Animal Cognition

, Volume 18, Issue 2, pp 573–579 | Cite as

Social preferences influence the short-term exchange of social grooming among male bonobos

  • Martin SurbeckEmail author
  • Gottfried Hohmann
Original Paper


The emotional mediation hypothesis proposes a mediating role of social bonds in the exchange of services. This model predicts that the form of short-term exchange of services depends on the relationship between the individuals involved. Here, we test this prediction in the exchange of grooming among males in a wild bonobo community for which close relatedness could be excluded. As bonobo males hardly engage in food sharing or agonistic support, grooming is mainly exchanged for grooming. While overall grooming, both given and received, correlates across dyads and within sessions, the form of grooming exchange within a given session differs according to dyadic association preferences. Individuals with a higher tendency to associate, ergo more familiar individuals, exhibit larger time differences and reduced reciprocation in consecutive grooming bouts than less familiar individuals. These results support the idea that emotional components are involved in the exchange of services between unrelated individuals.


Social bonds Emotional mediation hypothesis Reciprocity Short-term contingency Tit-for-tat Grooming Primates, great apes Pan paniscus Altruism Biological market 



We thank the members of the LuiKotale Bonobo Project, ICCN and Barbara Fruth for support through various stages of the project. We furthermore thank Roger Mundry for statistical support, Catherine Crockford, Mimi Arandjelovic, Sarah Till Boysen and two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on the manuscript.

Supplementary material

10071_2014_826_MOESM1_ESM.docx (37 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 37 kb)


  1. Aureli F, Schaffner CM (2002) Relationship assessment through emotional mediation. Behaviour 139:393–420. doi: 10.2307/4535928 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baayen RH (2009) languageR: Data sets and functions with “Analyzing Linguistic Data: A practical introduction to statistics”, R package version 0.955.
  3. Barr DJ, Levy R, Scheepers C, Tily HJ (2013) Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: keep it maximal. J Mem Lang 68:255–278. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barrett L, Gaynor D, Henzi SP (2002) A dynamic interaction between aggression and grooming reciprocity among female chacma baboons. Anim Behav 63:1047–1053. doi: 10.1006/anbe.2002.3008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bates D, Maechler M, Bolker B, Walker S (2013) lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4. R package version 1.0–5.
  6. Cheney DL, Moscovice LR, Heesen M, Mundry R, Seyfarth RM (2010) Contingent cooperation between wild female baboons. Proc Natl Acad Sci 107:9562–9566. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1001862107 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Clutton-Brock T (2009) Cooperation between non-kin in animal societies. Nature 462:51–57PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Connor RC (1995) Impala allogrooming and the parcelling model of reciprocity. Anim Behav 49:528–530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Crockford C, Wittig RM, Langergraber K, Ziegler TE, Zuberbühler K, Deschner T (2013) Urinary oxytocin and social bonding in related and unrelated wild chimpanzees. Proc R Soc B: Biol Sci 280 doi: 10.1098/rspb.2012.2765
  10. de Waal FBM (1997) The Chimpanzee’s service economy: food for grooming. Evol Hum Behav 18:375–386. doi: 10.1016/S1090-5138(97)00085-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. de Waal FBM (2000) Attitudinal reciprocity in food sharing among brown capuchin monkeys. Anim Behav 60:253–261. doi: 10.1006/anbe.2000.1471 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. de Waal FBM, Leimgruber K, Greenberg AR (2008) Giving is self-rewarding for monkeys. Proc Natl Acad Sci 105:13685–13689. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0807060105 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fruteau C, Voelkl B, van Damme E, Noë R (2009) Supply and demand determine the market value of food providers in wild vervet monkeys. Proc Natl Acad Sci 106:12007–12012. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0812280106 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hashimoto C, Furuichi T, Tashiro Y (2001) What factors affect the size of chimpanzee parties in the Kalinzu Forest, Uganda?: examination of fruit abundance and number of estrous females. Int J Primatol 22:947–959CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hohmann G, Gerloff U, Tautz D, Fruth B (1999) Social bonds and genetic ties: kinship association and affiliation in a community of bonobos (Pan paniscus). Behaviour 136:1219–1235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ihobe H (1992) Male–Male relationships among wild bonobos (pan-paniscus) at Wamba, Republic-of-Zaire. Primates 33:163–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jaeggi A, Schaik C (2011) The evolution of food sharing in primates. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 65:2125–2140. doi: 10.1007/s00265-011-1221-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jaeggi AV, De Groot E, Stevens JMG, Van Schaik CP (2013) Mechanisms of reciprocity in primates: testing for short-term contingency of grooming and food sharing in bonobos and chimpanzees. Evol Hum Behav 34:69–77. doi: 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2012.09.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Langergraber KE, Mitani JC, Vigilant L (2007) The limited impact of kinship on cooperation in wild chimpanzees. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104:7786–7790PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. McCullough ME, Kimeldorf MB, Cohen AD (2008) An adaptation for altruism: the social causes, social effects, and social evolution of gratitude. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 17:281–285. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8721.2008.00590.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Noë R, Hammerstein P (1995) Biological markets. Trends Ecol Evol 10:336–339. doi: 10.1016/S0169-5347(00)89123-5 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Roberts G, Sherratt TN (1998) Development of cooperative relationships through increasing investment. Nature 394:175–179PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Schino G (2007) Grooming and agonistic support: a meta-analysis of primate reciprocal altruism. Behav Ecol 18:115–120. doi: 10.1093/beheco/arl045 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Schino G, Aureli F (2008) Grooming reciprocation among female primates: a meta-analysis. Biol Lett 4:9–11. doi: 10.1098/rsbl.2007.0506 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Schino G, Aureli F (2009) Reciprocal altruism in primates: partner choice, cognition, and emotions. In: Jane Brockmann H, Leigh WS (eds) Advances in the study of behavior, vol 39. Academic Press, Nancy pp 45–69. doi: 10.1016/S0065-3454(09)39002-6
  26. Schino G, Aureli F (2010) Primate reciprocity and its cognitive requirements. Evol Anthropol 19:130–135. doi: 10.1002/evan.20270 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Schubert G et al (2013) Co-residence between males and their mothers and grandmothers is more frequent in bonobos than Chimpanzees. PLoS One 8:e83870. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0083870 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Schülke O, Bhagavatula J, Vigilant L, Ostner J (2010) Social bonds enhance reproductive success in male macaques. Curr Biol 20(24):2207–2210PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Silk J, Alberts S, Altmann J (2003) Social bonds of female baboons enhance infant survival. Science 302(5648):1231–1234PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Surbeck M, Hohmann G (2013) Intersexual dominance relationships and the influence of leverage on the outcome of conflicts in wild bonobos (Pan paniscus). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 67:1767–1780. doi: 10.1007/s00265-013-1584-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Surbeck M, Mundry R, Hohmann G (2011) Mothers matter! Maternal support, dominance status and mating success in male bonobos (Pan paniscus). Proc R Soc B: Biol Sci 278:590–598. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2010.1572 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Tooby J, Cosmides L (2008) The evolutionary psychology of the emotions and their relationship to internal regulatory variables. In: Lewis M, Haviland-Jones JM, Barrett LF (eds) Handbook of emotions, 3rd edn. Guilford Press, New York, pp 114–137Google Scholar
  33. Trivers RL (1971) The evolution of reciprocal altruism. Q Rev Biol 46:35–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. van de Pol MV, Wright J (2009) A simple method for distinguishing within- versus between-subject effects using mixed models. Anim Behav 77:753–758. doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2008.11.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary AnthropologyLeipzigGermany

Personalised recommendations