Ravens Intervene in Others’ Bonding Attempts

Abstract

SummaryThe competition for power in a complex social world is hypothesized to be a driving force in the evolution of intelligence [1]. More specifically, power may be obtained not only by brute force but also by social strategies resembling human politics [2]. Most empirical evidence comes from primate studies that report unprovoked aggression by dominants to maintain power by spreading fear [3] and third-party interventions in conflicts [4–6]. Coalitionary support has also been described in other animals [7, 8] and is often linked to social bonding [9, 10]. As coalitions can lead to a gain in power [5, 11] and fitness benefits [12], individuals may try to prevent coalitionary support or indirectly prevent others from forming social bonds that might lead to coalitions. Although there is some empirical evidence that coalitionary support can be manipulated [13], little is known about the indirect strategy. We show here that wild ravens (Corvus corax) regularly intervene in affiliative interactions of others even though such interventions are potentially risky and without immediate benefits. Moreover, the identities of both interveners and intervened pairs are not randomly distributed. Ravens with existing ties initiate most interventions, and ravens that are creating new ties are most likely to be the targets of interventions. These patterns are consistent with the idea that interventions function to prevent others from forming alliances and consequently becoming future competitors. We thus show previously undescribed social maneuvers in the struggle for power. These maneuvers are likely to be of importance in other social species as well.

Friends of friends: are indirect connections in social networks important to animal behaviour?

“…Individuals can sometimes recognize relationships between third parties and may engage in behavioural strategies to manipulate those relationships (Cheney, 2011; Massen, Szipl, et al, 2014). Indirect connections may also be important to the transfer of information and cultural practices, and to the maintenance of cooperation within animal groups (Bode et al, 2011; Nowak & Sigmund, 2005).…”

“…This result suggests that baboons eavesdrop on the mating activities of others, potentially to facilitate their access to sneak mating attempts. Pair-bonded ravens were to shown to intervene in affiliative interactions between pairs of others who appeared to be initiating a bond (Massen, Szipl, et al, 2014). This finding suggests that ravens not only have an understanding of relationships between their competitors, but that they execute a strategy whereby they actively attempt to disrupt the relationships of third parties.…”

Affiliation, dominance and friendship among companion dogs

“…Recall from the description of the Bahati/Tasha relationship that Bahati also displayed dominance to try to disrupt play between Tasha and Tex. Similar attempts to interfere with others' affiliative relationships were observed in the daycare dogs (Trisko, 2011), captive chimpanzees (de Waal, 1982), stumptail macaques (Mondragón-Ceballos, 2001), horses (Schneider & Krueger, 2012) and ravens (Massen et al, 2014).…”

Competition for grooming partners and interference in affiliation among female mandrills

“…Similarly, Massen et al. () observed that wild ravens interfere preferentially with the affiliative interactions of individuals who are in the process of forming a pair bond (thus preventing the establishment of a competitively dangerous coalition) but did not target established pairs (that may more easily retaliate).…”

“…The available information about the occurrence of the different types of competition for grooming partners and their contribution to explain the observed patterns of grooming distribution is scanty. Interruptions of others’ affiliation or taking over of a grooming partner have been described in a number of species ( Corvus corax : Massen, Szipl, Spreafico, & Bugnyar, ; Equus caballus : Schneider & Krueger, ; VanDierendonck et al., ; Cercopithecus aethiops : Fairbanks, ; Seyfarth, ; Macaca fuscata : Chapais, Gauthier, & Prud’homme, ; Macaca radiata : Sinha, ; Macaca arctoides : Mondragón‐Ceballos, ; Cercocebus atys and Pan troglodytes : Mielke et al., ; Pan paniscus : Franz, ). A few studies also mentioned that some animals refrain from trying to access supposedly preferred partners (Fairbanks, ; Palombit, Cheney, & Seyfarth, ).…”