RESUMEN
In a number of species, including humans, perceived outgroup threat can promote ingroup cohesion. However, the distribution and selection history of this association across species with varied intergroup relations remains unclear. Using a sample of 8 captive groups (N = 43 individuals), we here tested whether bonobos, like chimpanzees, show more affiliative ingroup behaviour following perception of outgroup cues (unfamiliar male long-distance vocalisations). We used comparable methods to our previous study of captive chimpanzees, and found that, although weaker, there was an association for more frequent social grooming in response to the outgroup condition than the control condition, alongside more alert posture and increased self-directed behaviour. This provides preliminary evidence for an ancestral origin to the proximate association between outgroup cues and ingroup cohesion, at least prior to the Pan-Homo split, and suggests the presence of intergroup competition in our last common ancestor.
Asunto(s)
Señales (Psicología) , Pan paniscus , Conducta Social , Animales , Pan paniscus/psicología , Pan paniscus/fisiología , Masculino , Femenino , Conducta Animal/fisiología , Vocalización Animal/fisiologíaRESUMEN
The ongoing debate between basic emotion theories (BETs) and the theory of constructed emotion (TCE) hampers progress in the field of emotion research. Providing a new perspective, here we aim to bring the theories closer together by dissecting them according to Tinbergen's four questions to clarify a focus on their evolutionary basis. On the basis of our review of the literature, we conclude that whereas BETs focus on the evolution question of Tinbergen, the TCE is more concerned with the causation of emotion. On the survival value of emotions both theories largely agree: to provide the best reaction in specific situations. Evidence is converging on the evolutionary history of emotions but is still limited for both theories-research within both frameworks focuses heavily on the causation. We conclude that BETs and the TCE explain two different phenomena: emotion and feeling. Therefore, they seem irreconcilable but possibly supplementary for explaining and investigating the evolution of emotion-especially considering their similar answer to the question of survival value. Last, this article further highlights the importance of carefully describing what aspect of emotion is being discussed or studied. Only then can evidence be interpreted to converge toward explaining emotion.