Cited by 64Primate Behavior and EcologyAnimal Behavior and ReproductionChild and Animal Learning Development

Receiving Post-Conflict Affiliation from the Enemy's Friend Reconciles Former Opponents

Open access
Wittig, Roman M., Boesch, Christophe·2010·PLoS ONE

Abstract

The adaptive function of bystander initiated post-conflict affiliation (also: consolation & appeasement) has been debated for 30 years. Three influential hypotheses compete for the most likely explanation but have not previously been tested with a single data set. The consolation hypothesis argues that bystander affiliation calms the victim and reduces their stress levels. The self-protection hypothesis proposes that a bystander offers affiliation to either opponent to protect himself from redirected aggression by this individual. The relationship-repair hypothesis suggests a bystander can substitute for a friend to reconcile the friend with the friend's former opponent. Here, we contrast all three hypotheses and tested their predictions with data on wild chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes verus) of the Taï National Park, Côte d'Ivoire. We examined the first and second post-conflict interactions with respect to both the dyadic and triadic relationships between the bystander and the two opponents. Results showed that female bystanders offered affiliation to their aggressor friends and the victims of their friends, while male bystanders offered affiliation to their victim friends and the aggressors of their friends. For both sexes, bystander affiliation resulted in a subsequent interaction pattern that is expected for direct reconciliation. Bystander affiliation offered to the opponent's friend was more likely to lead to affiliation among opponents in their subsequent interaction. Also, tolerance levels among former opponents were reset to normal levels. In conclusion, this study provides strong evidence for the relationship-repair hypothesis, moderate evidence for the consolation hypothesis and no evidence for the self-protection hypothesis. Furthermore, that bystanders can repair a relationship on behalf of their friend indicates that recipient chimpanzees are aware of the relationships between others, even when they are not kin. This presents a mechanism through which chimpanzees may gain benefits from social knowledge.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1371/journal.pone.0013995

Cites

53 of 53 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. [1]Krebs JR Davis NB 1984 Behavioral ecology: an evolutionary approach (2nd edn). Oxford Blackwell
  2. [26]Boesch C Boesch-Achermann H 2000 The chimpanzees of the Taï Forest. Oxford Oxford University Press
  3. [38]Silk JB Beehner JC Bergman TJ Crockford C Engh AL 2009 The benefits of social capital: close social bonds among female baboons enhance offspring survival. Proc R Soc B 276 3099 3104 PMC2817129 19515668

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wittig, R. M., & Boesch, C.
Affiliations
  • University of St Andrews (GB)
  • Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology (DE)
Corresponding author
Wittig, Roman M.
Venue
PLoS ONE
Published
2010-11-15
Volume
5
Issue
11
Pages
e13995
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2079883502
Cited by
64
References
53
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 4
FWCI
4.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics (submittedVersion)
  • MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • St Andrews Research Repository (St Andrews Research Repository) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • Leverhulme Trust
  • Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
  • Max-Planck-Gesellschaft
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Primate Behavior and Ecology
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Animal Behavior and Reproduction
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Child and Animal Learning Development
Keywords
reconciliation, chimpanzees, Pan troglodytes verus, bystander behavior, redirected aggression, social tolerance, social knowledge, Taï National Park
MeSH terms
Aggression, Animals, Animals, Zoo, Pan troglodytes, Conflict, Psychological, Female, Cote d'Ivoire, Male, Sex Factors, Social Behavior, Time Factors, Linear Models

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