4.4 Article

Being a victim or an aggressor: Different functions of triadic post-conflict interactions in wolves (Canis lupus lupus)

期刊

AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOR
卷 41, 期 6, 页码 526-536

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1002/ab.21590

关键词

Canis lupus lupus; conflict management; bystander affiliation; social bonding; aggression control

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Animals adopt different behavioral strategies to cope with the conflict of interests coming from the competition over limited resources. Starting from the study on chimpanzees, post-conflict third-party affiliation (the affiliative contact provided by a third-party toward the victimVTAor the aggressorATA) was investigated mainly in primates. Later, this post-conflict mechanism has been demonstrated also in other mammals, such as wallabies, horses, dolphins, domestic dogs, and wolves. Here, we present data on triadic post-conflict affiliation in wolves (Canis lupus lupus) by exploring some of the hypotheses already proposed for primates and never tested before in other social mammals. In this carnivore species, the study of VTA and ATA revealed that these strategies cannot be considered as a unique behavioral category since they differ in many functional aspects. VTA serves to protect the victim by reducing the likelihood of reiterated attacks from the previous aggressor and to reinforce the relationship shared by the third-party and the victim. On the other hand, ATA has a role in bystander protection by limiting the renewed attacks of the previous aggressor toward uninvolved group-members (potential third-parties). In conclusion, exploring VTA and ATA gives the opportunity to concurrently demonstrate some functional differences in triadic post-conflict affiliation according to the different targets of bystanders (victims or aggressors). The data comparison between primates and other social mammals should permit to open new lines of research. Aggr. Behav. 41:526-536, 2015. (c) 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据