Measuring social tolerance: An experimental approach in two lemurid primates

Fichtel, Claudia; Schnoell, Anna Viktoria; Kappeler, Peter M.

doi:10.1111/eth.12706

Cited by 36 publications

(45 citation statements)

References 57 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Social tolerance can readily be measured in foraging contexts focusing on co-feeding, food sharing, and proximity in food patches 3 – 6 . In independently breeding red-fronted and ring-tailed lemurs 7 , a direct comparison revealed higher levels of social tolerance in captive compared to free-ranging groups. Likewise, in orangutans, active food sharing can be common in captivity 8 but is quite rare in the wild 9 , and the same pattern has also been reported for chimpanzees 10 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Higher social tolerance in wild versus captive common marmosets: the role of interdependence

Terceiro

Arruda

Schaik

et al. 2021

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Social tolerance in a group reflects the balance between within-group competition and interdependence: whereas increased competition leads to a reduction in social tolerance, increased interdependence increases it. Captivity reduces both feeding competition and interdependence and can therefore affect social tolerance. In independently breeding primates, social tolerance has been shown to be higher in captivity, indicating a strong effect of food abundance. It is not known, however, how social tolerance in cooperative breeders, with their much higher interdependence, responds to captivity. Here, we therefore compared social tolerance between free-ranging and captive groups in the cooperatively breeding common marmoset and found higher social tolerance (measured as proximity near food, co-feeding, and food sharing) in the wild. Most likely, social tolerance in the wild is higher because interdependence is particularly high in the wild, especially because infant care is more costly there than in captivity. These results indicate that the high social tolerance of these cooperative breeders in captivity is not an artefact, and that captive data may even have underestimated it. They may also imply that the cooperative breeding and foraging of our hominin ancestors, which relied on strong interdependence at multiple levels, was associated with high social tolerance.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Higher social tolerance in wild versus captive common marmosets: the role of interdependence

Terceiro

Arruda

Schaik

et al. 2021

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…According to the second approach that is often employed to study social tolerance [3], we also investigated the consequences of social tolerance between the dyad partners in a potentially competitive situation by quantifying the following behavioral parameters: Aggression rate Number of individual aggressive behaviors per hour that both animals spent together outside the sleeping box. Number of conflicts (see above for definition of conflict). Social dominance (see above for definition of dominance).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Within these systems, social interactions still occur on a regular basis, since these species are only rarely strictly territorial and therefore do meet conspecifics regularly within their home range. During such encounters, a certain level of social tolerance should be advantageous, as solitary foragers also need to coordinate various activities, such as matings [15–18], sleeping group reunions [19], access to resources when meeting at a food source that may or may not be monopolized [3, 20], coordinated movements or space use [19, 21] or predator avoidance [22]. Despite its importance, social tolerance is much less studied in small nocturnal solitary foragers due to their small size, nocturnal activity pattern and the associated difficulty to observe social encounters in dense forest environments [12].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Fichtel et al [3] recently discriminated between two different approaches to study social tolerance that was defined as “concept that captures the probability that individuals will be in proximity to conspecifics around valuable resources with little or no aggression” [23]. The first approach investigates the “underlying behavioral traits” of social tolerance, such as non-agonistic social contacts or proximity.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Sources of variation in social tolerance in mouse lemurs (Microcebus spp.)

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Social tolerance strongly influences the patterns of affiliation and aggression in animal societies. However, not much is known about the variation of social tolerance in species living in dispersed social systems that combine solitary foraging activities with the need of coordinating social interactions with conspecifics on a regular basis. This study aims to investigate the sources of variation in social tolerance within a Malagasy primate radiation with dispersed social systems, the mouse lemurs ( Microcebus spp.). Six mouse lemur species were selected as model species that belong to three different taxonomic clades, live in two types of forest environments (dry and humid), and differed in this study with respect to their reproductive activity. Six male–female and six male–male dyads of each species were tested temporarily in a standardized social encounter paradigm in Madagascar to collect data on joint use of space, non-agonistic body contacts, aggression rates, the number of conflicts and the establishment of intra- and intersexual dominance. Results Male–female dyads of the six species differed significantly in the frequency of affiliative and agonistic behaviors. In contrast, the variations between male–male dyads could not be explained by one parameter only, but clade membership, forest type, reproductive state as well as species were all suggested to be partially influential. Only one species ( Microcebus mamiratra ) showed signals of unambiguous female dominance in all male–female dyads, whereas the others had no or only a few dyads with female dominance. Conclusions Variations in social tolerance and its consequences are most likely influenced by two factors, ecology (via forest type) and physiology (via reproductive activity), and only to a lesser extent by clade membership. The study suggests that mouse lemur females have higher aggression rates and more agonistic conflicts with males when females in the population are reproducing, at least in resource-rich humid forests. The study confirms a high degree of social plasticity between species in these small solitary foragers that supports their taxonomic distinctiveness and requires further scientific attention. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12898-019-0236-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

“…Primate species also differ considerably in terms of social tolerance levels . Tolerant primate societies are characterized by less steep dominance hierarchies, low levels of conflicts without clear directionality, and feeding in close proximity ( Jaeggi et al, 2010a ; Fichtel et al, 2018 ). All these factors can facilitate highly social behavior such as cooperating in solving problems and prosocial acts such as proactively sharing food with conspecifics ( Jaeggi and van Schaik, 2011 ; Burkart et al, 2014 ).…”

Section: Overview Of Studies On Non-cognitive Factors That Potentiallmentioning

confidence: 99%

Validity of Cognitive Tests for Non-human Animals: Pitfalls and Prospects

2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Comparative psychology assesses cognitive abilities and capacities of non-human animals and humans. Based on performance differences and similarities in various species in cognitive tests, it is inferred how their minds work and reconstructed how cognition might have evolved. Critically, such species comparisons are only valid and meaningful if the tasks truly capture individual and inter-specific variation in cognitive abilities rather than contextual variables that might affect task performance. Unlike in human test psychology, however, cognitive tasks for non-human primates (and most other animals) have been rarely evaluated regarding their measurement validity. We review recent studies that address how non-cognitive factors affect performance in a set of commonly used cognitive tasks, and if cognitive tests truly measure individual variation in cognitive abilities. We find that individual differences in emotional and motivational factors primarily affect performance via attention. Hence, it is crucial to systematically control for attention during cognitive tasks to obtain valid and reliable results. Aspects of test design, however, can also have a substantial effect on cognitive performance. We conclude that non-cognitive factors are a minor source of measurement error if acknowledged and properly controlled for. It is essential, however, to validate and eventually re-design several primate cognition tasks in order to ascertain that they capture the cognitive abilities they were designed to measure. This will provide a more solid base for future cognitive comparisons within primates but also across a wider range of non-human animal species.

show abstract

Measuring social tolerance: An experimental approach in two lemurid primates

Cited by 36 publications

References 57 publications

Higher social tolerance in wild versus captive common marmosets: the role of interdependence

Higher social tolerance in wild versus captive common marmosets: the role of interdependence

Sources of variation in social tolerance in mouse lemurs (Microcebus spp.)

Validity of Cognitive Tests for Non-human Animals: Pitfalls and Prospects

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About