Abstract: Summary The introduction of game-theoretical thinking into evolutionary biology has laid the groundwork for a heuristic view of animal behaviour in which individuals employ “strategies” – rules that instruct them how to behave in a given circumstance to maximize relative fitness. Axelrod and Hamilton (1981) found that a strategy called Tit-For-Tat (TFT) is one robust cooperative solution to the iterated Prisoner's Dilemma game. There exists, however, little empirical evidence that animals employ TFT. Predator inspection in fish provides one ecological context in which to examine the use of the TFT strategy.

Abstract: Domestic fowl were deprived of the opportunity to perform litter-related behaviour for three or four days and were tested in a Y-maze (which they had previously been trained to run) for their ability to associate a coloured cue with gaining access to peat. When the goal boxes were within sight of the choice point, most birds chose peat. However, when the birds had to rely solely on the coloured cue only one bird from 12 showed learning. However, the birds seemed to have some expectation of a reward, as they ran faster if, on the previous trial, they had chosen peat. The inability of the birds to learn the association may have been an artefact of the schedule of deprivation and testing, for when they were hungry and tested in the same way they were again unable to learn an association between the same coloured cue and food reward. The experiment with peat was repeated using “massed” trials (several trials in immediate succession) during training and testing and six from 15 birds showed learning. These results suggest that the initial failure to learn was probably due to the training and testing schedule, that access to peat appears to be rewarding and that hens can learn an association between an abstract cue and a rewarding consequence. This is consistent with the possibility that domestic fowls may have some cognitive representation of peat when it is out of sight.

Abstract: The tendency in primates for former antagonists to approach and affiliate following aggression has been termed reconciliation because the response is thought to resolve social conflicts produced by aggression. In primate societies, however, an aggressive interaction between two individuals often spreads to include other group members, especially the kin of the combatants. If post conflict affiliation resolves aggressive conflicts in a group, then affiliative increases might occur between combatants and the kin of their opponents following aggression as well as between former opponents. This hypothesis was tested in a captive group of 39 pigtail macaques (Macaca nemestrina) by comparing affiliative response frequencies of combatants during the 5 minute period following aggression to affiliative response frequencies during 5 minute baseline periods not preceded by aggressive activity. Following aggression, affiliation rates increased between combatants and their opponents, aggressors and the kin of their opponents, and aggressors and their own kin. Additional analyses showed that aggression among kin was reconciled more often than aggression among nonkin. Recipients of aggression reconciled with their attackers more often than aggressors reconciled with their victims. Animals with similar dominance ranks reconciled proportionately more often than those with large rank disparities and aggressive infractions of a calculated dominance hierarchy were reconciled more often than attacks consistent with the hierarchy. Results suggest that both dyadic and triadic reconciliations occur in M. nemestrina and that compared to other primate species M. nemestrina exhibit a moderate-to-high conciliatory tendency.