Differential Probability of “Coproduction” in Two Species of Macaque (<i>Macaca tonkeana, M. mulatta</i>)

Petit, Odile; Desportes, Christine; Thierry, Bernard

doi:10.1111/j.1439-0310.1992.tb00825.x

Cited by 102 publications

(73 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Dominant individuals could have a greater influence in the joining of other group members. Because kinship constrains the interactions between group members during social or foraging activities in rhesus macaques (Call et al 1996;de Waal and Lutrell 1989;Petit et al 1992;Thierry 1990), individuals may join their relatives more than unrelated individuals. In contrast, Tonkean macaques possess a low dominance asymmetry and great tolerance between individuals (Anderson 2007;Thierry 2004); all individuals may then have the same role on joining decisions and thus no specific constraint will shape their joining a movement.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Organization of Group Members at Departure Is Driven by Social Structure in Macaca

Sueur¹,

Petit²

2008

Int J Primatol

Self Cite

138

170

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Researchers have often explained order of progression of group members during joint movement in terms of the influence of ecological pressures but rarely that of social constraints. We studied the order of joining by group members to a movement in semifree-ranging macaques with contrasting social systems: 1 group of Tonkean macaques (Macaca tonkeana) and 1 group of rhesus macaques (M. mulatta). We used network metrics to understand roles and associations among individuals. The way the macaques joined a movement reflected the social differences between the species in terms of dominance and kinship. Old and dominant male rhesus macaques were more often at the front of the movement, contrary to the Tonkean macaques, which exhibited no specific order. Moreover, rhesus macaques preferred to join high-ranking or related individuals, whereas Tonkean macaques based associations during joining mostly on sexual relationships with a subgroup of peripheral males.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Organization of Group Members at Departure Is Driven by Social Structure in Macaca

Sueur¹,

Petit²

2008

Int J Primatol

Self Cite

138

170

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Petit et al 1992;Hare et al 2007). For example, because of their high social tolerance, Tonkean macaques (Macaca tonkeana; Petit et al, 1992) were more likely to simultaneously push heavy 5 stones to retrieve food compared to less tolerant primate species (Fady, 1972;Burton, 1977;Petit et al, 1992). Similarly, higher level of tolerance while co-feeding allowed bonobos to outperform chimpanzees on a cooperative task where the food reward was highly monopolisable .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cooperation in wild Barbary macaques: factors affecting free partner choice

Molesti

Majolo

2015

Anim Cogn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A key aspect of cooperation is partner choice: choosing the best available partner improves the chances of a successful cooperative interaction and decreases the likelihood of being exploited.However, in studies on cooperation subjects are rarely allowed to freely choose their partners.Group-living animals live in a complex social environment where they can choose among several social partners differing in, for example, sex, age, temperament, or dominance status.Our study investigated whether wild Barbary macaques succeed to cooperate using an experimental apparatus, and whether individual and social factors affect their choice of partners and the degree of cooperation. We used the string pulling task that requires two monkeys to manipulate simultaneously a rope in order to receive a food reward. The monkeys were free to interact with the apparatus or not and to choose their partner. The results showed that Barbary macaques are able to pair up with a partner to cooperate using the apparatus. High level of tolerance between monkeys was necessary for the initiation of successful cooperation, while strong social bond positively affected the maintenance of cooperative interactions. Dominance status, sex, age and temperament of the subjects also affected their choice and performance.These factors thus need to be taken into account in cooperative experiment on animals.Tolerance between social partners is likely to be a prerequisite for the evolution of cooperation.

show abstract

“…Pan troglodytes | freeloading | enforcement | punishment | partner choice C ompetition undermines joint efforts, even among relatives (1)(2)(3)(4)(5); therefore, its control is fundamental to the evolution and maintenance of cooperative relationships (6). Humans are considered exceptional in their capacity to favor cooperation over competition (7), and several alternative hypotheses have been proposed to explain how humans evolved to become uniquely cooperative (7)(8)(9)(10).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

How chimpanzees cooperate in a competitive world

Suchak

Eppley

Campbell

et al. 2016

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Our species is routinely depicted as unique in its ability to achieve cooperation, whereas our closest relative, the chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes), is often characterized as overly competitive. Human cooperation is assisted by the cost attached to competitive tendencies through enforcement mechanisms, such as punishment and partner choice. To examine if chimpanzees possess the same ability to mitigate competition, we set up a cooperative task in the presence of the entire group of 11 adults, which required two or three individuals to pull jointly to receive rewards. This opengroup set-up provided ample opportunity for competition (e.g., freeloading, displacements) and aggression. Despite this unique set-up and initial competitiveness, cooperation prevailed in the end, being at least five times as common as competition. The chimpanzees performed 3,565 cooperative acts while using a variety of enforcement mechanisms to overcome competition and freeloading, as measured by (attempted) thefts of rewards. These mechanisms included direct protest by the target, third-party punishment in which dominant individuals intervened against freeloaders, and partner choice. There was a marked difference between freeloading and displacement; freeloading tended to elicit withdrawal and third-party interventions, whereas displacements were met with a higher rate of direct retaliation. Humans have shown similar responses in controlled experiments, suggesting shared mechanisms across the primates to mitigate competition for the sake of cooperation.Pan troglodytes | freeloading | enforcement | punishment | partner choice

show abstract

Differential Probability of “Coproduction” in Two Species of Macaque (Macaca tonkeana, M. mulatta)

Cited by 102 publications

References 36 publications

Organization of Group Members at Departure Is Driven by Social Structure in Macaca

Organization of Group Members at Departure Is Driven by Social Structure in Macaca

Cooperation in wild Barbary macaques: factors affecting free partner choice

How chimpanzees cooperate in a competitive world

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About