reconciliation and consolation
Home > Flashcards > Print Preview
The flashcards below were created by user
on FreezingBlue Flashcards
. What would you like to do?
post conflict affiliative behaviour. two protagonists get together after fight, engage in friendly behaviour
valuable relationship hypothesis
reconciliation not expected to occur after all conflicts. expected only when opponents share valuable relationship. only then will value of reinstating benefits of relationship outweigh risks of renewed aggression
uncertainty reduction hypothesis
reconciliation reduces anxiety of former opponents caused by risk of renewed aggression
combines Vr and Ur hypotheses. predicts recon reduces risk of renewed aggression and decreases PC anxiety. moreover, predicts PC anxiety is higher if opponents had more valuable relationship.
after a quarrel, uninvolved bystander engages in friendly behaviour with loser
self protection hypothesis
after quarrel, opponents often lash out at bystanders
alliance seeking hypothesis
bystander may be seeking to form alliance with this opponent
third party reconciliation
close bonding partner of one opponent calms other down
post conflict affiliative behaviour to winner from bystander
fraser and Bugnyar 2011
captive subadult ravens. reconciliation more likely to occur after conflicts btw partners who share a valuable relationship. former opponents less likely to engage in renewed aggression following recon, repairs damage to relationship.
McFarland and Majolo 2011
tested the integrated hyp on wild non provisioned Barbary Macaques. victims of aggression were at greater risk of receiving aggression from former opponent or a bystander after a conflict, showed elevated anxiety. no such costs for aggressor. recon reduced anxiety in victim, didnt reduce risk of receiving aggression. relationship quality affected occurrence of reconciliation, didn't modulate PC anxiety. costs of aggression asymmetrically distributed. dom individuals more valuable in terms of tolerance and agonistic support. recon occurs earlier btw those w high value relationship, shorter time window btw aggression and recon may counter-balance expected stronger anxious response.
Romero et al 2011
- 3003 aggressive conflicts and Pc periods used to investigate determinants of third party appeasement among chimps.
- 1) PC affiliation towards aggressors reduces aggressive tendencies. more common when opponents have failed to reconcile. substitute for recon? affiliation most often provided by adult males, directed towards high ranking males. aggressors more likely to be contacted by bystander when relationship hadnt be reconciled. nature of relationship btw victim and bystander didnt affect occurrence of contacts directed to aggressors, main function wasnt sub for recon.
- 2) rel btw aggressors and bystanders strong impact on occurrence of affiliation towards aggressors, more likely to receive it from closest associates. alleviate distress. however, other study found no alleviation of stress, so unlikely to be reason for affiliation
- 3) chimp aggressors redirected aggression less often after being contacted by 3rd party than when they werent. supported by other studies. aggressors more likely to redirect aggression also more likely to receive affiliative contacts. unlikely it is self protection however as levels of aggression received by 3rd parties didnt affect participation of bystanders in appeasement contacts. freq targets of aggression not more likely to offer affiliation.
- 4) might function to prevent diffusion of conflict throughout group- policing strategy. adult dominant male chimps terminate and contain open conflicts. perform pacifying interventions. however, distribution of bystander affiliation toward aggressors not affected by bystander's rank.
- 5) bystander affiliation might function to show support for valuable partners- more often performed by those with close social rel and males. strengthens bonds btw allies. social status affected by rel with other group members. contacts communicate existing alliances to others. high ranking individuals were most freq target of affiliative behaviour.
Koski et al 2007
more valuable and compatible partners reconciled more often. less btw f-f (secure relationships), more btw m-m, intersex. higher value. m-m increased SDB, not in f-f. connection btw rel quality and anxiety. aggresses higher stress, not aggressors, more likely to suffer damage to rel. recon didnt reduce SDB (different to other studies), might be because rough and gentle scratching scored together.
romero et al 2009
Hamadryas baboons. aggressor's rates of PCA increased after conflicts w val rel. levels of PCA mediate occurrence of recon depending on qual of rel w former opponent
consolation- both recon and aggressor initiated 3rd party affiliation reduced probability of receiving PC aggression. only recon reduced rates of SDB. aggressor's anxiety not due to damage caused to rel.
no evidence for consolation in wild long tailed macaques after 156 PC obs
affiliative contact not increased after aggression in macaques. used longer periods of obs. may be specific to spp.
arnold and barton 2001
spectacled leaf monkeys. no evidence of redirection of agg towards group members. no evidence for consolation. did witness embracing as first contact to aggressors= may be consolatory in this spp. when contacts w 3rd parties occurred before in absence of recon timing fell within window that recon usually occurs in. also resulted in affiliation levels 2x that of baseline levels- may function as form of sub recon
romero and waal 2010
database 1102 interactions. 2 groups of captive chimps. recipients more likely to be contacted by their own friends than agg's friends. freq targets not more likely to offer consolation. supports stress reduction and rel quality, not rel repair or self protection.
What would you like to do?
Home > Flashcards > Print Preview