Abstract
AbstractIn social mammals, conflict resolution involves the reunion of former opponents (aggressor and victim) after an aggressive event (reconciliation) or post-conflict triadic contacts with a third party, started by either opponent (solicited-TSC) or spontaneously offered by the third party (unsolicited-TUC). These post-conflict strategies can serve different functions, including consolation (specifically when TUCs reduce the victim’s anxiety). We investigated the possible presence and modulating factors of such strategies on semi-free ranging pigs (Sus scrofa; N = 104), housed at the ethical farm Parva Domus (Cavagnolo, Italy). Kinship was known. Reconciliation was present and mainly occurred between weakly related pigs to possibly improve tolerant cohabitation. Triadic contacts (all present except aggressor TSCs) mostly occurred between close kin. TSCs enacted by victims reduced neither their post-conflict anxiety behaviors nor further attacks by the previous aggressor, possibly because TSCs remained largely unreciprocated. TUCs towards aggressors did not reduce aggressor post-conflict anxiety but limited aggression redirection towards third parties. TUCs towards the victim reduced the victim but not the third-party’s anxiety. However, TUCs may also provide inclusive fitness benefits to third parties by benefiting close kin. In sum, pigs engaged in non-random solicited/unsolicited triadic contacts, which suggests that pigs might possess socio-emotional regulation abilities to change their own or others’ experience and elements of social appraisal, necessary to detect the emotional arousal of relevant others and (in case of TUCs) take the agency to restore homeostasis.
Funder
Università degli Studi di Torino
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Experimental and Cognitive Psychology,Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics
Reference104 articles.
1. Aaltola E (2013) Empathy, intersubjectivity, and animal philosophy. Environ Philos 10(2):75–96. https://doi.org/10.5840/envirophil201310215
2. Altmann J (1974) Observational study of behavior: sampling methods. Behaviour 49(3):227–267. https://doi.org/10.1163/156853974X00534
3. Andersen IL, Nævdal E, Bakken M, Bøe KE (2004) Aggression and group size in domesticated pigs, Sus scrofa: ‘when the winner takes it all and the loser is standing small.’ Anim Behav 68(4):965–975. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2003.12.016
4. Arey DS, Edwards SA (1998) Factors influencing aggression between sows after mixing and the consequences for welfare and production. Livest Prod Sci 56(1):61-70. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-6226(98)00144-4
5. Arnold K, Aureli F (2010) Postconflict reconciliation, In Primates in Perspective 2nd ed. (eds. CJ Campbell, A Fuentes, KC MacKinnon, SC Bearder, RM Stumpf). Oxford University Press. 608–625
Cited by
5 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献