Being a victim or an aggressor: Different functions of triadic post‐conflict interactions in wolves (Canis lupus lupus)

Abstract

Animals adopt different behavioral strategies to cope with the conflict of interests coming from the competition over limited resources. Starting from the study on chimpanzees, post-conflict third-party affiliation (the affiliative contact provided by a third-party toward the victim--VTA--or the aggressor--ATA) was investigated mainly in primates. Later, this post-conflict mechanism has been demonstrated also in other mammals, such as wallabies, horses, dolphins, domestic dogs, and wolves. Here, we present data on triadic post-conflict affiliation in wolves (Canis lupus lupus) by exploring some of the hypotheses already proposed for primates and never tested before in other social mammals. In this carnivore species, the study of VTA and ATA revealed that these strategies cannot be considered as a unique behavioral category since they differ in many functional aspects. VTA serves to protect the victim by reducing the likelihood of reiterated attacks from the previous aggressor and to reinforce the relationship shared by the third-party and the victim. On the other hand, ATA has a role in bystander protection by limiting the renewed attacks of the previous aggressor toward uninvolved group-members (potential third-parties). In conclusion, exploring VTA and ATA gives the opportunity to concurrently demonstrate some functional differences in triadic post-conflict affiliation according to the different targets of bystanders (victims or aggressors). The data comparison between primates and other social mammals should permit to open new lines of research.

Within-group behavioural consequences of between-group conflict: a prospective review

“…Consequently, losers of within-group conflict often initiate more affiliation with bystanders, and receive more from them, than do winners [44,75]. The outcome of between-group conflicts is also expected to influence within-group post-conflict behaviour for similar reasons [23].…”

Calming an aggressor through spontaneous post‐conflict triadic contacts: Appeasement in Macaca tonkeana

“…Third‐party affiliation toward the aggressor has often been neglected in the study of post‐conflict mechanisms. The aggressor can represent a danger, because he/she may reiterate their aggressive contacts (Cordoni & Palagi, ; Das, ; Petit & Thierry, ; Romero, Castellanos, & de Waal, ). van Hooff () defined “appeasement” as every affiliative contact provided by a third‐party to limit the aggressor arousal and its tendency to renew aggression.…”

“…Similarly, Das () used the term “appeasement” when post‐conflict affiliation reduced the risk of further attacks. The calming function deriving from the third‐party contact toward the aggressor was demonstrated only in a few cases (Cordoni & Palagi, ; Palagi, Chiarugi, & Cordoni, ; Romero et al, ). However, none of these studies focused on the potential role of third‐party affiliation in reducing arousal in the aggressor (Das et al, ).…”

Functions of post‐conflict affiliation with a bystander differ between aggressors and victims in Japanese macaques

“…On the other hand, affiliative interaction between one of the opponents and an individual who is not involved in the conflict, namely a bystander, was also found in chimpanzees ( Pan troglodytes , de Waal & van Roosmalen, ). Post‐conflict bystander affiliation or triadic post‐conflict affiliation (Koski & Sterck, ) has recently gained attention in monkeys (McFarland & Majolo, ; Palagi, Dall'Olio, Demuru, & Stanyon, ) and a variety of non‐primate species (Cordoni & Palagi, ; Cozzi, Sighieri, Gazzano, Nicol, & Baragli, ; Ikkatai, Watanabe, & Izawa, ; Yamamoto et al., ). The proposed functions of bystander affiliation in primates, that is, substitute for reconciliation (Judge, ), consolation (de Waal & van Roosmalen, ) and self‐protection for combatants (Romero, Colmenares, & Aureli, ; Watts, ), are not mutually exclusive (Fraser, Koski, Wittig, & Aureli, ).…”

“…Bystander affiliation sometimes functions as self-protection for both aggressors, for example in hamadryas baboons (Papio hamadryas hamadryas, Romero et al, 2009) and victims, for example in wolves (Canis lupus lupus, Cordoni & Palagi, 2015), bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus, Yamamoto et al, 2015) and bonobos (Pan paniscus, Palagi & Norscia, 2013), which reduces the probability of receiving post-conflict aggressions from bystanders or the former opponent. Self-protection for victims was not found in Barbary macaques (Macaca sylvanus) as they were less in need of protecting themselves because the risk of receiving aggression did not increase after conflict (McFarland & Majolo, 2012).…”