Conflict management in free-ranging wolves, Canis lupus

Baan, Candice; Bergmüller, Ralph; Smith, Douglas W.; Molnar, Barbara

doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2014.01.033

Cited by 47 publications

(52 citation statements)

References 35 publications

(66 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Wolves (Canis lupus) and dogs (Canis familiaris) engage in post-conflict third-party affiliation and the dynamics of this behaviour show a strong similarity with that observed in great apes (Palagi & Cordoni, 2009). Wolves show solicited and unsolicited bystander affiliation (Palagi & Cordoni, 2009;Baan et al, 2014). Unsolicited third-party contacts occurred between friends (measured by body contact rates) (Palagi & Cordoni, 2009).…”

Section: (B) Canidsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The comparative study of empathy: sympathetic concern and empathic perspective‐taking in non‐human animals

Pérez-Manrique

Gomila

2017

Biological Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While empathy is a century-old psychological concept, its study in non-human animals has become the focus of much recent scientific interest, as it promises to provide the clues to understand the evolutionary origins of our social and moral nature. A review of the comparative study of empathy is thus timely to complement and constrain anthropocentric views, and to integrate current findings. However, this is not an easy task. The study of animal empathy has developed using different paradigms, different concepts of the phenomena involved, and the absence of a systematic program. Herein, we carry out a comprehensive review of the literature on complex forms of empathy in non-human animals: sympathetic concern and empathic perspective-taking. In particular, we focus on consolation and targeted helping, as the best examples of each category. In so doing, we try to shed light on the current debate concerning whether these phenomena are exclusively human traits. First, we try to clarify the terminology and taxonomy of forms of empathy, providing operative criteria for these phenomena that are applicable to both human and non-human animals. Second, we discuss whether the available evidence qualifies such behaviour as empathic. Third, we aim to provide an integrative view of the field, clarifying the challenges and conditions to satisfy. We also hope to highlight the importance of the study of these processes for elucidating the evolutionary history of this capacity across the animal kingdom.

show abstract

Section: (B) Canidsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The comparative study of empathy: sympathetic concern and empathic perspective‐taking in non‐human animals

Pérez-Manrique

Gomila

2017

Biological Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…To date, although dominance relationships have been described in several packs of wild wolves (e.g., Mech, 1999; Bloch, 2002; Peterson et al, 2002; Sands & Creel, 2004; Baan et al, 2014), a quantitative assessment and statistical validation of the existence of linear dominance relationships has been carried out only in wolves living in captivity and mostly in packs consisting of either ‘complex families’ i.e., composed of artificially assembled unrelated individuals (e.g., Packard, 2003 for a review; Mazzini et al, 2013) or ‘disrupted families’ i.e., in which one or both of the original parents are missing (e.g., Packard, 2003 for a review; Cordoni & Palagi, 2008). To our knowledge, only two studies systematically tested and confirmed the existence of a linear hierarchy between pack members in typical wolf families (‘nuclear families’ with parents and multiple generations of offspring and ‘extended families’ consisting of parents plus one of more of their siblings, and their direct offspring) (Van Hooff & Wensing, 1987; Romero et al, 2014).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dominance relationships in a family pack of captive arctic wolves (Canis lupus arctos): the influence of competition for food, age and sex

Cafazzo

Lazzaroni

Marshall-Pescini

2016

PeerJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundDominance is one of the most pervasive concepts in the study of wolf social behaviour but recently its validity has been questioned. For some authors, the bonds between members of wolf families are better described as parent-offspring relationships and the concept of dominance should be used just to evaluate the social dynamics of non-familial captive pack members (e.g., Mech & Cluff, 2010). However, there is a dearth of studies investigating dominance relationships and its correlates in wolf family packs.MethodsHere, we applied a combination of the most commonly used quantitative methods to evaluate the dominance relationships in a captive family pack of 19 Arctic wolves.ResultsWe found a significant linear and completely transitive hierarchy based on the direction of submissive behaviours and found that dominance relationships were not influenced by the competitive contexts (feeding vs. non-feeding context). A significant linear hierarchy also emerges amongst siblings once the breeding pair (the two top-ranking individuals) is removed from analyses. Furthermore, results suggest that wolves may use greeting behaviour as a formal signal of subordination. Whereas older wolves were mostly dominant over younger ones, no clear effect of sex was found. However, frequency of agonistic (submissive, dominant and aggressive) behaviours was higher between female–female and male–male dyads than female–male dyads and sex-separated linear hierarchies showed a stronger linearity than the mixed one. Furthermore, dominance status was conveyed through different behavioural categories during intra-sexual and inter-sexual interactions.DiscussionCurrent results highlight the importance of applying a systematic methodology considering the individuals’ age and sex when evaluating the hierarchical structure of a social group. Moreover, they confirm the validity of the concept of dominance relationships in describing the social bonds within a family pack of captive wolves.

show abstract

“…Osa ran away, with Safi, Bahati and Kobi all chasing him. Osa moved off for 10 s. When he wandered back, Safi approached with a neutral posture, as if to initiate a reconciliation, a phenomenon documented in both dogs (Cools et al, 2008) and wolves (Cordoni & Palagi, 2008;Baan et al, 2014). However, Osa avoided her gaze and walked away.…”

Section: Safi and Osamentioning

confidence: 92%

“…Within packs, however, interactions are usually peaceful. Within-pack relationships show the following features: wolves generally avoid injurious aggression by using ritualized dominance and submission to establish dominance relationships; formal, linear dominance relationships exist, but some pairs of wolves have frequent agonistic interactions while others rarely do; within-pack aggression is sometimes bi-directional; after conflicts occur, wolves tend to repair disruptions to friendly relationships through reconciliations and third party affiliation; friendly greetings involving friendly submission by subordinates help to maintain social bonds; adult wolves play; and some pairs form especially close, affiliative bonds (Schenkel, 1967;Zimen, 1981;Moran, 1982;Fentress et al, 1987; van Hooff & Wensing, 1987;Cordoni & Palagi, 2008, 2015Cordoni, 2009;Palagi & Cordoni, 2009;Jenks, 2011;Baan et al, 2014). The work cited above, most of it published after Mech's (1970) book, indicates the aptness of his summation of wolves as animals who form close emotional bonds, who are averse to fighting, and whose personalities differ strikingly.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…In wolves, gentle affiliation is observed in the contexts of submission, friendly greetings, courtship, grooming and reconciliation (Zimen, 1981; van Hooff & Wensing, 1987;Baan et al, 2014), but very little is known about gentle affiliation among dogs (Smuts, 2014). As puppies, companion dogs exhibit preferences for certain play-fighting partners (Ward et al, 2008), but, until now, differentiated partner preferences among adult dogs have remained unexplored.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Affiliation, dominance and friendship among companion dogs

Trisko

Sandel

Smuts

2016

Behav

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Dog social behaviour has been well studied, but little is known about affiliative relationships between dogs. We report a yearlong study of dominance and affiliation in 24 dogs at a dog daycare facility and provide additional details on dog relationships through long-term observations of pairs of dogs who lived together in the same household or met frequently for years. Companion dogs formed highly differentiated relationships with one another. At daycare, some dyads affiliated and displayed one-way submission (formal dominance), others affiliated without a dominance relationship (egalitarian), and the majority of dyads did not affiliate at all (agonistic or non-interactive). The dogs in household environments showed formal and egalitarian relationships, and two dyads exchanged two-way agonism without submission (unresolved). Sex influenced the types of relationships dogs formed, with mixed sex dyads more likely to affiliate and less likely to exhibit dominance than same-sex pairs. Dominance influenced the nature of affiliation in relationships; egalitarian dyads were more likely to play and showed more equitable gentle affiliation. Gentle affiliation was reciprocal in the group as a whole, but it was highly skewed in many dyads, especially those with dominance relationships. Gentle affiliation was usually, but not always, directed up the hierarchy. Certain dyads affiliated at much higher rates than others, indicating that the dogs formed friendships. Most friends were mixed sex and/or egalitarian pairs, but friendships occurred in all of the sex class/dominance combinations. Long-term observations demonstrated how dyadic relationships can change over time. Such highly differentiated relationships suggest significant social complexity in dogs.

show abstract

Conflict management in free-ranging wolves, Canis lupus

Cited by 47 publications

References 35 publications

The comparative study of empathy: sympathetic concern and empathic perspective‐taking in non‐human animals

The comparative study of empathy: sympathetic concern and empathic perspective‐taking in non‐human animals

Dominance relationships in a family pack of captive arctic wolves (Canis lupus arctos): the influence of competition for food, age and sex

Affiliation, dominance and friendship among companion dogs

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About