The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The Communicative Repertoire of Captive Bonobos (Pan Paniscus), Compared To That of Chimpanzees
Abstract
Ten bonobos (Pan paniscus), housed in three separate subgroups at the San Diego Zoological Garden, were observed for 288 hours over a four-month period. The colony included one adult male, two adult females, two adolescent males, four juveniles, and one infant. Data on 5,135 sequences of social behavior were collected either as spoken accounts or as video recordings. In addition, high-quality sound recordings were obtained for spectrographic analysis. The data were subjected to a quantitative analysis of probabilities of association between 44 communicative behavior patterns and 40 different context types. The paper treats each communicative behavior pattern separately, providing a) its frequency, b) the most common inter-individual directions of performance, c) characteristic contexts, d) a description, e) a commentary on its possible functions, and 1) a comparison with the behavior of chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). The study shows that, while the behavioral repertoires of the two Pan species are fundamentally similar, interesting differences exist in their vocal repertoires, sexual behavior, and agonistic behavior. The bonobo's voice has a higher pitch, and many of its vocalizations are structurally different from homologous chimpanzee vocalizations. The greatest difference concerns the long-distance hooting calls of the two species. The bonobo's sexual behavior is much more elaborate than the chimpanzee's, including ventro-ventral copulation, and "GG-rubbing" between adult females. Sexual forms of contact seem to serve many of the reassurance and reconciliation functions fulfilled by nongenital contact forms in the chimpanzee. Finally, the bonobo's agonistic behavior is less elaborate and appears more controlled than the chimpanzee's.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Fitch, W. T. (2010) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511817779 · Cited by 594
Human facial expressions as adaptations: Evolutionary questions in facial expression research
Schmidt, K. L., & Cohn, J. F. (2001) · American Journal of Physical Anthropology · doi:10.1002/ajpa.20001 · Cited by 560
Microsatellite instability generates diversity in brain and sociobehavioral traits
Hammock, E. A. D., & Young, L. J. (2005) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1111427 · Cited by 545
The essential role of ritual in the transmission and reinforcement of social norms.
Rossano, M. J. (2012) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/a0027038 · Cited by 315
Understanding chimpanzee facial expression: insights into the evolution of communication
Parr, L. A., & Waller, B. M. (2006) · Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience · doi:10.1093/scan/nsl031 · Cited by 160
Metadata
- Authors
- De Waal, F. B. M.
- Venue
- Behaviour
- Publisher
- Walter de Gruyter GmbH
- Published
- 1988
- Volume
- 106
- Issue
- 3-4
- Pages
- 183-251
- ISSN
- 0005-7959 (ISSN-L)
- 1568-539X
- OpenAlex
- W2014497225
- Cited by
- 360
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 4.44
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Communicative Repertoire of Captive Bonobos (Pan Paniscus), Compared To That of Chimpanzees. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1163/156853988x00269
- The paper
- De Waal, F. B. M. (1988). The Communicative Repertoire of Captive Bonobos (Pan Paniscus), Compared To That of Chimpanzees. Behaviour. https://doi.org/10.1163/156853988x00269
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.