Food begging and sharing in wild bonobos (Pan paniscus): assessing relationship quality?

Goldstone, Lucas; Sommer, Volker; Nurmi, Niina O.; Stephens, Colleen R.; Fruth, Barbara

doi:10.1007/s10329-016-0522-6

Cited by 30 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 55 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This negative result could be simply explained by the fact that our macaques did not reciprocate juice reward delivery. Recent ethological report show the absence of short term contingencies between grooming and food tolerance in a different species of macaques (Molesti and Majolo, 2015) and in bonobos (Goldstone et al, 2016). This is somehow consistent with our results and underline the singularity of food sharing behaviors (Watson and Caldwell, 2009).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

Short-term reciprocity in macaque’s social decision-making

Ballesta

Reymond

Duhamel

2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Primates live in complex social environments, where individuals create meaningful networks by adapting their behavior according to past experiences with others. Although free-ranging primates do show signs of reciprocity, experiments in more controlled environments have mainly failed to reproduce such social dynamics. Hence, the cognitive and neural processes allowing monkeys to reciprocate during social exchanges remains elusive. Here, pairs of longtailed macaques (Macaca fascicularis) took turns into a social decision task involving the delivery of positive (juice reward) or negative (airpuff) outcomes. By analyzing the contingencies of one partner's past decisions on the other's future decisions, we demonstrate the presence of reciprocity, but only for the exchange of negative outcomes. Importantly, to display this decisional bias, the monkey needs to witness its partner's decisions, since nonsocial deliveries of the same outcome did not have such effect. Withholding of negative outcomes also predicted future social decisions, which suggest that the observed tit-for-tat strategy may not only be motivated by retaliation after receiving an airpuff but also by the gratefulness of not having received one. These results clarify the apparent dichotomy within the scientific literature of reciprocity in non-human primates and suggest that their social cognition comprise revenge and gratitude.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

Short-term reciprocity in macaque’s social decision-making

Ballesta

Reymond

Duhamel

2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Food sharing may also provide a means to reinforce tolerant relationships among non‐kin. This is supported by evidence from LuiKotale (Goldstone, Sommer, Nurmi, Stephens, & Fruth, ) and Wamba (Yamamoto, ) that food begging is most frequently initiated by younger and more subordinate females and directed at older female food possessors, and may be used as a social tool to assess relationships. Goldstone et al, () found no relationship between the likelihood of receiving food and short‐term measures of grooming or GG‐rubbing between partners.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 70%

Stable and fluctuating social preferences and implications for cooperation among female bonobos at LuiKotale, Salonga National Park, DRC

Moscovice

Douglas

Martínez-Íñigo

et al. 2017

American J Phys Anthropol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives Female bonobos (Pan paniscus) are characterized as highly affiliative and cooperative, but few studies have quantified the strength and stability of female intra‐sexual relationships or explored how variation in social relationships influences cooperation. We measure female social preferences, identify causes of variation in preferences, and test whether variation in social preferences predicts food sharing or coalitionary support. Methods Data were collected over 3 years from females in the Bompusa community at LuiKotale, DRC. We measured genetic relatedness and constructed social preference indices for party association, proximity, grooming, GG‐rubbing and aggression. We identified preferred social partners based on permutation tests and measured stability using Mantel tests. We used factor analysis to identify inter‐relationships between preference indices and used LMMs to test whether variation in social preferences was explained by relatedness, rank differences, having dependent young or co‐residency time. We used GLMMs to test whether variation in social preferences predicted food sharing or coalitionary support. Results All females had preferred non‐kin partners for proximity, grooming or GG‐rubbing, but only grooming preferences were stable across years. Association indices were higher among lactating females, and aggression was lower among females with longer co‐residency times. The factor analysis identified one factor, representing proximity and GG‐rubbing preferences, labeled behavioral coordination. Dyads with higher levels of behavioral coordination were more likely to share food. Conclusions Female bonobos exhibit stable, differentiated grooming relationships outside of kinship and philopatry. Females also exhibit flexible proximity and GG‐rubbing preferences that may facilitate cooperation with a wider range of social partners.

show abstract

“…Specifically, hypotheses have been proposed to suggest that beggars are often not primarily interested in food but rather use the response of the possessor to ascertain information about their personality (the “information gathering” hypothesis; van Noordwijk and van Schaik 2009) or about the status of their relationship with them (the “assessing-relationships” hypothesis; Goldstone et al 2016). Related to this, some have suggested that food sharing can in fact be used not only to assess, but also to establish or reinforce social bonds (von Bayern et al 2007; Wittig et al 2014; Yamamoto 2015).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The influence of social relationship on food tolerance in wolves and dogs

Dale

Range

Stott

et al. 2017

Behav Ecol Sociobiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Food sharing is relatively widespread across the animal kingdom, but research into the socio-ecological factors affecting this activity has predominantly focused on primates. These studies do suggest though that food tolerance is linked to the social relationship with potential partners. Therefore, the current study aimed to assess the social factors which influence food tolerance in two canids: wolves and dogs. We presented wolves and dogs with two paradigms: dyadic tolerance tests and group carcass feedings. In the dyadic setting, the affiliative relationship with a partner was the most important factor, with a strong bond promoting more sharing in both species. In the group setting, however, rank was the primary factor determining feeding behavior. Although the dominant individuals of both species defended the carcass more than subordinates, in the dogs, the subordinates mostly stayed away from the resource and the most dominant individual monopolized the food. In the wolves, the subordinates spent as much time as dominant individuals in proximity to, and feeding from, the carcass. Furthermore, subordinate wolves were more able to use persistence strategies than the dogs were. Feeding interactions in the wolves, but not dogs, were also modulated by whether the carcass was on the ground or hanging from a tree. Overall, the social relationship with a partner is important in food distribution in wolves and dogs, but the precise effects are dependent on species and feeding context. We consider how the different socio-ecologies of the two species may be linked to these findings.Significance statementDespite the fact that food sharing is relatively widespread in the animal kingdom, the specific factors underlying whether an animal will share with a specific individual are little understood. When it comes to decisions about food sharing in wolves and dogs, friendship is the deciding factor if it is just two of you, but in a bigger group rank position decides your access to the spoils. What is more, it seems that rank positioning is even more important in dogs than wolves as dominant dogs keep the food for themselves while each wolf pack member has a chance to eat. This is the first evidence that the importance of the social relationship in food sharing is dependent on the feeding context in canids.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00265-017-2339-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

Food begging and sharing in wild bonobos (Pan paniscus): assessing relationship quality?

Cited by 30 publications

References 55 publications

Short-term reciprocity in macaque’s social decision-making

Short-term reciprocity in macaque’s social decision-making

Stable and fluctuating social preferences and implications for cooperation among female bonobos at LuiKotale, Salonga National Park, DRC

The influence of social relationship on food tolerance in wolves and dogs

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About