A winner effect supports third-party intervention behaviour during fallow deer, Dama dama, fights

Jennings, Dómhnall J.; Carlin, Caitrı́ona M.; Gammell, Martin P.

doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2008.10.006

Cited by 46 publications

(70 citation statements)

References 52 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Whether primates or other mammals are similarly sensitive to such risks is not fully clear. The generally conservative nature of coalitions seen in many studies (e.g., Chapais et al, 1991;Silk, 1992Silk, , 1993Widdig et al, 2000;Watts, 2002;Silk et al, 2004;Berman et al, 2007;Jennings et al, 2009;Ward et al, 2009;Smith et al, 2010), however, suggests that those forms of low-risk coalitions are probably the most widespread among the primates and other animals (Watts, 2002).…”

Section: Costs Of Coalitionsmentioning

confidence: 97%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Coalitions in theory and reality: a review of pertinent variables and processes

Bissonnette

Perry

Barrett

et al. 2015

Behav

104

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Coalitions and alliances are ubiquitous in humans and many other mammals, being part of the fabric of complex social systems. Field biologists and ethologists have accumulated a vast amount of data on coalition and alliance formation, while theoretical biologists have developed modelling approaches. With the accumulation of empirical data and sophisticated theory, we are now potentially able to answer a host of questions about how coalitions emerge and are maintained in a population over time, and how the psychology of this type of cooperation evolved. Progress can only be achieved, however, by effectively bridging the communication gap that currently exists between Coalitions in theory and reality empiricists and theoreticians. In this paper, we aim to do so by asking three questions: (1) What are the primary questions addressed by theoreticians interested in coalition formation, and what are the main building blocks of their models? (2) Do empirical observations support the assumptions of current models, and if not, how can we improve this situation? (3) Has theoretical work led to a better understanding of coalition formation, and what are the most profitable lines of inquiry for the future? Our overarching goal is to promote the integration of theoretical and field biology by motivating empirical scientists to collect data on aspects of coalition formation that are currently poorly quantified and to encourage theoreticians to develop a comprehensive theory of coalition formation that is testable under real-world conditions.

show abstract

Section: Costs Of Coalitionsmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…However, their role in coalitionary encounters remains largely unstudied. One notable exception is the study by Jennings et al (2009) that suggests that a winner effect drives intervention behaviour in fallow deer fights.…”

Section: Winner-loser Effectmentioning

confidence: 99%

Coalitions in theory and reality: a review of pertinent variables and processes

Bissonnette

Perry

Barrett

et al. 2015

Behav

104

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Thus, a second hypothesis assumes that policing helps high-ranking individuals to assert their social interests [37], [38], [39]. This assurance of dominance hypothesis is supported in fallow deer ( Dama dama ), where impartial interventions are a male strategy to control other males' social advance in the hierarchy [40], [41]. The hypothesis predicts for chimpanzees that arbitrators are high-ranking males, and that policing occurs only in conflicts among direct social competitors, i.e.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impartial Third-Party Interventions in Captive Chimpanzees: A Reflection of Community Concern

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Because conflicts among social group members are inevitable, their management is crucial for group stability. The rarest and most interesting form of conflict management is policing, i.e., impartial interventions by bystanders, which is of considerable interest due to its potentially moral nature. Here, we provide descriptive and quantitative data on policing in captive chimpanzees. First, we report on a high rate of policing in one captive group characterized by recently introduced females and a rank reversal between two males. We explored the influence of various factors on the occurrence of policing. The results show that only the alpha and beta males acted as arbitrators using manifold tactics to control conflicts, and that their interventions strongly depended on conflict complexity. Secondly, we compared the policing patterns in three other captive chimpanzee groups. We found that although rare, policing was more prevalent at times of increased social instability, both high-ranking males and females performed policing, and conflicts of all sex-dyad combinations were policed. These results suggest that the primary function of policing is to increase group stability. It may thus reflect prosocial behaviour based upon “community concern.” However, policing remains a rare behaviour and more data are needed to test the generality of this hypothesis.

show abstract

“…In contrast, potential ‘selfish’ benefits of impartial interventions include dominance or mating benefits. First, ‘policing’ may reinforce one’s dominance by interfering with others’ efforts to rise up the social hierarchy, in fallow deer, Dama dama [22]. This dominance assurance hypothesis predicts selective targeting of direct social competitors, such as male rhesus selectively intervening in male-male fights and female rhesus selectively intervening in female-female fights.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Policing in Nonhuman Primates: Partial Interventions Serve a Prosocial Conflict Management Function in Rhesus Macaques

Beisner

McCowan

2013

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Studies of prosocial policing in nonhuman societies traditionally focus on impartial interventions because of an underlying assumption that partial support implies a direct benefit to the intervener, thereby negating the potential for being prosocial in maintaining social stability for the benefit of the group. However, certain types of partial interventions have significant potential to be prosocial in controlling conflict, e.g. support of non-kin subordinates. Here, we propose a policing support hypothesis that some types of agonistic support serve a prosocial policing function that maintains group stability. Using seven large captive groups of rhesus macaques, we investigated the relationship between intervention type and group-level costs and benefits (rates of trauma, severe aggression, social relocation) and individual level costs and benefits (preferential sex-dyad targeting, dominance ambiguity reduction, access to mates, and return aggression). Our results show that impartial interventions and support of subordinate non-kin represent prosocial policing as both (1) were negatively associated with group-level rates of trauma and severe aggression, respectively, (2) showed no potential to confer individual dominance benefits, (3) when performed outside the mating season, they did not increase chances of mating with the beneficiary, and (4) were low-cost for the highest-ranking interveners. We recommend expanding the definition of ‘policing’ in nonhumans to include these ‘policing support interventions’.

show abstract

A winner effect supports third-party intervention behaviour during fallow deer, Dama dama, fights

Cited by 46 publications

References 52 publications

Coalitions in theory and reality: a review of pertinent variables and processes

Coalitions in theory and reality: a review of pertinent variables and processes

Impartial Third-Party Interventions in Captive Chimpanzees: A Reflection of Community Concern

Policing in Nonhuman Primates: Partial Interventions Serve a Prosocial Conflict Management Function in Rhesus Macaques

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About