The Bonobo’s Adaptive Potential: Social Relations under Captive Conditions

Stevens, Jeroen M. G.; Vervaecke, Hilde; Elsacker, Linda Van

doi:10.1007/978-0-387-74787-3_2

Cited by 58 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 48 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This may have been due to an age effect, as the individuals in the previous studies were younger than the animals in our group (average age in de Waal [1992]: 7 years; Hare et al [2007]: 9.6 years; Hare and Kwetuenda [2010]: no ages provided; Tan and Hare [2013]: 6.9 years; this study: 13 years), and it has been shown that the rates of sociosexual behaviour decrease with age in captive bonobos [Stevens et al, 2008]. It is likely that tolerance, as measured in this study, is also influenced by age (note that in the study that failed to find high social tolerance in bonobos while replicating a previous design, the average age was 15 years [Bullinger et al, 2013]).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 79%

“…However, the flexibility of primate social dynamics is becoming increasingly apparent, with social groups of the same species showing variation in mating systems, social spacing and hierarchical structure [Sapolsky, 2006;Henzi et al, 2013;Kappeler et al, 2013;Schradin, 2013]. Previous work on captive bonobo groups also warns against generalizations from data stemming from a single captive group, as groups were found to differ in expression of dominance relationships and social bonding [Stevens et al, 2008].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 90%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Bonobos Show Limited Social Tolerance in a Group Setting: A Comparison with Chimpanzees and a Test of the Relational Model

Cronin¹,

Groot²,

Stevens³

2015

IJFP

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Social tolerance is a core aspect of primate social relationships with implications for the evolution of cooperation, prosociality and social learning. We measured the social tolerance of bonobos in an experiment recently validated with chimpanzees to allow for a comparative assessment of group-level tolerance, and found that the bonobo group studied here exhibited lower social tolerance on average than chimpanzees in this paradigm. Furthermore, following the Relational Model of de Waal, we investigated whether bonobos responded to an increased potential for social conflict with tolerance, conflict avoidance or conflict escalation, and found that only behaviours indicative of conflict escalation differed across conditions. Taken together, these findings contribute to the current debate over the level of social tolerance of bonobos and lend support to the position that the social tolerance of bonobos may not be notably high compared with other primates.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 79%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 90%

Bonobos Show Limited Social Tolerance in a Group Setting: A Comparison with Chimpanzees and a Test of the Relational Model

Cronin¹,

Groot²,

Stevens³

2015

IJFP

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Second, comparisons of various wild populations indicated that levels of sociality, which depend on food availability and the resulting feeding competition, may lie on a continuum for the two species rather than representing a dichotomy (Hohmann and Fruth, 2002; Stumpf, 2007). Finally, various captive groups of bonobos were shown to exhibit high rates of (serious) aggression and consistently steep hierarchies, resulting in “semi‐despotic” societies (Stevens et al, 2008), which may be a response to increased contest competition under captive conditions (cf. Gore, 1993).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Tolerant food sharing and reciprocity is precluded by despotism among bonobos but not chimpanzees

Jaeggi

Stevens

Schaik

2010

American J Phys Anthropol

Self Cite

139

124

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Tolerant food sharing among human foragers can largely be explained by reciprocity. In contrast, food sharing among chimpanzees and bonobos may not always reflect reciprocity, which could be explained by different dominance styles: in egalitarian societies reciprocity is expressed freely, while in more despotic groups dominants may hinder reciprocity. We tested the degree of reciprocity and the influence of dominance on food sharing among chimpanzees and bonobos in two captive groups. First, we found that chimpanzees shared more frequently, more tolerantly, and more actively than bonobos. Second, among chimpanzees, food received was the best predictor of food shared, indicating reciprocal exchange, whereas among bonobos transfers were mostly unidirectional. Third, chimpanzees had a shallower and less linear dominance hierarchy, indicating that they were less despotic than bonobos. This suggests that the tolerant and reciprocal sharing found in chimpanzees, but not bonobos, was made possible by the absence of despotism. To investigate this further, we tested the relationship between despotism and reciprocity in grooming using data from an additional five groups and five different study periods on the main groups. The results showed that i) all chimpanzee groups were less despotic and groomed more reciprocally than bonobo groups, and ii) there was a general negative correlation between despotism and grooming reciprocity across species. This indicates that an egalitarian hierarchy may be more common in chimpanzees, at least in captivity, thus fostering reciprocal exchange. We conclude that a shallow dominance hierarchy was a necessary precondition for the evolution of human-like reciprocal food sharing.

show abstract

“…Despite some uncertainty regarding the overall dominance of male and female bonobos, the high social status of females is clearly a unique characteristic of bonobos relative to the other great apes that exhibit male-dominant societies (Parish 1994(Parish , 1996Kano 1992;Furuichi 1997;Paoli and Palagi 2008;Stevens et al 2007Stevens et al , 2008White and Wood 2007). It appears that male and female bonobos share equal dominant status in the wild, while females are frequently dominant over males in captivity.…”

Section: High Social Status Of Femalesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Factors underlying party size differences between chimpanzees and bonobos: a review and hypotheses for future study

Furuichi

2009

Primates

101

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Differences in party size and cohesiveness among females have been primary topics in socio-ecological comparisons of chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) and bonobos (Pan paniscus). This paper aims to review previous studies that attempted to explain these differences and propose some hypotheses to be tested in future studies. Comparisons of recent data show that relative party size (expressed as a percentage of total group size) is significantly larger for bonobos than chimpanzees. Although the prolonged estrus of females, close association between mother and adult sons, female social relationships including unique homosexual behavior, and high female social status might be related to the increased party size and female cohesiveness of bonobos, these social and behavioral factors alone do not appear to explain the differences between the two species. Differences in ecological factors, including fruit-patch size, density of terrestrial herbs, and the availability of scattered foods that animals forage as they travel between large fruit patches could also contribute to the differences between chimpanzees and bonobos. However, these factors cannot fully account for the increased party size and female cohesiveness of bonobos. The higher female cohesiveness in bonobos may be explained by socio-ecological systems that reduce the cost in feeding efficiency incurred by attending mixed-sex parties. These systems may include female initiatives for party ranging movements as well as the factors mentioned above. Because of their geographical isolation, the two species probably evolved different social systems. Chimpanzees, whose habitats became very dry during some periods in the Pleistocene, likely evolved more flexible fission-fusion social systems to cope with seasonal and annual variation in food availability. On the other hand, bonobos had a large refugia forest in the middle of their range even during the driest periods in the Pleistocene. Therefore bonobos, whose habitats had more abundant food and smaller variation in food availability, probably evolved systems that help females stay in mixed parties without incurring large costs from contest and scramble competition.

show abstract

The Bonobo’s Adaptive Potential: Social Relations under Captive Conditions

Cited by 58 publications

References 48 publications

Bonobos Show Limited Social Tolerance in a Group Setting: A Comparison with Chimpanzees and a Test of the Relational Model

Bonobos Show Limited Social Tolerance in a Group Setting: A Comparison with Chimpanzees and a Test of the Relational Model

Tolerant food sharing and reciprocity is precluded by despotism among bonobos but not chimpanzees

Factors underlying party size differences between chimpanzees and bonobos: a review and hypotheses for future study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About