4.3 Review

Post-conflict behaviour of wild chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes schweinfurthii) in the Budongo Forest, Uganda

期刊

BEHAVIOUR
卷 138, 期 -, 页码 649-690

出版社

BRILL ACADEMIC PUBLISHERS
DOI: 10.1163/156853901316924520

关键词

chimpanzee; Pan troglodytes; reconciliation; consolation; stress; conflict; aggression; relationships

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Since de Waal & van Roosmalen (1979) first documented the occurrence of reconciliation between former opponents in captive chimpanzees, the study of the post-conflict behaviour of primates has provided valuable information about some of the details of primate social organisation. The vast majority of these studies have been carried out on captive subjects and it has been assumed that these findings are representative of wild primates. We set out to investigate whether this was true for the Sonso community of wild chimpanzees (Pall troglodytes schweinfurthii) of the Budongo Forest, Uganda, using controlled procedures comparable with those used in captive studies. We found that these chimpanzees were much less likely to reconcile than their captive counterparts. Only one dimension of relationship quality had an effect on the likelihood of reconciliation. Individuals which were highly compatible, in terms of time spent affiliating, reconciled conflicts more often than those with weak relationships. Captive chimpanzees have also been shown to 'console' one another (de Waal & van Roosmalen, 1979; do Waal & Aureii, 1996), where uninvolved bystanders initiate affiliative contacts with victims of aggression. This study did not confirm that consolatory behaviour was characteristic of wild chimpanzee post-conflict behaviour. Nor did these chimpanzees use explicit gestures during post-conflict interactions as they have been shown to do in two out of three captive studies. We conclude that the post-conflict behaviour of chimpanzees is more variable than has previously been thought and is likely to be dependent on the prevailing social environment.

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

4.3
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