Alternative behavioral measures of postconflict affiliation

Abstract

Post-conflict (PC) affiliation refers to positive social interactions that occur after fights. Although this behavior has been widely studied, its functions are rarely tested. We examine a potential function of PC third-party affiliation (affiliation between former opponents and bystanders) in rooks and jackdaws by investigating the hypothesis that conflicts lead to further aggression and that PC third-party affiliation increases to reduce such aggression. The results show that PC affiliation reduces PC aggression for rook aggressors who were less likely to receive aggression after conflicts when they were affiliating with another vs. when they were alone. The opposite result was found for victims of both species who received more aggression after conflicts, and this aggression was not reduced by the act of affiliating. Finally, for jackdaw aggressors, the amount of aggression received after conflicts was not influenced by whether the individual was affiliating or alone, indicating that PC third-party affiliation may serve a function that we did not examine. These findings highlight the importance of investigating functional differences in PC affiliative behavior according to the role played in the conflict.

The comparative study of empathy: sympathetic concern and empathic perspective‐taking in non‐human animals

“…In ravens, Fraser & Bugnyar () found that post‐conflict affiliation offered to the victim was more likely to occur if the bystander shared a valuable relationship with the victim and after intense conflict. Subsequent studies (Logan, Emery & Clayton, 2013 a ; Logan, Ostojić & Clayton, 2013 b ) using a slightly different methodology, showed that jackdaws ( Corvus monedula ) and Eurasian jays ( Garrulus glandarius ) engage in third‐party affiliation initiated by both combatants and bystanders. Colonial jackdaws showed third‐party affiliation with mates; despotic and territorial jays with any individual, not just mates.…”

Reconciliation and third‐party affiliation in carrion crows

“…So far, post‐conflict behaviours have been studied in four different corvid species: Eurasian jays (hereafter called jays; Garrulus glandarius ), jackdaws ( Corvus monedula ), ravens ( Corvus corax ) and rooks ( Corvus frugilegus ). While the use of third‐party affiliation has been shown in all four corvid species (Fraser & Bugnyar, ; Logan, Emery et al., ; Logan, Ostojić et al., ; Seed et al., ; Sima, Pika, & Bugnyar, ), only ravens seem also to show reconciliatory behaviour (Fraser & Bugnyar, ). One possible explanation is that the four corvid species differ in their use of post‐conflict behaviours.…”

“…In contrast, the lack of reconciliation in some species may simply be the result of the existing social relationship structure (Seed et al., ). Except for the one study on ravens (Fraser & Bugnyar, ), all studied individuals lived in relatively similar social groups, characterised by (i) predominantly bonded pairs, and (ii) relatively low levels of agonistic interactions between pair partners (Logan, Emery et al., ; Logan, Ostojić et al., ; Seed et al., ). In these groups, third‐party affiliation (conflict with a non‐pair group member and post‐conflict affiliation with the pair partner)—rather than reconciliation—may thus represent the most beneficial post‐conflict behaviour to strengthen and advertise the prevailing pair bonds (Das, ).…”

“…The value of a relationship refers to the direct benefits gained as a result of the relationship such as agonistic support or food sharing (Fraser & Bugnyar, 2010b). The use of reconciliation may not be necessary in species where conflicts are relatively rare, like in long-term monogamous species (Logan, Emery, & Clayton, 2013), due to the limited number of high-quality relationships. This means that relationships with conspecifics other than the pair partner may not be strong and valuable enough to trigger repair mechanisms (Logan, Emery et al, 2013).…”

“…The use of reconciliation may not be necessary in species where conflicts are relatively rare, like in long-term monogamous species (Logan, Emery, & Clayton, 2013), due to the limited number of high-quality relationships. This means that relationships with conspecifics other than the pair partner may not be strong and valuable enough to trigger repair mechanisms (Logan, Emery et al, 2013). Third-party affiliation refers to the exchange of affiliative behaviours (such as grooming in primates and various forms of body contact) between a former opponent and a bystander after a conflict (Logan, Emery et al, 2013).…”