Abstract: Conflict features in the lives of many animal species and induces social stress mediated by glucocorticoid hormones [1]. Postconflict affiliation, between former opponents (reconciliation) or between former opponents and a bystander (third-party affiliation), has been suggested as a behavioral mechanism for reducing such stress [2], but has been studied almost exclusively in primates [3]. As with many primates, several bird species live in social groups and form affiliative relationships [4]. Do these distantly related animals also use affiliative behavior to offset the costs of conflict? We studied postconflict affiliation in a captive group of rooks. Unlike polygamous primates, monogamous rooks did not reconcile with former opponents. However, we found clear evidence of third-party affiliation after conflicts. Both initiators and targets of aggression engaged in third-party affiliation with a social partner and employed a specific behavior, bill twining, during the postconflict period. Both former aggressors and uninvolved third parties initiated affiliative contacts. Despite the long history of evolutionary divergence, the pattern of third-party affiliation in rooks is strikingly similar to that observed in tolerant primate species. Furthermore, the absence of reconciliation in rooks makes sense in light of the species differences in social systems.

Abstract: The present investigations were undertaken to compare interspecific communicative abilities of dogs and wolves, which were socialized to humans at comparable levels. The first study demonstrated that socialized wolves were able to locate the place of hidden food indicated by the touching and, to some extent, pointing cues provided by the familiar human experimenter, but their performance remained inferior to that of dogs. In the second study, we have found that, after undergoing training to solve a simple manipulation task, dogs that are faced with an insoluble version of the same problem look/gaze at the human, while socialized wolves do not. Based on these observations, we suggest that the key difference between dog and wolf behavior is the dogs' ability to look at the human's face. Since looking behavior has an important function in initializing and maintaining communicative interaction in human communication systems, we suppose that by positive feedback processes (both evolutionary and ontogenetically) the readiness of dogs to look at the human face has lead to complex forms of dog-human communication that cannot be achieved in wolves even after extended socialization.

Abstract: Summary Sensitivity to the attentional states of others has adaptive advantages [1], and in social animals, attending to others is important for predator detection, as well as a pre-requisite for normal social functioning and more complex socio-cognitive abilities [2]. Despite widespread interest in how social species perceive attention in others, studies of non-human animals have been inconclusive about the detailed cues involved [3]. Previous work has focused on head and eye direction, overlooking the fact that many mammals have obvious and mobile ears that could act as a visual cue to attention. Here we report that horses use the head orientation of a conspecific to locate food, but that this ability is disrupted when parts of the face (the eyes and ears) are covered up with naturalistic masks. The ability to correctly judge attention also interacted with the identity of the model horse, suggesting that individual differences in facial features may influence the salience of cues. Our results indicate that a combination of head orientation with facial expression, specifically involving both the eyes and ears, is necessary for communicating social attention. These findings emphasise that in order to understand how attention is communicated in non-human animals, it is essential to consider a broad range of cues.

Abstract: Summary Left-right asymmetries in behavior associated with asymmetries in the brain are widespread in the animal kingdom [1], and the hypothesis has been put forward that they may be linked to animals’ social behavior [2, 3]. Dogs show asymmetric tail-wagging responses to different emotive stimuli [4]—the outcome of different activation of left and right brain structures controlling tail movements to the right and left side of the body. A crucial question, however, is whether or not dogs detect this asymmetry. Here we report that dogs looking at moving video images of conspecifics exhibiting prevalent left- or right-asymmetric tail wagging showed higher cardiac activity and higher scores of anxious behavior when observing left- rather than right-biased tail wagging. The finding that dogs are sensitive to the asymmetric tail expressions of other dogs supports the hypothesis of a link between brain asymmetry and social behavior and may prove useful to canine animal welfare theory and practice.