living animals direct their cooperative behaviours preferentially to those individuals from which they receive most cooperation is to be interpreted as the result of the sum of the two separate processes of partner control and partner choice. We review evidence that partner choice is the prevalent process in primates and propose explanations for this pattern. We make predictions that highlight the need for studies that separate the effects of partner control and partner choice in a broader variety of group-living taxa. Keywords: cooperation; reciprocity; partner control; partner choice; proximate mechanisms https://references.equine-behaviour.de/show.php?record=6411
Schino, G., di Sorrentino, E. P., & Tiddi, B. (2007). Grooming and coalitions in Japanese macaques (<em>Macaca fuscata</em>): Partner choice and the time frame reciprocation. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 121(2), 181–188. Abstract: Evidence of a reciprocal exchange of grooming and agonistic support in primates is mixed. In this study, the authors analyzed a large database of grooming and coalitions in captive female Japanese macaques (Macaca fuscata) to investigate their within-group distribution and temporal relations. Macaques groomed preferentially those individuals that groomed them most and supported preferentially those individuals that supported them most. They also supported preferentially those individuals that groomed them most and groomed preferentially those individuals that supported them most. These results were not explained by covariation of grooming and support with third variables such as kinship, rank, or time spent in proximity. However, receiving grooming did not increase the short-term probability of supporting a partner, and being supported did not increase the short-term probability of grooming a partner. The proximate mechanisms underlying the exchange of services were discussed in relation to the time frame of the behavioral choices made by the monkeys. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved) Keywords: Altruism; Animal Grooming Behavior; Animal Social Behavior; Reciprocity; Monkeys https://references.equine-behaviour.de/show.php?record=5810

Abstract: ABSTRACT Reciprocity is probably the most debated of the evolutionary explanations for cooperation. Part of the confusion surrounding this debate stems from a failure to note that two different processes can result in reciprocity: partner control and partner choice. We suggest that the common observation that group-living animals direct their cooperative behaviours preferentially to those individuals from which they receive most cooperation is to be interpreted as the result of the sum of the two separate processes of partner control and partner choice. We review evidence that partner choice is the prevalent process in primates and propose explanations for this pattern. We make predictions that highlight the need for studies that separate the effects of partner control and partner choice in a broader variety of group-living taxa.

Abstract: Evidence of a reciprocal exchange of grooming and agonistic support in primates is mixed. In this study, the authors analyzed a large database of grooming and coalitions in captive female Japanese macaques (Macaca fuscata) to investigate their within-group distribution and temporal relations. Macaques groomed preferentially those individuals that groomed them most and supported preferentially those individuals that supported them most. They also supported preferentially those individuals that groomed them most and groomed preferentially those individuals that supported them most. These results were not explained by covariation of grooming and support with third variables such as kinship, rank, or time spent in proximity. However, receiving grooming did not increase the short-term probability of supporting a partner, and being supported did not increase the short-term probability of grooming a partner. The proximate mechanisms underlying the exchange of services were discussed in relation to the time frame of the behavioral choices made by the monkeys. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)

Keywords: *Altruism; *Animal Grooming Behavior; *Animal Social Behavior; *Reciprocity; Monkeys

https://references.equine-behaviour.de/show.php?record=5810