Actively granting food to a companion is called pro-social behavior and is considered to be part of altruism. Recent findings show that some non-human primates behave pro-socially. However, pro-social behavior is not expected in despotic species, since the steep dominance hierarchy will hamper pro-sociality. We show that some despotic long-tailed macaques do grant others access to food. Moreover, their dominance hierarchy determines pro-social behavior in an unexpected way: high-ranking individuals grant, while low-ranking individuals withhold their partner access to food. Surprisingly, pro-social behavior is not used by subordinates to obtain benefits from dominants, but by dominants to emphasize their dominance position. Hence, Machiavellian macaques rule not through “fear above love”, but through “be feared when needed and loved when possible”.

Social animals may employ evolved implicit rules to maintain a balance between cooperation and competition. Inequity aversion (IA), the aversive reaction to an unequal distribution of resources, is considered such a rule to avoid exploitation between cooperating individuals. Recent studies have revealed the presence of IA in several nonhuman species. In addition, it has been shown that an effort is crucial for this behavior to occur in animals. Moreover, IA may well depend on the partner's identity. Although dominant individuals typically monopolize food, subordinate individuals obtain less preferred food and usually do not protest. Furthermore, "friends" may pay less attention to equity than "nonfriends." We tested whether long-tailed macaques show IA with different cost-benefit ratios. In addition, we determined whether IA depends on relationship quality (RQ). Dominant subjects expressed IA only when a small effort was required. At a very large effort, however, long-tailed macaques did not show IA, possibly owing to bottom effects on the number of rewards they aim to receive. Moreover, and contrary to our predictions, an individual's inequity response was similar when tested with a "friend" or a "nonfriend." Therefore, we conclude that long-tailed macaques show IA only in conditions of moderate effort, yet that IA seems independent of RQ. Furthermore, IA may not be domain specific. Altogether, IA may be a trait present in all species that habitually cooperate, independent of their social organization.

Housing primates in naturalistic groups provides social benefits relative to solitary housing. However, food intake may vary across individuals, possibly resulting in overweight and underweight individuals. Information on relative adiposity (the amount of fat tissue relative to body weight) is needed to monitor overweight and underweight of group‐housed individuals. However, the upper and lower relative adiposity boundaries are currently only known for macaques living solitarily in small cages. We determined the best measure of relative adiposity and explored the boundaries of overweight and underweight to investigate their incidence in group‐housed adult male and female rhesus macaques and long‐tailed macaques living in spacious enclosures at the Biomedical Primate Research Centre (BPRC), the Netherlands. During yearly health checks different relative adiposity measures were obtained. For long‐tailed macaques, comparable data on founder and wild animals were also available. Weight‐for‐height indices (WHI) with height to the power of 3.0 (WHI3.0) for rhesus macaques and 2.7 (WHI2.7) for long‐tailed macaques were optimally independent of height and were highly correlated with other relative adiposity measures. The boundary for overweight was similar in group‐housed and solitary‐housed macaques. A lower boundary for underweight, based on 2% body fat similar to wild primates, gave a better estimate for underweight in group‐housed macaques. We propose that for captive group‐housed rhesus macaques relative adiposity should range between 42 and 67 (WHI3.0) and for long‐tailed macaques between 39 and 62 (WHI2.7). The majority of group‐housed macaques in this facility have a normal relative adiposity, a considerable proportion (17–23%) is overweight, and a few (0–3%) are underweight.

No abstract

No abstract