Abstract: Research on reciprocity is impaired by confusing definitions and often wrongly used statistical tests. Here, two models of the mechanism on which reciprocity may be based are discussed and an initial step towards a new fremework for its analysis is presented. A distinction is made between reciprocity and interchange. In the case of reciprocity, for one kind of act the same kind is received in return. In interchange, however, two different kinds of acts are bartered. Three types of reciprocity/interchange in social actions among all pairs of group-members are distinguished ([`]qualitative', [`]relative' and [`]absolute') on the basis of the precision of the reciprocity/interchange. Permutation procedures for association between matrices (such as the Mantel Z and two other newly derived tests) are used as a statistical test for detecting reciprocity/interchange. A rough comparison of the power of the two new tests is included. The tests can be applied to all kinds of group-living animals and to all sorts of social behaviour. The distinction between the three types of reciprocity/interchange and the matching statistical methods are also useful for defining and detecting other patterns in social interactions, like unidirectionality and associations between different kinds of social behaviour. The influence on social interactions of variables like dominance rank, age and sex can be analysed in the three forms by testing correlations between invented matrices which represent the influence of these variables (the so-called hypothesis matrices) and social interaction matrices. These methods are extended for two categories of individuals, thus allowing the investigation of, for example, reciprocity between males and females. The methods are illustrated with examples of coalition formation and grooming behaviour among captive chimpanzees, Pan troglodytes.

Abstract: Previous studies have shown that dogs have developed a special sensitivity to the communicative signals and attentional states of humans. The aim of the current study was to further investigate what dogs know about the visual perception of humans and themselves. In the first two experiments we investigated whether dogs were sensitive to the properties of barriers as blocking the visual access of humans. We presented dogs with a situation in which a human forbade them to take a piece of food, but the type and orientation of the barrier allowed the dog to take the food undetected in some conditions. Dogs differentiated between effective and ineffective barriers, based on their orientation or the particular features of the barriers such as size or the presence of window. In the third study we investigated whether dogs know about what they themselves have seen. We presented subjects with two boxes and placed food in one of them. In the Seen condition the location of the food was shown to the dogs while in the Unseen condition dogs were prevented from seeing the destination of the food. Before selecting one of the boxes by pressing a lever, dogs had the opportunity to seek extra information regarding the contents of the boxes, which would be particularly useful in the condition in which they had not seen where the food was hidden. Dogs rarely used the opportunity to seek information about the contents of the box before making their choice in any condition. Therefore, we found no evidence suggesting that dogs have access to what they themselves have seen, which contrasts with the positive evidence about visual perspective taking in others from the first two experiments and previous studies.

Abstract: Tail-biting and other harmful social behaviours are a common problem on pig farms. The aims of the current experiment were (1) to investigate the genetic component of harmful social behaviours such as tail-biting by assessing breed differences, and (2) to further investigate the reliability and predictability of a test, [`]the tail-chew test', previously identified as potentially being capable of predicting a pig's predisposition for tail- and ear-biting. The behaviour of three pig breeds (Large White (LW), Landrace (LR), Duroc (DR)), with 100 pigs per breed, was observed in a [`]tail-chew test', and by observing the performance of harmful social behaviour directed to pen mates in flat deck pens after weaning. The tail-chew test, carried out on two consecutive days pre-weaning, involved observing the behaviour of individual pigs towards two suspended ropes. Pigs were weaned at 28 days and the occurrence of harmful social behaviour was recorded 4 weeks later over 2 consecutive days (1 h per day) using a group [`]period occurrence' scanning method. Breed had a significant effect on rope-directed behaviour in the tail-chew test and on harmful social behaviour. DR pigs interacted with the ropes in the tail-chew test more often (median 23.0 vs 19.0 and 17.5 times in 20 min, P<0.001) and for longer (31.0 vs 20.0 and 23.2 s, P<0.001) than LR and LW pigs, respectively. Although not significantly different from LW, DR pigs tended to direct more total harmful social behaviour towards pen mates than the other breeds. In particular, DR were observed in more total pig-directed biting of pen mates (median 9.0 vs 6.0 and 7.0, P<0.01) than LR and LW, and tended to nose pen mates more often than the other breeds (13.0 vs 11.0 and 10.0, P=0.06). LR pigs bit the ears of pen mates less often than LW and DR (4.0 vs 5.0 and 6.0, P<0.001). Belly-nosing activity was low, with a median of 0 for all breeds, but LR belly-nosed pen mates more often than Durocs (interquartile ranges 0-2.0 vs 0-1.0 and 0-1.0, P<0.01). The behaviour observed in the tail-chew test on day 1 correlated significantly with that observed on day 2 of the test (e.g. frequency of rope-directed behaviour rs=0.380,P<0.01). There were significant but weak correlations between rope-directed behaviour and the performance of some harmful social behaviours. The significant breed differences indicate some genetic contribution to expression of harmful social behaviours. However, the tail-chew test was found to be of limited ability to predict tail- and ear-biting under commercial conditions.

Abstract: Male ungulates engage in intense competition for access to females during the breeding season. Although fights are generally dyadic level encounters, they are on occasion disrupted by the intervention of third-party males. We investigated these third-party interventions using predictions derived from Dugatkin's model (Dugatkin 1998, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B, 265, 433-437) of intervention behaviour. The model argues that when an individual successfully defeats an opponent there is an increase in the probability of winning a subsequent contest: a winner effect. Third-party intervention behaviour is predicted to occur as it serves to prevent either member of a competing dyad from successfully defeating his opponent, achieving a winner effect and subsequently becoming a threat to the intervener. Consistent with model predictions, our results show that intervening males held significantly higher rank than males that did not intervene and were also more likely to be dominant to both of the competing males. Intervening males did not selectively target competitors based on rank, nor did they target males based on overall dyadic rates of aggression between the intervener and competing males. Furthermore, interveners were more likely to have won their interaction immediately prior to intervention and were also likely to win their interaction subsequent to intervention when compared with contest success of the two competing males. Our results are consistent with predictions that support a winner effect for intervention behaviour in fallow deer fights.