4.5 Article

Postconflict affiliation between former opponents in Macaca thibetana on Mt. Huangshan, China

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRIMATOLOGY
Volume 27, Issue 3, Pages 827-854

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10764-006-9039-y

Keywords

conflict management; dominance style; Macaca thibetana; postconflict affiliation

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We describe basic patterns of postconflict affiliation between former opponents within a group of wild, provisioned Tibetan macaques Macaca thibetana on Mt. Huangshan, China. Like most primates studied to date, Tibetan macaques reconciled, i.e., overall they engaged in affiliative interaction with opponents at higher rates immediately after an aggressive conflict than at other times. Probabilities of affiliation were enhanced <= 30 s after the end of hostilities. However when we examined sex partner combinations separately, we found unequivocal evidence for reconciliation only for male-male dyads. Tolerant interaction among other partner combinations apparently was not disrupted after a conflict, presumably obviating the need to reconcile. One aspect of reconciliation among males was consistent with other indications of a despotic dominance style: aggressors initiated a higher proportion of affiliative interactions after a conflict than at other times. Another aspect of reconciliation was more typical of relaxed dominance styles: males used specialized behaviors (embraces and same-sex mounts) disproportionately to reconcile. We also found inconsistent evidence for the valuable relationship hypothesis; probabilities of reconciliation were enhanced for male-male dyads with the closest affiliative relationships, but not for those that displayed the most tolerance or mutual agonistic support. We discuss reconciliation and other aspects of conflict management among males in the context of a group with nearly even sex ratios and high male-male mating competition.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available