static-content.springer.com10.1007... · Web viewRaja 0.95 H L F F A S Raja Dokana 0.89 L L F F S A...
Transcript of static-content.springer.com10.1007... · Web viewRaja 0.95 H L F F A S Raja Dokana 0.89 L L F F S A...
TABLE S1.INFORMATION ON SUBJECTS AND PARTNERS IN EACH DYAD.
SPECIES SUBJECT PARTNERSOCIAL TOLERANCE
SUBJECT RANK
PARTNER RANK
SUBJECT SEX
PARTNER SEX
SUBJECT AGE
PARTNER AGE
Chimpanzees
Alex Alexandra 0.95 L M M F S SFifi Jahaga 1.00 H H F F A AFrodo Lome 1.00 H M M M A SFrodo Pia 0.92 H L M F A SFrodo Sandra 0.86 H L M F A ALome Sandra 0.86 H L M F S APia Lome 0.98 L M F M S SPia Sandra 0.79 L L F F S ATrudi Fifi 1.00 M H F F A ATrudi Jahaga 1.00 M H F F A A
Bonobos
Jasongo Kuno - L M M M A ALuisa Ulindi - H H F F S ALuisa Yasa - H M F F S AYasa Ulindi - M H F F A A
Gorillas
Gorgo Kibara 0.69 H M M F A SGorgo Louna 0.97 H L M F A SGorgo Viringika 0.00 H H M F A AKibara Louna 0.69 M L F F S SKibara Viringika 0.00 M H F F S ALouna Viringika 0.00 L H F F S A
Orangutans
Bimbo Dokana 0.93 H L M F A ABimbo Raja 0.64 H L M F A SPini Bimbo 0.95 H H F M A APini Dokana 0.97 H L F F A APini Raja 0.95 H L F F A SRaja Dokana 0.89 L L F F S A
Capuchin monkeys
Pedro Robiola 0.56 H L M F A APedro Rucola 0.65 H L M F A APenelope Pedro 0.39 M H F M A ARobinHood Pedro 0.41 H H M M A ARobinHood Robiola 0.69 H L M F A ARobinHood Rucola 0.56 H L M F A ARobinia Robot 0.39 L H F M A ARobiola Rucola 0.58 L L F F A A
Spider monkeys
Capoccetta RombaGrande 0.48 M L F F S SCapoccetta Salomon 0.47 M H F M S AChavito Capoccetta 0.41 H M M F A SChavito Coco 0.00 H H M M A AChavito RombaGrande 0.28 H L M F A SCoco Capoccetta 0.54 H M M F A SCoco RombaGrande 0.00 H L M F A SPeloBlanco Salomon - M H F M A ARombaGrande Salomon 0.36 L H F M S ASalomon Chavito 0.43 H H M M A ASalomon Coco 0.00 H H M M A ASalomon RombaPequena 0.49 H L M F A S
For each species, we included each tested dyad (Subject and Partner), their mean social tolerance
levels (i.e., mean proportion of time spent drinking simultaneously with the partner on the time spent
drinking), the Subject and Partner’s rank (High, Middle or Low), sex (Female or Male), and age class
(Subadult or Adult).
TABLE S2.FOR EACH SUBJECT, PROPORTION OF TRIALS IN WHICH THE
SUBJECTS PULLED IN THE EXPERIMENTAL AND CONTROL CONDITION,
ACROSS THE FIRST THREE SESSIONS AND ACROSS ALL 10 SESSIONS
(EXCLUDING CAPUCHIN MONKEYS).
SPECIES SUBJECT EXPERIMENTAL (3 sessions)
CONTROL (3 sessions)
EXPERIMENTAL (10 sessions)
CONTROL (10 sessions)
Chimpanzees
Alex 0 0.278 0 0.083Alexandra 0 0 0 0Fifi 0.722 0.528 0.550 0.508Frodo 0.074 0 0.033 0Jahaga 0.639 0.750 0.825 0.792Lome 0.704 0.630 0.789 0.661Pia 0.167 0.019 0.054 0.006Sandra 0 0 0 0Trudi 0.389 0.611 0.200 0.342
Bonobos
Jasongo 0 0 0 0Kuno 0 0 0.083 0Luisa 0.083 0.028 0.042 0.025Ulindi 0.028 0.056 0.008 0.017Yasa 0 0 0 0
Gorillas
Gorgo 0.019 0.037 0.006 0.017Kibara 0.574 0.519 0.600 0.511Louna 0.741 0.611 0.556 0.600Viringika 0.019 0 0.006 0
Orangutans
Bimbo 0.370 0.148 0.428 0.172Dokana 0.130 0 0.189 0.022Pini 0.444 0.056 0.206 0.106Raja 0.111 0.037 0.067 0.072
Capuchin monkeys
Pedro 0.569 0.625 - -Penelope 0 0.389 - -Robinhood 0.444 0.481 - -Robinia 0.500 0.778 - -Robiola 0.556 0.667 - -Robot 0.222 0.833 - -Rucola 0.815 0.981 - -
Spider monkeys
Capoccetta 0 0.069 0.004 0.038Chavito 0 0.014 0.017 0.030Coco 0.014 0.125 0.013 0.067PeloBlanco 0 0.278 0 0.278RombaGrande 0 0.056 0 0.046RombaPequena 0.111 0.389 0.083 0.183Salomon 0.046 0.069 0.016 0.026
FIGURE S1.Photographillustrating the set-upduring the training condition (platforms are
labelled A, B and C from left to right of the photograph; Fig 1).In this condition both
platforms B and C had handles and the subject could either pull B or C. Pulling C was the
correct choice when C was baited, while pulling B was the correct choice(i) when B was
baitedor(ii) when A was baited and the subject had also access to the other room and thus to
platform A.
FIGURE S2. Photographillustrating the set-up during the experimental condition(platforms
are labelled A and B from left to right of the photograph; Fig 1). In this condition,we
alternated 3 trials in which only platform B had a handle (like in the photograph), with 3 trials
in which only platform A had a handle (for a total of 12 trials). Subjects having access to the
handle could choose whether to pull it, thus also pulling the other platform (A in the
photograph) and providing food to the partner.
FIGURE S3. Photographillustrating the set-up during the control condition (platforms are
labelled A and B from left to right of the photograph; Fig 1). In this condition, subjects were
tested alone and only one platform had a handle throughout the session (platform ABin the
photograph). In motivational trials, subjects could pull the platform with the handle to reach
the food that had been placed on its top. In control trials, subjects could pull the platform with
the handle to also pull the other platform (B in the photograph) and provide food to the
adjacent room, which was empty.
FIGURE S4.Number of trials in which Bimbo and Dokana pulled the platform in the
experimental condition (above) and in the control condition (below), across each of the 10
sessions. In the experimental condition, individuals pulled more if the partner had also pulled
in the corresponding block of trials, suggesting contingent reciprocity. Importantly, the food
transfers became more balanced across sessions, with a perfect correspondence of pulling
behaviour in the last 3 sessions.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100
1
2
3
4
5
6 Bimbo - Exp Dokana - Exp
Sessions
Num
ber o
f pul
ls
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100
1
2
3
4
5
6 Bimbo - Ctrl Dokana - Ctrl
Sessions
Num
ber o
f pul
ls