Abstract
Aggressive behavior plays a central role in primate life, having a crucial effect on their reproductive performance and survival and possibly affecting the formation and maintenance of social bonds. Although aggressive behavior might serve a different function in males and females, and sex differences in aggressive behavior seem to emerge early during development, very few studies have investigated whether aggressive patterns follow different developmental trajectories in male and female primates. However, the developmental perspective is crucial to understanding when differences in adults’ aggression emerge and which factors trigger them. We here analyzed aggressive interactions in rhesus macaques from birth to sexual maturation (before male dispersal), including male and female focal subjects. We further considered the partner’s sex, age, and rank, as well as maternal and paternal kinship, and used powerful multivariate statistical analysis. The probability to initiate aggression was largely similar for both sexes and throughout development. Both males and females were more aggressive toward partners of the same sex and similar age. In contrast, the probability of receiving aggression mostly differed between sexes across development and depended on the social context. The probability of receiving aggression increased through development. Finally, important developmental changes appeared between 2 and 3 yr of age, indicating that this period is crucial for the development of adult social roles. Our results suggest that aggressive behavior largely serves a similar function for both sexes during the first years of development, only partially anticipating adult aggressive patterns.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
From early on, researchers have recognized the central role that aggressive behavior plays in primate life (Bernstein 1976; Bernstein and Gordon 1974; Deag 1977; Hall 1964; Lorenz 1966; Tinbergen 1968). Primates are extremely social animals, and most of them live in groups. This is generally considered an evolutionary compromise between the high fitness benefits that group living provides, mainly against predation and infanticide, and the competition costs that it unavoidably imposes (Dunbar 1988; Janson and Van Schaik 1988; Silk 2007; Van Schaik 1983; Van Schaik and Kappeler 1997; Walters and Seyfarth 1987). Group-living primates therefore compete for access to resources such as food, water, resting spots, or mates, and aggression might be essential to determine which individuals will have access to these resources (Bernstein and Gordon 1974; Honess and Marin 2006).
The occurrence of aggression enhances stress levels, and having to deal with aggression might have crucial consequences on individuals’ fitness and survival (Crockford et al. 2008; Honess and Marin 2006; Wittig et al. 2015). Further, intragroup aggression often involves several individuals, so that physiological stress may not be limited to the initial recipient of the aggression and can therefore have negative consequences on the fitness and survival of all group members (Ha et al. 2011; Wittig et al. 2015). Therefore, aggression is usually categorized as socio-negative interactions that have a mostly negative impact on social relationships (Crockford et al. 2012; Fraser et al. 2008; Nakamichi 2001; Worlein et al. 1988).
Despite the evident negative effects that aggression exerts on primates, some researchers have also highlighted the positive role that aggression might have. Aggression can indeed have a positive effect on socialization processes among primates, e.g., by modifying others’ inappropriate social behavior (Bernstein and Ehardt 1985a, b, 1986) and producing cohesive forces within a social group (Bercovitch et al. 1987; Bernstein and Gordon 1974; de Waal 1989). The frequency of aggressive interactions is also often higher in dyads having stronger affiliative relationships (Bernstein and Ehardt 1986; Kulik et al. 2015; Widdig et al. 2002, 2006; cf. Silk et al. 1981, 2004), suggesting that aggressive and affiliative behaviors might be different expressions of the same social relationship, and both need to be included when assessing the quality and strength of social relationships (Fraser et al. 2008). Importantly, individuals that have strong social relationships, i.e., social bonds (Silk 2007), spend more time together and might more often engage in aggressive behavior simply because closer proximity may create more opportunities for conflict.
One question that has been addressed in primates is whether aggressive behavior serves a different function in males and females. Among primates, females generally require a higher energetic intake to supply the costs of maternal care (Trivers 1972), and females are generally assumed to compete with each other mainly for resources other than mates (Silk et al. 1981). In the wild, for example, availability and distribution of food influences agonistic interactions among both philopatric and dispersing females (Van Schaik 1989; Wrangham 1980; Hanuman langurs, Presbytis entellus: Koenig et al. 1998; spider monkeys, Ateles hybridus: Abondano and Link 2012). Aggression among females frequently occurs during feeding competition, e.g., Assamese macaques (Macaca assamensis: Heesen et al. 2014), and probably reflects a response to competition over food resources, e.g., spider monkeys (Asensio et al. 2008).
Males also compete for resources such as food or water and, as among females, competition levels and frequency of aggressive interactions vary depending on food availability (Honess and Marin 2006; Silk and Boyd 1983). However, aggression among males also frequently occurs in a mating context. As predicted by the theory of sexual selection (Darwin 1871), males invest less than females in their offspring and compete with each other for access to females (Trivers 1972). In Assamese macaques, for example, males have higher physiological stress levels in the breeding season due to the increased levels of male–male competition and aggression (Ostner et al. 2008; cf. for a lack of difference in ring-tailed lemurs, Lemur catta: Gould et al. 2005; and rhesus macaques, Macaca mulatta: Higham et al. 2012). Moreover, males are more often involved in aggressive behavior during intergroup encounters than females (Japanese macaques, Macaca fuscata: Majolo et al. 2005). Males might therefore experience especially intense competition over resources and will often be involved in aggressive interactions (Mitchell 1979; chimpanzees, Pan troglodytes: Muller and Mitani 2005; Wilson and Wrangham 2003; rhesus macaques: Reinhardt 1987; Japanese macaques: Alexander and Roth 1971; Eaton et al. 1981; grivets, Chlorocebus aethiops: Bramblett 1980).
Aggressive interactions also frequently occur between males and females (Abondano and Link 2012; Campbell 2003; Fedigan and Baxter 1984; Link et al. 2009; Slater et al. 2008, 2009; Van Roosmalen and Klein 1988). However, male aggression to females does not necessarily reflect competition over food resources and might also be part of male reproductive strategies. According to some authors, male aggression to females might represent an indirect form of sexual coercion or ritualized courtship, with males using aggression to achieve reproductive success (Japanese macaques: Barrett et al. 2002; Eaton et al. 1981; spider monkeys: Fedigan and Baxter 1984; Link et al. 2009; Slater et al. 2008; chimpanzees: Feldblum et al. 2014; cf. rhesus macaques: Bercovitch et al. 1987).
A second question is whether sex differences in aggression patterns might reflect differences in the life histories of males and females (Silk et al. 1981). Juvenile females, for instance, usually remain in their natal group, where they will feed and breed, and may therefore present more potential competition over scarce resources (Dittus 1979; Silk et al. 1981). Individuals might thus reduce future competition by diminishing the viability of young females (Dittus 1979; Silk and Boyd 1983), so that females might tend to receive more aggression than males by other troop members, e.g., Japanese macaques (Eaton et al. 1986), toque macaques (Macaca sinica: Dittus 1977, 1979), and bonnet macaques (Macaca radiata: Silk et al. 1981). Although some studies have failed to document sex differences in aggressive behavior, e.g., green monkeys (Cercopithecus aethiops sabaeus: Raleigh et al. 1979), blue monkeys (Cercopithecus mitis stuhlmanni: Cords et al. 2010; Ekernas and Cords 2007), and Japanese macaques (Eaton et al. 1986), other studies found sex differences in aggression, with males being involved in more aggression than females (baboons, Papio species: Owens 1975; Young et al. 1982; talapoin monkeys, Myopithecus talapoin: Wolfheim 1977).
Sex differences in aggressive behavior are found in several mammals before sexual maturation (Archer and Côté 2005). The early emergence of aggressive behavior might serve several functions, including the practice of aggressive strategies that may prove valuable in adulthood, and provide the long-term advantage of dominance being partially acquired before maturation and the immediate advantage of gaining access to resources (Archer 1994; Archer and Côté 2005). If the resources needed vary through development in a different way between sexes, it comes as no surprise that sex differences in aggressive behavior might vary during individuals’ development, reflecting differences in male and female life histories (Silk et al. 1981). In several species, for example, males experienced higher rates of aggression from other group members than females around sexual maturation (Pereira and Fairbanks 1993; white-handed gibbons, Hylobates lar: Carpenter 1940; rhesus macaques: Altmann 1962; Wilson and Boelkins 1970; Kulik et al. unpubl. data; red howlers, Alouatta sara: Crockett and Pope 1993; Hanuman langurs: Borries 2000; Rajpurohit and Sommer 1993; blue monkeys: Rudran 1978; cf. Pusey and Packer 1987). In Japanese macaques, juveniles show no sex differences in aggressive behavior, but males become much more aggressive than females in adulthood (Eaton et al. 1986). In young primates, therefore, sex differences in aggressive behavior do not necessarily anticipate adult patterns (Cords et al. 2010; Raleigh et al. 1979; Wolfheim 1977), as juvenile behavior may reflect the immediate needs of this age, which might differ from those of adults (Cords et al. 2010).
Although aggressive behavior likely differs between sexes and these differences may change through time, very few studies, to our knowledge, have so far systematically analyzed how sex differences in aggressive behavior develop through ontogeny. However, the developmental approach is crucial to understand when adult social roles are established during primate development and to gain a better insight into the factors that might trigger their emergence. One study investigated the development of sex differences in captive patas monkeys (Erythrocebus patas: Rowell and Chism 1986). In their third year of life, females increased the frequency of aggression given and were more often involved in aggressive interactions than males. Moreover, males were mostly aggressive toward other males, and females toward females and immatures, while aggression between males and females ware rare. Another study investigated aggression and kinship in captive rhesus monkeys for 17 mo across different sex and age classes (Bernstein and Ehardt 1986). This study showed that females are mainly aggressive toward kin throughout their lives, while the relative frequency of male aggression involving kin decreased through development, supporting the hypothesis that aggression has a positive effect by modifying others’ social behavior. Finally, a study on wild blue monkeys briefly analyzed sex differences in aggressive behavior, showing that younger and older juveniles received a comparable rate of aggression, regardless of their sex (Cords et al. 2010).
The main focus of these previous studies, however, was the development of sex differences in affiliative behavior, and they provided very little information on sex differences in the development of aggressive behavior. In addition, the first two studies were conducted on captive populations, where subjects have little opportunities to avoid aggression by moving away, and cannot thus be generalized to wild individuals (cf. Boesch 2007; Call and Tomasello 1996). Furthermore, statistical constraints did not allow any of these studies to determine exactly when sex differences in aggressive behavior appear during ontogeny. Moreover, although aggressive behavior in nonhuman primates varies depending on the social context (Cords et al. 2010), no study has so far analyzed how sex differences in aggression change from birth to maturation while taking into account partners’ sex, age, rank, and kinship.
The aim of this study was therefore to investigate whether aggressive patterns follow different developmental trajectories in male and female rhesus macaques, depending on the social context. We conducted our study in a semi-free-ranging population of rhesus macaques in Cayo Santiago, Puerto Rico. Rhesus macaques live in multimale, multifemale groups, in which females are philopatric (Gouzoules and Gouzoules 1987) and males disperse at puberty (Colvin 1983; Lindburg 1969). Given the complexity of their social life and the abundance of aggressive behavior typically happening in this species (de Waal and Luttrell 1989; de Waal and Johanowicz 1993; Thierry 1990; Thierry et al. 2004), rhesus macaques are an ideal model to study how sex differences in aggressive behavior emerge during ontogeny.
Based on the literature reviewed in the preceding text, we predicted that aggressive behavior gradually differs between sexes over the course of development, with males experiencing generally more intense competition and thus being more often involved in aggressive interactions as compared to females from early on. We also hypothesized that the development of sex differences in aggressive behavior strongly depends on the social context. In particular, we predicted focal subjects to be more aggressive with partners having the same sex and a similar age. We also predicted that females are more aggressive with maternally related animals, as compared to males, especially around maturation, given that females, but not males, will remain in the natal group and compete over the same resources. Finally, we predicted that high-ranking individuals would initiate more aggression than low-ranking conspecifics, which should receive more aggression. The developmental perspective allowed us to detect whether sex differences in aggressive behavior are present since birth or develop through time as a function of the social context and the experience acquired.
Materials and Methods
Study Population and Subjects
We conducted the study from October 2004 to August 2008 on the rhesus macaque population of Cayo Santiago, a 15.2-ha island offshore Puerto Rico. All monkeys living on the island are direct descendants of the 409 founder animals captured in different places in India in 1938 (Rawlins and Kessler 1986). However, pedigree data show no evidence of inbreeding over time, despite the fact that no other monkeys have been added to the population except through natural births (Widdig et al. unpubl. data). The Caribbean Primate Research Center (CPRC) manages the whole population, which is partly provisioned but spends ca. 50% of its feeding time on natural vegetation (Marriott et al. 1989). CPRC census takers have continuously recorded demographic data since 1956, including the date of birth and date of death of focal subjects, sex, group membership, the number of maternal kin, and male dispersal. Females’ interbirth interval in this population is ca. 1 yr and females mostly give birth to a single offspring (Rawlins and Kessler 1986). Infants can be assigned to nonoverlapping birth cohorts (which comprise all infants born in a given mating season), but infants from the same cohort can differ up to 6 mo in age. In captivity, female rhesus macaques reach sexual maturation between 2.5 and 3.5 yr of age (Zehr et al. 2005) and males between 3 and 3.5 yr of age (Dixson and Nevison 1997). In our study population, the youngest reported mother was 2.9 yr old (Bercovitch and Berard 1993) and the youngest sire was 3.8 yr old (Bercovitch et al. 2003), although interindividual variation in sexual maturation is high (Bercovitch and Goy 1990). Males leave their natal group between 3 and 5.5 yr of age (median age = 4.5 yr; Berard 1990).
During the study period, our study troop (group R) consisted of 78.5 ± 5.8 (mean ± SD) adult females and 47.9 ± 7.1 (mean ± SD) adult males across study years. Starting immediately after birth, we followed all 55 focal subjects (26 females and 29 males) born in the birth cohort 2005 (hereafter focal subjects). A total of 28 focal subjects (15 females, 13 males) survived until they reached maturation and the study was completed, while 13 died during the study period for unknown reasons and 16 were removed by the CPRC due to colony management. Over the entire study period group R consisted of a total of 522 potential social partners for our focal subjects (hereafter focal partners). All group members, including focal subjects, were recognized on an individual basis using natural markings and tattoos. All of them were included until their death. Importantly, the modeling procedure we used allowed us to appropriately address differences in the number of focal subjects through time.
Although the population of rhesus macaques in Cayo Santiago is partly provisioned (Marriott et al. 1989) and lacking predation, it still provides an appropriate setup to study the development of aggression, for several reasons (Widdig et al. 2015a). Males on Cayo Santiago migrate to different groups and females can exert some mate choice, so the scenario closely resembles the natural one. Moreover, macaques can avoid aggressions by moving away from challengers. Therefore, this population constitutes a unique opportunity to combine detailed demographic and genetic data with long-term behavioral data collected in an almost natural situation.
Behavioral Data
Using focal animal sampling (Altmann 1974), we conducted a total of 3543 observational hours over the entire study period, resulting in 64.4 ± 37.3 h (mean ± SD; range 8.3–95.3 h) per focal subject. Sampling was not completely balanced over the 4 yr. However, our modeling procedure allowed us to appropriately address these differences across the study period. We recorded no more than one 20-min sample per day and focal subject, with focal observations being evenly distributed over the day and balanced weekly among subjects. During each sample we continuously recorded affiliative and aggressive interactions between the focal subject and all other group members, including both physical aggression (push, hit, grab, bite, attack) and non-physical aggression (stare, head-bobbing, vocal/open mouth threat, lunge, charge, chase, following Widdig et al. 2002). We excluded aggressive interactions between mothers and their offspring because of their special relation, which would probably hide other patterns in aggressive behavior (Bernstein and Ehardt 1986), and we analyzed them separately in another study focusing on the development of mother–offspring relationships (Kulik et al. unpubl. data). Given that the proportion of physical and nonphysical aggression was quite similar for both initiated and received aggression (proportion of nonphysical aggression initiated: 63.5%; received: 69.7%), that we were mostly interested in the difference between initiated and received aggression, and that separate analyses for both aggression types would have excessively increased the complexity of our analyses (probably making our models unstable), we pooled physical and nonphysical aggression and analyzed them together. For each interaction involving the focal subject we also recorded whether the mother of the focal subject was present within a 2 m range of the focal subject or not. Finally, we collected ad libitum data (Altmann 1974) on displacement, aggression, or submission among adult males and females to construct dominance hierarchies. A. Widdig, D. Langos, and two field assistants collected the data. We tested interobserver reliability (which ranged between 90% and 97%) by having each field assistant conduct simultaneous focal samples with A. Widdig or D. Langos, respectively (Kaufman and Rosenthal 2009). We used Psion WorkaboutTM handhelds and processed the collected data with Observer (version 5.0).
Parentage Assignment and Determination of Kinship
For parental assignment we used the long-term genetic database of this population, which was implemented in 1992 and continuously updated since then (Kulik et al. 2012; Nürnberg et al. 1998; Widdig et al. 2001, 2006). Almost the entire present population has been systematically sampled by collecting hair, blood, tissue, or fecal samples for DNA extraction. For our study, we were able to sample all 55 focal subjects plus 445 of all 522 individuals (95.79%) belonging to the study group during this study.
We derived maternity from long-term field observations, genetically testing it when a sample was available. Genetic analyses confirmed the behaviorally assigned mother for all 55 focal subjects. We determined paternity using a combination of exclusion and likelihood analyses, considering all mature males present on the island around conception as potential sires for a given infant. To increase the power of our kinship data, we also assigned maternal and paternal grandparents. Based on these parentage assignments, we used pedigree information up to the grandparental generation to establish kin relationship for all dyads (classified as maternal kin, paternal kin, or nonkin). For more details on how parentage assignment and determination of kinship were implemented, please see the Electronic Supplementary Material.
Establishing Dominance Hierarchies
The male dominance hierarchy was calculated with the Elo method (Elo 1978; Neumann et al. 2011) and an R function written by L. Kulik. We estimated individuals’ competitive abilities by considering agonistic interactions sequentially over time, whereby the outcome of interactions continuously updated the scores used to estimate competitive abilities (Neumann et al. 2011). Although the results obtained with the Elo method correlated significantly with other commonly used ranking methods such as I&SI (Spearman's rank correlation: N = 65 individuals, ρ = 0.64, P < 0.001), which minimizes the number of inconsistencies (I) within a dominance matrix and subsequently the strength of inconsistencies (SI) (de Vries 1998; Neumann et al. 2011), the Elo method provides more reliable rank values for the less stable hierarchies typical for males (Neumann et al. 2011). The adult female hierarchy was based on the outcome of dyadic agonistic interactions collected in 1997 and confirmed via ad libitum sampling over our entire study period. Given that the dominance relationships among sexually mature females were largely stable over time we calculated the female rank using the I&SI method (de Vries 1998; as used in Widdig et al. 2001), and we assigned focal subjects an individual rank according to the rank of their mother, with offspring of the same female ranking directly below their mother and inverse to birth order (Chapais 1992; Datta 1988; Pereira 1995). The individual rank was calculated on a daily basis to control for minor rank changes, e.g., also due to births and deaths. We standardized the calculated ranks of males and females (including focal subjects) separately per day to a range from 0 to 1 (lowest to highest ranking).
Data Analyses
We used generalized linear mixed models (GLMMs; Baayen 2008) to analyze which factors affect the ontogeny of aggression in immature rhesus macaques. We calculated two models with an identical set of predictors but different response variables: one based on the aggression initiated by the focal subject and one on the aggression received by the focal subject. Data preparation included several steps. First, we determined the frequency of aggression, differentiating those initiated by the focal subject from those received by the focal subject, separately for each day and for each dyad involving a focal subject and any of the individuals present in our study group based on the demographic records. We further differentiated between interactions that occurred when the mother was within 2.0 m of the focal subject and those that occurred when the mother was more than 2.0 m away. As most of the derived frequency values were zero and therefore a Poisson model would not have been valid, we transformed these values into a binary variable to treat the data with a binomial error structure, setting all values >0 to 1. The data reduction resulting by this step affected only a small proportion of the data, as the number of days in which an initiated or received aggression occurred more than once constituted only a minor part of the full data set (initiated = 0.46%, received = 1.26%). We then calculated the frequency of all these daily values over 3-mo periods (determined based on the focal subject age), leading to a total of 301,694 data points, i.e., including one data point per quarter for each potential focal subject–partner dyad per mother-presence condition.
To model the probability of aggression, we used the number of days with aggressive interactions vs. the number of days without aggressive interactions for each 3-mo period as two separate variables that we set as the response (binomial response in two vectors). This was necessary due to the large number of data points and the limited calculation capacity. To analyze whether focal subjects’ aggressive behavior toward group members varied through ontogeny, we included the subject age (averaged over the 3-mo period) in our model as test predictor. Moreover, for each subject we included squared age (as the relation between subject age and aggression was expected to be nonlinear), sex (as we were interested in sex differences) and rank (as focal dominance status might influence patterns of aggression). For social partners we included partner’s rank, age difference between focal subject and partner (as age peers might likely compete over the same resources: Widdig et al. 2001), and kin relation between focal subject and partner (i.e., maternal kin, paternal kin, nonkin). As a control variable we included mother’s presence, as mothers can influence the behavior of focal subjects, e.g., by exerting control over social partners (Langos et al. 2013). We also included sex ratio, group size (averaged over the 3-mo period) and number of maternal kin (up to the grandparent generation, 10.72 ± 6.55; mean ± SD) as control variables, as they have been shown to affect focal subjects’ social behavior (Berman et al. 1997). Finally, we included the identity of both focal subject and partner as random effects in the model. We did not control for proximity because although aggression necessitates close proximity, close proximity does not automatically lead to aggression and aggression thus provides different information about social relationships than proximity per se.
We expected several interactions between these main effects to be significant, as the study explored aggressive behavior over a long time frame, from birth to maturation of focal subjects. Specifically, we included six three-way interactions, each of them including the focal subject's age/age squared (to explore ontogenetic changes in aggressive behavior) and the focal subject's sex. As the third variable in the three-way interactions, we included 1) partner’s sex, 2) age difference between subject and partner, 3) partner’s rank, 4) subject’s rank, 5) kin relation between subject and partner, or 6) mother’s presence, which was included as a control and not interpreted (cf. Mundry 2014), as each of these variables might affect aggressive behavior in primates, e.g., rank (Lambert 2005; Pereira and Kappeler 1997; Silk et al. 1981), sex (Dittus 1977, 1979; Eaton et al. 1986; Silk et al. 1981), age (Bernstein and Ehardt 1985c, 1986; Campbell 2006; Valero et al. 2006; Widdig et al. 2001), and kin (Bernstein and Ehardt 1986; Glick et al. 1986; Janus 1991a; Widdig et al. 2002). To achieve a valid model we also included all the two-way interactions covered by these interactions.
As our dataset was likely to show temporal autocorrelation; i.e., residuals of data points recorded closer to one another in time could be more similar to one another than data points recorded further apart, the assumption of independent residuals might be violated and the model might thus become less reliable. We therefore included two autocorrelation terms, one for the focal subject and one for the partner, to clearly account for temporal autocorrelation in the data (for more details, see the Electronic Supplementary Material). Before running the model, we z-transformed all the covariates (including the autocorrelation term) to a mean of 0 and a standard deviation of 1 (Schielzeth 2010). We fitted the models in R (version 3.0.2; R Core Team, 2014) using the function “lmer” from the R package “lme4” (Bates et al. 2011). The models revealed the probabilities of aggression (initiated or received, respectively), as we modeled the proportions of days with aggression out of the total of all possible days. The GLMM was fitted with binomial error structure and logit link function. For each model, we determined the statistical significance of the full model by comparing its fit with that of the null model (comprising the control variables and the random effects and the autocorrelation terms), using a likelihood ratio test (LRT; Dobson 2002) available as R function “anova,” package “stats.” We also tested all terms in the models for their statistical significance by running additional LRTs, comparing the fit of the full model with that of a reduced model lacking the particular term of interest but comprising all the other terms. When interactions were not significant, we removed them from the model to reliably interpret the lower terms included. Such removal was done only if the full-null model comparison revealed significance (Barr et al. 2013; Schielzeth and Forstmeier 2009).
We also calculated variance inflation factors (VIFs; Quinn and Keough 2002) by running models without the random effects, to check that the model assumptions were satisfied. The results revealed that collinearity was not an issue (largest VIF = 1.78). VIFs were determined using the function “vif” of the R package “car” (Fox and Weisberg 2011). We considered P-values ≤ 0.05 to be significant. Although the incorporation of random slopes into the model and a model stability estimation would reveal more reliable P-values (Barr et al. 2013), computational power leading to the unfeasible calculation time of ca. 400 d led us to decline this approach.
Results
Overall, we were able to extract a total of 3522 aggressive interactions (0.33 ± 0.76; mean ± SD per focal subject and day) between the focal subjects and their partners over the study period. In particular, we observed 1184 aggressive behaviors initiated (0.11 ± 0.4; mean ± SD per focal subject and day) and 2338 aggressive behaviors received by focals (0.22 ± 0.58; mean ± SD per focal subject and day).
Null vs. full model comparisons revealed that the set of predictor variables used had a clear influence on the respective behavioral responses for each of our two models (LRT for aggression initiated: χ2 = 1776.6 , d.f. = 47, P < 0.001; aggression received : χ2 = 2215.9, d.f. = 47, P < 0.001). The full results of each model are reported in Electronic Supplementary Material Tables SI and SII.
Effect of Partner’s Sex
Initiating
We found a significant three-way interaction (hereafter three-way IA) of focal subject age, focal subject sex, and partner’s sex for aggression initiated by the focal subject (LRT: χ2 = 434.16, d.f. = 2, P < 0.001). Female focal subjects were more likely to initiate aggression than males until 3 yr of age, and then less likely with male and female partners. However, female focal subjects were more aggressive than males with female partners over the whole period. Male focal subjects were more likely to initiate aggression than females until 2 yr, and then became strongly less likely afterwards. Male focal subjects were more aggressive toward female partners than males in the first 18 mo of life, but were more likely to target male partners thereafter (Fig. 1a).
a Development of sex differences in aggression initiated by focal subjects of both sexes, in rhesus macaques on Cayo Santiago (October 2004–August 2008). The lines represent the calculated model and the circles the binned and averaged observed values. The area of the circles corresponds to the respective sample size. b The development of sex differences in aggression received from partners of different sex, in rhesus macaques on Cayo Santiago (October 2004–August 2008). Details in a.
Receiving
We also found a significant three-way IA of focal subject age, focal subject sex, and partner’s sex for aggression received by the focal subject (LRT: χ2 = 27.236, d.f. = 2, P < 0.001). Female focal subjects received increasingly more aggression from females than females until 3 yr of age and then received more aggression from males. The picture for males is quite different: male focal subjects received more aggression from females than females only in the first year. After that they were slowly less likely to receive aggression from females, while they were strongly more likely to receive aggression from males until 2.5 yr, and then also became less likely (Fig. 1b) as compared to females.
Effect of Age Difference Between Focal Subject and Partner
Initiating
Depending on the age difference between focal subject and social partner, male and female focal subjects had a different probability of initiating aggression throughout ontogeny (two-way IA focal subject’s sex*age difference, LRT: χ2 = 12.243, d.f. = 2, P < 0.001). In particular, focal subjects mostly initiated aggression toward age peers, regardless of their actual age, and this was more pronounced for male focal subjects than for female focal subjects (Fig. 2a).
a Development of sex differences in aggression initiated, depending on the age difference between focal subject and partner, in rhesus macaques on Cayo Santiago (October 2004–August 2008). Details in Fig. 1a. b Development of sex differences in aggression received, depending on the age difference between focal subject and partner, in rhesus macaques on Cayo Santiago (October 2004–August 2008). The points represent the mean response for each cell. White points have a mean below and black points have a mean above the plane representing the model; the area of the circles corresponds to the respective sample size.
Receiving
Aggression received depended on focal sex and age as well as on the age difference between focal subject and social partner (three-way IA focal subject’s age* focal subject’s sex*age difference LRT: χ2 = 14.572, d.f. = 2, P = 0.001). In particular, female focal subjects were more likely to receive aggression than male focal subjects as they got older, independently of their age difference toward the aggressor. In contrast, male focal subjects received more aggression from older partners than female focal subjects in the first 2 yr, and after that from age peers (Fig. 2b).
Effect of Focal Subject’s Rank
Initiating
Focal subjects initiated aggression depending on their rank, but independently of their sex and age (main effect subject’s rank: LRT: χ2 = 14.303, d.f. = 1, P < 0.001); i.e., the effect of the focal subject’s rank was the same for males and females throughout the first four years, with high-ranking focal subjects being more aggressive than low-ranking focal subjects (Fig. 3a).
a Effect of focal subject’s rank on the probability of initiated aggression, in rhesus macaques on Cayo Santiago (October 2004-August 2008). Details in Fig. 1a. b Effect of focal subject’s rank on the development of aggression received, in rhesus macaques on Cayo Santiago (October 2004–August 2008). Details in Fig. 2b.
Receiving
Focal subjects received aggression depending on their rank and age, but independently of their sex (two-way IA focal subject’s age* focal subject’s rank: LRT: χ2 = 5.700, d.f. = 2, P = 0.058). In particular, younger focal subjects received less aggression, independently of their rank. While getting older, focal subjects (and especially low-ranking ones) were more likely to receive aggression until the second year of life. After the second year, focal subjects (and especially high-ranking ones) became slowly less likely to receive aggressions (Fig. 3b).
Effect of Partner’s Rank
Initiating
Focal subjects initiated aggression depending on the partner’s rank but independently of the focal subject’s age and sex (main effect partner’s rank: LRT: χ2 = 26.955, d.f. = 1, P < 0.001); i.e., the effect of the partner’s rank was the same for males and females throughout the first 4 yr, with low-ranking partners receiving more aggression from focal subjects than high-ranking partners (Fig. 4a).
a Development of aggression initiated by the focal subject, depending on the partner’s rank, in rhesus macaques on Cayo Santiago (October 2004–August 2008). Details in Fig. 1a. b The development of aggression received, depending on the partner’s rank, in rhesus macaques on Cayo Santiago (October 2004–August 2008). Details in Fig. 2b. (c) Development of sex differences in aggression received, depending on the partner’s rank, in rhesus macaques on Cayo Santiago (October 2004–August 2008). Details in Fig. 2b.
Receiving
Focal subjects received aggression depending on the partner’s rank and the focal subject’s age (two-way IA focal subject’s age*partner’s rank: LRT: χ2 = 9.121, d.f. = 2, P = 0.010), as well as on the partner’s rank and the focal subject’s sex (two-way IA focal subject’s sex*partner’s rank: LRT: χ2 = 23.054, d.f. = 2, P < 0.001). In particular, young focal subjects received little aggression. When getting older, both low- and high-ranking partners became more likely to receive aggression up to the second year of life. After the second year, focal subjects (and slightly more low-ranking than high-ranking ones) became less likely to receive aggression (Fig. 4b). Moreover, female focal subjects received more aggression from high-ranking partners than low-ranking partners, while male focal subjects received more aggression from low-ranking partners than high-ranking partners (Fig. 4c).
Effect of Kinship
Initiating
Focal subjects initiated aggression depending on kinship, but independently of the focal subject’s age and sex (main effect kinship LRT: χ2 = 26.955, d.f. = 1, P < 0.001; Fig. 5a); i.e., the effect of kinship on aggression initiated by the focal subject was the same for males and females throughout the first 4 yr of life. In particular, focal subjects initiated aggression toward maternal kin more frequently than toward paternal kin and nonkin, but there was no statistically significant difference between aggression toward paternal kin and nonkin (P = 0.374; see Table SI).
a Probabilities of aggression initiated, depending on kinship, in rhesus macaques on Cayo Santiago (October 2004–August 2008). Details in Fig. 1a. b Development in aggression received, depending on kinship, in rhesus macaques on Cayo Santiago (October 2004–August 2008). Details in Fig. 1a. (c) Development of sex differences in aggression received, depending on kinship, in rhesus macaques on Cayo Santiago (October 2004–August 2008). Boxes represent the first to third quartile of observed values, solid lines show the median, dashed lines show the values fitted by the model, and each circle represents a data point for a focal subject. a Comparison over all three kin categories. b Detail showing only comparison between paternal kin and nonkin.
Receiving
Focal subjects received aggression depending on kinship and the focal subject’s age (two-way IA focal subject’s age*kinship: LRT: χ2 = 52.246, d.f. = 4, P < 0.001). In particular, focal subjects were more likely to receive aggression from maternal kin until one and a half years of age, and then strongly less likely. In contrast, they were more likely to receive aggression from paternal kin and nonkin until 3 yr of age, and then slightly less likely (Fig. 5b).Moreover, we found that focal subjects received aggression depending on kinship and the focal subject’s sex (two-way IA focal subject’s sex*kinship: LRT: χ2 = 8.226, d.f. = 2, P = 0.016). Female and male focal subjects mostly received aggression from maternal kin. In particular, males received slightly more aggression from maternal and paternal kin, but females slightly more from nonkin (Fig. 5c). Accordingly, we found a small effect that males seems to receive more aggression from paternal kin than nonkin compared to females (P = 0.021; see Table SII).
Discussion
The results of our study revealed sex differences and similarities in the development of aggressive behavior in rhesus macaques. The probability of initiating aggression was similar for both sexes throughout development, with some exceptions. In contrast, the probability of receiving aggression mostly differed between sexes but generally increased through development depending on the social context. As predicted, males and females were preferentially aggressive toward partners of the same sex and a similar age. Aggression was mostly directed toward immature partners. As predicted, high-ranking individuals initiated more aggression than low-ranking ones, which received most aggression in both sexes and throughout development. Aggression mostly involved maternal kin and, in contrast to our prediction, this was also true for both sexes throughout development. Finally, important developmental changes in aggressive behavior appeared between 2 and 3 yr of age.
In contrast to our prediction, we found no consistent sex differences in terms of general frequency of aggression initiated, suggesting that males and females younger than 4 yr of age initiate aggression at similar frequencies, although in part directed toward different partners. Focal subjects’ age also played a minor role in the probability of being aggressive, suggesting that being aggressive has a similar function during the first years of development. Our results are in line with a study on Japanese macaques showing that sex differences in aggressive behavior are absent in juveniles and appear only in adulthood (Eaton et al. 1986). Furthermore, in our study the probability of initiating aggression was the same across development in most social contexts: both high-ranking males and females were more aggressive than low-ranking ones, especially toward low-ranking partners and maternal kin. However, there was one exception: although females directed more aggression toward other females throughout development, males did so in the first 18 mo and then initiated more aggression toward male partners. Importantly, these results also confirm our prediction that aggression is directed mostly toward those social partners of the same sex and a similar age, as they are more likely to compete for the same resources. Our results show that aggressive behavior in rhesus macaques varies with the partner’s sex and the age of the individuals involved in the interaction. This flexibility in aggressive behavior might result in a better ability to compete with others. Therefore, it might be especially crucial for male primates, as aggressive behavior might be part of males’ reproductive success by, for example, increasing their monopolization potential (Barrett et al. 2002; Eaton et al. 1981; Fedigan and Baxter, 1984; Link et al. 2009; Slater et al. 2008).
However, these results are also consistent with the hypothesis that aggression is directed mostly toward those social partners with which individuals have the strongest affiliative bonds (Bernstein and Ehardt, 1986; Kulik et al. 2015; Widdig et al. 2002, 2006). In primates, females usually form the strongest social bonds with other females, e.g., rhesus macaques (Kapsalis and Berman 1996), vervets (Cercopithecus aethiops: Seyfarth 1980), capuchins (Cebus capucinus: Perry 1996), and savannah baboons (Seyfarth 1976; Silk et al. 1999), and males with males (red colobus, Colobus badius: Struhsaker and Leland, 1976; spider monkeys: Slater et al. 2009; muriquis, Brachyteles arachnoids hypoxanthus: Strier et al. 2002; chimpanzees: Arnold and Whiten 2003; Gilby and Wrangham 2008; Goodall, 1986; Lonsdorf et al. 2014; Nishida 1979; Watts 2000a,b; Wrangham et al. 1992). Moreover, males share a closer proximity with age peers around maturation, with which they are likely to be closely related owing to high male reproductive skew (Widdig 2013) and are likely to disperse together from their natal group (Albers and Widdig 2013). Finally, males also preferentially direct affiliative behaviors toward females early in development and later on toward males (Kulik et al. 2015), further suggesting that the distribution of affiliative and aggressive behaviors partly follows similar patterns. Although in this study we conducted no direct analyses to test the link between affiliative and aggressive behaviors at the dyadic level, it is evident that classes of individuals, e.g., males, maternal kin, and younger individuals, largely share the same preferences when interacting with other classes of individuals both via aggressive and affiliative behaviors (cf. Kulik et al. 2015). Possibly the distribution of aggressive behavior reflects the association patterns in the social group, with most aggressive interactions taking place between individuals that are often in close proximity and have strong affiliative bonds. At this point, our data do not allow us to draw any conclusions on whether aggression has a mainly negative or positive social function. However, they seem to confirm that aggressive and affiliative behaviors both represent two essential aspects of social relationships (Fraser et al. 2008).
Throughout development, both sexes initiated the most aggression toward maternal kin and also received the most aggression from maternal kin. This comes as no surprise, as social interactions are generally stronger among maternal kin (Widdig 2007, 2013), aggression more often involves kin (Bernstein and Ehardt 1986; Glick et al. 1986; Janus 1991b; Widdig et al. 2002, 2006; cf. Silk et al. 1981), and females are especially aggressive to maternal kin throughout their lives, at least in rhesus macaques (Bernstein and Ehardt 1986). In addition, we found that male focals had a slightly higher probability of exchanging aggression with paternal kin than with nonkin as compared to female focals. This is in line with previous findings on the same population, showing that males at maturation aggressively interact with paternal kin almost as much as with maternal kin (Widdig et al. 2015b). This is interesting, as affiliative behaviors are also often skewed in favor of paternal kin from an early age (Charpentier et al. 2007), confirming that the distribution of affiliative and aggressive behaviors follow a similar pattern. In contrast to our prediction, males were as aggressive as females toward maternal kin throughout development, although only females remain in their natal group and have a higher chance to compete with maternal kin over the same resources. These results support the suggestion that being aggressive might largely serve a similar function for both sexes during the first years of development, and juvenile aggressive behavior does not necessarily anticipate adult patterns (Cords et al. 2010; Eaton et al. 1986; Raleigh et al. 1979; Wolfheim 1977). Whereas affiliative behavior allows individuals to construct lasting relationships over long time frames (Kulik et al. 2015), aggressive behavior might serve more immediate functions, i.e., to solve contingent conflictual situations, and thus fail to completely anticipate future patterns of interactions.
As predicted, and in line with previous studies, high-ranking individuals initiated more aggression than low-ranking conspecifics, which received more aggression (Lambert 2005; Lambert and Whitham 2001; Pereira and Kappeler 1997; Silk et al. 1981). It is likely that high-ranking individuals have a higher probability of winning aggressive interactions (cf. Markham et al. 2015), and might thus more frequently initiate aggression. This was true for both sexes and throughout development, suggesting that rhesus macaques can differentiate partners depending on their rank from very early on. In contrast, a recent analysis of the development of sex differences in affiliative behavior in the same population of rhesus macaques showed that very young monkeys do not seem to differentiate affiliation partners based on their rank, and possibly acquire this ability only as they get older (Kulik et al. 2015). The present results, however, conflict with this conclusion, and suggest that monkeys possess this ability very early. It is possible that individuals’ motivation to differentiate ranks among social partners is stronger during aggressive than affiliative interactions, as directing aggression unintentionally toward higher-ranking conspecific can be quite costly.
In general, the probability of receiving aggression differed between sexes and across development, strongly depending on the social context. In general, the probability of receiving aggression increased through development. This is in contrast to other studies showing that the most frequent targets of aggression are usually younger individuals (Bernstein and Ehardt 1985c, 1986; Campbell 2006; Sapolsky 2005; Valero et al. 2006), or that the rate of aggression received does not change through development (Cords et al. 2010). However, only few primate studies, such as ours, considered aggression received from birth to maturation. In rhesus macaques, it seems possible that the probability of receiving aggression is close to zero around birth, as infants’ interactions with others and potentially conflictual situations are still extremely limited. In the following months, rhesus monkeys increase their rate of interactions with social partners (Kulik et al. 2015), and the probability of receiving aggression is thus higher. Studies that do not include the initial phases of infants’ development might not capture this change, and instead simply detect the decrease in rate of received aggression that likely takes place during adulthood when focal subjects have become older and less vulnerable and might be avoided as targets of aggression. This possibility is supported by the finding that individuals of both sexes initially received most aggression from females and only later from males, suggesting that aggression is usually directed toward immatures by social partners who can clearly outcompete them. Moreover, older female partners were more aggressive toward young male focal subjects as compared to female focal subjects of the same age. This is in line with other findings that mothers in the same population target their sons more often than their daughters during their first year of life (Kulik et al. unpubl. data), possibly as a behavioral mechanism to edge the young males out of the family. However, future studies should test these hypotheses in more detail.
This study confirms the existence of an important developmental change in social behavior happening in rhesus macaques between 2 and 3 yr of age (Kulik et al. 2015). The probability of initiating aggression, for example, had a peak around 3 yr of age in females, and 2 yr in males. Kulik and colleagues (2015) suggested that around an age of 2 yr rhesus macaques might experience a “social revolution,” in which sex differences in social behavior become stronger and crucial changes allow individuals to best prepare for their sex-specific social role (Koyama 1985; Nakamichi 1989; Roney and Maestripieri 2005; Suomi 2005). This study provides further evidence for that and extends this “social revolution” to aggressive behaviors.
In the future, more studies should be conducted to carefully disentangle the interplay of aggressive and affiliative behaviors in the development of primate social relationships. In particular, we will need to investigate the extent to which aggression exerts positive and negative effects on primate life, e.g., on fitness, and whether aggression is frequently directed toward preferred social partners because they compete for the same resources, form the strongest affiliative bonds, or simply are closer in space. Moreover, it will be interesting to explore the level of correlation between aggression given and received, analyzing how it varies across pairs of individuals. Future studies will also need to analyze in more detail whether physical and nonphysical forms of aggression follow the same developmental trajectory, and whether similar results will be found in wild populations of other species, including both female and male philopatric species. The developmental approach allows us to explore when differences in sociality emerge across individuals and classes of individuals, how these differences develop, and which factors trigger their emergence.
References
Abondano, L. A., & Link, A. (2012). The social behavior of brown spider monkeys (Ateles hybridus) in a fragmented forest in Colombia. International Journal of Primatology, 33, 769–783.
Albers, M., & Widdig, A. (2013). The influence of kinship on familiar natal migrant rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatta). International Journal of Primatology, 34, 99–114.
Alexander, B. K., & Roth, E. M. (1971). The effects of acute crowding on aggressive behavior of Japanese monkeys. Behaviour, 39, 73–89.
Altmann, J. (1974). Observational study of behavior sampling methods. Behaviour, 49, 227–267.
Altmann, S. A. (1962). A field study of the sociobiology of rhesus monkeys, Macaca mulatta. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 102, 338–435.
Archer, J. (1994). Violence between men. In J. Archer (Ed.), Male violence (pp. 121–140). London and New York: Routledge.
Archer, J., & Côté, S. (2005). Sex differences in aggressive behavior: A developmental and evolutionary perspective. In R. E. Tremblay, W. W. Hartup, & J. Archer (Eds.), Developmental origins of aggression (pp. 425–443). New York: Guilford Press.
Arnold, K., & Whiten, A. (2003). Grooming interactions among the chimpanzees of the Budongo forest, Uganda: Tests of five explanatory models. Behaviour, 140, 519–552.
Asensio, N., Korstjens, A. H., Schaffner, C. M., & Aureli, F. (2008). Intragroup aggression, fission–fusion dynamics and feeding competition in spider monkeys. Behaviour, 145, 983–1001.
Baayen, H. (2008). Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics using R (1st ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Barr, D. J., Levy, R., Scheepers, C., & Tily, H. J. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68, 255–278.
Barrett, G. M., Shimizu, K., Bardi, M., Asaba, S., & Mori, A. (2002). Endocrine correlates of rank, reproduction, and female-directed aggression in male Japanese macaques (Macaca fuscata). Hormones and Behavior, 42, 85–96.
Bates, D., Maechler, M., & Bolker, B. (2011). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes, R package version 0.999375-42. Available from: http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lme4
Berard, J. D. (1990). Life history patterns of male rhesus macaques on Cayo Santiago. Oregon: University of Oregon.
Bercovitch, F. B., & Berard, J. D. (1993). Life history costs and consequences of rapid reproductive maturation in female rhesus macaques. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 32, 103–109.
Bercovitch, F. B., & Goy, R. W. (1990). The socioendocrinology of reproductive development and reproductive success in macaques. In T. E. Ziegler & F. B. Bercovitch (Eds.), Socioendocrinology of primate reproduction (pp. 59–93). New York: Wiley Liss.
Bercovitch, F. B., Sladky, K. K., Roy, M. M., & Goy, R. W. (1987). Intersexual aggression and male sexual activity in captive rhesus macaques. Aggressive Behavior, 13, 347–358.
Bercovitch, F. B., Widdig, A., Trefilov, A., Kessler, M. J., Berard, J. D., Schmidtke, J., Nürnberg, P., & Krawczak, M. (2003). A longitudinal study of age-specific reproductive output and body condition among male rhesus macaques, Macaca mulatta. Naturwissenschaften, 90, 309–312.
Berman, C. M., Rasmussen, K., & Suomi, S. J. (1997). Group size, infant development and social networks in free-ranging rhesus monkeys. Animal Behaviour, 53, 405–421.
Bernstein, I. S. (1976). Dominance, aggression and reproduction in primate societies. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 60, 459–472.
Bernstein, I. S., & Ehardt, C. L. (1985a). Intragroup agonistic behavior in rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta). International Journal of Primatology, 6, 209–226.
Bernstein, I. S., & Ehardt, C. L. (1985b). Agonistic aiding: Kinship, rank, age, and sex influences. American Journal of Primatology, 8, 37–52.
Bernstein, I. S., & Ehardt, C. L. (1985c). Age-sex differences in the expression of agonistic behavior in rhesus monkey (Macaca mulatta) groups. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 99, 115–132.
Bernstein, I. S., & Ehardt, C. L. (1986). The influence of kinship and socialization on aggressive behaviour in rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta). Animal Behaviour, 34, 739–747.
Bernstein, I. S., & Gordon, T. P. (1974). The function of aggression in primate societies: Uncontrolled aggression may threaten human survival, but aggression may be vital to the establishment and regulation of primate societies and sociality. American Scientist, 62, 304–311.
Boesch, C. (2007). What makes us human (Homo sapiens)? The challenge of cognitive cross-species comparison. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 121, 227–240.
Borries, C. (2000). Male dispersal and mating season influxes in Hanuman langurs living in multi-male groups. In P. M. Kappeler (Ed.), Primate males: Causes and consequences of variation in group composition (pp. 146–158). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Bramblett, C. A. (1980). A model for development of social behavior in vervet monkeys. Developmental Psychobiology, 13, 205–223.
Call, J., & Tomasello, M. (1996). The effect of humans on the cognitive development of apes. In A. E. Russon, K. A. Bard, & S. T. Parker (Eds.), Reaching into thought: The minds of the great apes (pp. 371–403). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Campbell, C. J. (2003). Female-directed aggression in free-ranging Ateles geoffroyi. International Journal of Primatology, 24, 223–237.
Campbell, C. J. (2006). Lethal intragroup aggression by adult male spider monkeys (Ateles geoffroyi). American Journal of Primatology, 68, 1197–1201.
Carpenter, C. R. (1940). A field study in Siam of the behavior and social relations of the gibbon (Hylobates lar). Comparative Psychology Monographs, 16, 1–212.
Chapais, B. (1992). The role of alliances in social inheritance of rank among female primates. In A. H. Harcourt & F. B. M. de Waal (Eds.), Coalitions and alliances in humans and other animals (pp. 29–59). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Charpentier, M. J. E., Peignot, P., Hossaert-Mckey, M., & Wickings, E. J. (2007). Kin discrimination in juvenile mandrills, Mandrillus sphinx. Animal Behaviour, 73, 37–45.
Colvin, J. (1983). Familiarity, rank, and the structure of rhesus male peers networks. In R. A. Hinde (Ed.), Primate social relationships: An integrated approach (pp. 190–200). Oxford: Blackwell.
Cords, M., Sheehan, M. J., & Ekernas, L. S. (2010). Sex and age differences in juvenile social priorities in female philopatric, nondespotic blue monkeys. American Journal of Primatology, 72, 193–205.
Crockett, C. M., & Pope, T. R. (1993). Consequences of sex differences in dispersal for juvenile red howler monkeys. In M. E. Pereira & L. A. Fairbanks (Eds.), Juvenile primates: Life history, development and behavior (pp. 104–118). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Crockford, C., Wittig, R. M., Mundry, R., & Zuberbühler, K. (2012). Wild chimpanzees inform ignorant group members of danger. Current Biology, 22, 142–146.
Crockford, C., Wittig, R. M., Whitten, P. L., Seyfarth, R. M., & Cheney, D. L. (2008). Social stressors and coping mechanisms in wild female baboons (Papio hamadryas ursinus). Hormones and Behavior, 53, 254–265.
Darwin, C. (1871). The descent of man and the selection in relation to sex. London: John Murray.
Datta, S. (1988). The acquisition of dominance among free-ranging rhesus monkey siblings. Animal Behaviour, 36, 754–772.
Deag, J. M. (1977). Aggression and submission in monkey societies. Animal Behaviour, 25(Part 2), 465–474.
De Vries, H. (1998). Finding a dominance order most consistent with a linear hierarchy: A new procedure and review. Animal Behaviour, 55, 827–843.
De Waal, F. B. M. (1989). Dominance “style” and primate social organization. In V. Standen & R. A. Foley (Eds.), Comparative socioecology (pp. 243–263). Oxford: Blackwell.
De Waal, F. B. M., & Johanowicz, D. L. (1993). Modification of reconciliation behavior through social experience: An experiment with two macaque species. Child Development, 64, 897–908.
De Waal, F. B. M., & Luttrell, L. M. (1989). Toward a comparative socioecology of the genus Macaca: Different dominance styles in rhesus and stumptail monkeys. American Journal of Primatology, 19, 83–109.
Dittus, W. P. J. (1977). The social regulation of population density and age-sex distribution in the toque monkey. Behaviour, 63, 281–322.
Dittus, W. P. J. (1979). The evolution of behaviors regulating density and age-specific sex ratios in a prmate population. Behaviour, 69, 265–301.
Dixson, A. F., & Nevison, C. M. (1997). The socioendocrinology of adolescent development in male rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta). Hormones and Behavior, 31, 126–135.
Dobson, A. J. (2002). An introduction to generalized linear models (2nd ed.). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Dunbar, R. I. M. (1988). Primate social systems. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Eaton, G. G., Johnson, D. F., Glick, B. B., & Worlein, J. M. (1986). Japanese macaques (Macaca fuscata) social development: Sex differences in juvenile behavior. Primates, 27, 141–150.
Eaton, G. G., Modahl, K. B., & Johnson, D. F. (1981). Aggressive behavior in a confined troop of Japanese macaques: Effects of density, season, and gender. Aggressive Behavior, 7, 145–164.
Ekernas, L. S., & Cords, M. (2007). Social and environmental factors influencing natal dispersal in blue monkeys, Cercopithecus mitis stuhlmanni. Animal Behaviour, 73, 1009–1020.
Elo, A. E. (1978). The rating of chess players, past and present. New York: Arco.
Fedigan, L. M., & Baxter, M. J. (1984). Sex differences and social organization in free-ranging spider monkeys (Ateles geoffroyi). Primates, 25, 279–294.
Feldblum, J. T., Wroblewski, E. E., Rudicell, R. S., Hahn, B. H., Paiva, T., Cetinkaya-Rundel, M., Pusey, A. E., & Gilby, I. C. (2014). Sexually coercive male chimpanzees sire more offspring. Current Biology, 24, 2855–2860.
Fox, J., & Weisberg, S. (2011). An R companion to applied regression, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Available from: http://socserv.socsci.mcmaster.ca/jfox/Books/Companion
Fraser, O. N., Schino, G., & Aureli, F. (2008). Components of relationship quality in chimpanzees. Ethology, 114, 834–843.
Gilby, I. C., & Wrangham, R. W. (2008). Association patterns among wild chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes schweinfurthii) reflect sex differences in cooperation. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 62, 1831–1842.
Glick, B. B., Eaton, G. G., Johnson, D. F., & Worlein, J. M. (1986). Development of partner preferences in Japanese macaques (Macaca fuscata): Effects of gender and kinship during the second year of life. International Journal of Primatology, 7, 467–479.
Goodall, J. (1986). The chimpanzees of Gombe: Patterns of behavior. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University.
Gould, L., Ziegler, T. E., & Wittwer, D. J. (2005). Effects of reproductive and social variables on fecal glucocorticoid levels in a sample of adult male ring-tailed lemurs (Lemur catta) at the Beza Mahafaly Reserve, Madagascar. American Journal of Primatology, 67, 5–23.
Gouzoules, S., & Gouzoules, H. (1987). Kinship. In B. B. Smuts, D. L. Cheney, R. M. Seyfarth, R. W. Wrangham, & T. T. Struhsaker (Eds.), Primate societies (pp. 299–305). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Ha, J. C., Alloway, H., & Sussman, A. (2011). Aggression in pigtailed macaque (Macaca nemestrina) breeding groups affects pregnancy outcome. American Journal of Primatology, 73, 1169–1175.
Hall, K. R. L. (1964). Aggression in monkey and ape societies. In J. D. Carthy & F. J. Ebling (Eds.), The natural history of aggression (pp. 51–64). London and New York: Academic Press. Available from: http://www.opus4.kobv.de/opus4-Fromm/frontdoor/index/index/docId/11379
Heesen, M., Rogahn, S., Macdonald, S., Ostner, J., & Schülke, O. (2014). Predictors of food-related aggression in wild Assamese macaques and the role of conflict avoidance. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 68, 1829–1841.
Higham, J. P., Heistermann, M., & Maestripieri, D. (2012). The endocrinology of male rhesus macaque social and reproductive status: A test of the challenge and social stress hypotheses. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 67, 19–30.
Honess, P. E., & Marin, C. M. (2006). Behavioural and physiological aspects of stress and aggression in nonhuman primates. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 30, 390–412.
Janson, C. H., & Van Schaik, C. P. (1988). Recognizing the many faces of primate food competition: Methods. Behaviour, 105, 165–186.
Janus, M. (1991a). Aggression in interactions of immature rhesus monkeys: Components, context and relation to affiliation levels. Animal Behaviour, 41, 121–134.
Janus, M. (1991b). Aggression in interactions of immature rhesus monkeys: Components, context and relation to affiliation level. Animal Behaviour, 41, 121–134.
Kapsalis, E., & Berman, C. M. (1996). Models of affiliative relationships among free-ranging rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta) I. Criteria for kinship. Behaviour, 133, 1209–1234.
Kaufman, A. B., & Rosenthal, R. (2009). Can you believe my eyes? The importance of interobserver reliability statistics in observations of animal behaviour. Animal Behaviour, 78, 1487–1491.
Koenig, A., Beise, J., Chalise, M. K., & Ganzhorn, J. U. (1998). When females should contest for food – testing hypotheses about resource density, distribution, size, and quality with Hanuman langurs (Presbytis entellus). Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 42, 225–237.
Koyama, N. (1985). Playmate relationships among individuals of the Japanese monkey troop in Arashiyama. Primates, 26, 390–406.
Kulik, L., Amici, F., Langos, D., & Widdig, A. (2015). Sex differences in the development of social relationships in rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatta). International Journal of Primatology, 36, 353–376.
Kulik, L., Muniz, L., Mundry, R., & Widdig, A. (2012). Patterns of interventions and the effect of coalitions and sociality on male fitness. Molecular Ecology, 21, 699–714.
Lambert, J. E. (2005). Competition, predation, and the evolutionary significance of the cercopithecine cheek pouch: The case of Cercopithecus and Lophocebus. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 126, 183–192.
Lambert, J. E., & Whitham, J. C. (2001). Cheek pouch use in Papio cynocephalus. Folia Primatologica, 72, 89–91.
Langos, D., Kulik, L., Mundry, R., & Widdig, A. (2013). The impact of paternity on male–infant association in a primate with low paternity certainty. Molecular Ecology, 22, 3638–3651.
Lindburg, D. G. (1969). Rhesus monkeys: Mating season mobility of adult males. Science, 166, 1176–1178.
Link, A., Di Fiore, A., & Spehar, S. N. (2009). Female-directed aggression and social control in spider monkeys. In M. N. Muller & R. W. Wrangham (Eds.), Sexual coercion in primates and humans: An evolutionary perspective on male aggression against females (pp. 157–183). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Lonsdorf, E. V., Markham, A. C., Heintz, M. R., Anderson, K. E., Ciuk, D. J., Goodall, J., & Murray, C. M. (2014). Sex differences in wild chimpanzee behavior emerge during infancy. PLoS ONE, 9, e99099.
Lorenz, K. (1966). On aggression. London and New York: Psychology Press.
Majolo, B., Ventura, R., & Koyama, N. F. (2005). Sex, rank and age differences in the Japanese macaque (Macaca fuscata yakui) participation in inter-group encounters. Ethology, 111, 455–468.
Markham, A. C., Lonsdorf, E. V., Pusey, A. E., & Murray, C. M. (2015). Maternal rank influences the outcome of aggressive interactions between immature chimpanzees. Animal Behaviour, 100, 192–198.
Marriott, B. M., Roemer, J., & Sultana, C. (1989). An overview of the food intake patterns of the Cayo Santiago rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta): Report of a pilot study. Puerto Rico Health Sciences Journal, 8, 87–94.
Mitchell, G. (1979). Behavioral sex differences in nonhuman primates. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Muller, M. N., & Mitani, J. C. (2005). Conflict and cooperation in wild chimpanzees. Advances in the Study of Behavior, 35, 275–331.
Mundry, R. (2014). Statistical issues and assumptions of phylogenetic generalized least squares. In L. Z. Garamszegi (Ed.), Modern phylogenetic comparative methods and their application in evolutionary biology (pp. 131–153). Berlin and Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag. Available from: http://springerlink.bibliotecabuap.elogim.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-662-43550-2-6.
Nakamichi, M. (1989). Sex differences in social development during the first 4 years in a free-ranging group of Japanese monkeys, Macaca fuscata. Animal Behaviour, 38, 737–748.
Nakamichi, M. (2001). Mother-offspring relationship in macaques. In T. Matsuzawa (Ed.), Primate origins of human cognition and behavior (pp. 418–440). Tokyo: Springer-Verlag. Available from: http://springerlink.bibliotecabuap.elogim.com/chapter/10.1007/978-4-431-09423-4-21.
Neumann, C., Duboscq, J., Dubuc, C., Ginting, A., Irwan, A. M., Agil, M., Widdig, A., & Engelhardt, A. (2011). Assessing dominance hierarchies: Validation and advantages of progressive evaluation with Elo-rating. Animal Behaviour, 82, 911–921.
Nishida, T. (1979). The social structure of chimpanzees at the Mahale Mountains. In D. A. Hamburg & E. R. McCown (Eds.), The great apes (pp. 73–121). Menlo Park, CA: Benjamin Cummings.
Nürnberg, P., Sauermann, U., Kayser, M., Lanfer, C., Manz, E., Widdig, A., Berard, J., Bercovitch, F. B., Kessler, M., Schmidtke, J., & Krawczak, M. (1998). Paternity assessment in rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatta): Multilocus DNA fingerprinting and PCR marker typing. American Journal of Primatology, 44, 1–18.
Ostner, J., Heistermann, M., & Schülke, O. (2008). Dominance, aggression and physiological stress in wild male Assamese macaques (Macaca assamensis). Hormones and Behavior, 54, 613–619.
Owens, N. W. (1975). Social play behaviour in free-living baboons, Papio anubis. Animal Behaviour, 230(Part 2), 387–408.
Pereira, M. E. (1995). Development and social dominance among group-living primates. American Journal of Primatology, 37, 143–175.
Pereira, M. E., & Fairbanks, L. A. (Eds.). (1993). Juvenile primates: Life history, development and behavior. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Pereira, M. E., & Kappeler, P. M. (1997). Divergent systems of agonistic behaviour in Lemurid primates. Behaviour, 134, 225–274.
Perry, S. (1996). Female-female social relationships in wild white-faced capuchin monkeys, Cebus capucinus. American Journal of Primatology, 40, 167–182.
Pusey, A. E., & Packer, C. (1987). Dispersal and philopatry. In B. B. Smuts, D. L. Cheney, R. M. Seyfarth, R. W. Wrangham, & T. T. Struhsaker (Eds.), Primate societies (pp. 250–266). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Quinn, G. P., & Keough, M. J. (2002). Experimental design and data analysis for biologists (1st ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Rajpurohit, L. S., & Sommer, V. (1993). Juvenile male emigration from natal one-male troops in hanuman langurs. In M. E. Pereira & L. A. Fairbanks (Eds.), Juvenile primates: Life history, development and behavior (pp. 86–103). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Raleigh, M. J., Flannery, J. W., & Ervin, F. R. (1979). Sex differences in behavior among juvenile vervet monkeys (Cercopithecus aethiops sabaeus). Behavioral and Neural Biology, 26, 455–465.
Rawlins, R. G., & Kessler, M. J. (Eds.). (1986). The Cayo Santiago macaques: History, behavior and biology. Albany: State University of New York Press.
R Core Team. (2014). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Available from: http://www.R-project.org/
Reinhardt, V. (1987). Are male rhesus monkeys more aggressive than females? Primates, 28, 123–125.
Roney, J. R., & Maestripieri, D. (2005). Social development and affiliation. In D. Maestripieri (Ed.), Primate psychology (pp. 171–204). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Rowell, T. E., & Chism, J. (1986). The ontogeny of sex differences in the behavior of patas monkeys. International Journal of Primatology, 7, 83–107.
Rudran, R. (1978). Sociobiology of the blue monkeys (Cercopithecus mitis stuhlmanni) of the Kibale Forest, Uganda. Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology, 249, 1–88.
Sapolsky, R. M. (2005). The influence of social hierarchy on primate health. Science, 308, 648–652.
Schielzeth, H. (2010). Simple means to improve the interpretability of regression coefficients. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 1, 103–113.
Schielzeth, H., & Forstmeier, W. (2009). Conclusions beyond support: Overconfident estimates in mixed models. Behavioral Ecology, 20, 416–420.
Seyfarth, R. M. (1976). Social relationships among adult female baboons. Animal Behaviour, 24, 917–938.
Seyfarth, R. M. (1980). The distribution of grooming and related behaviours among adult female vervet monkeys. Animal Behaviour, 28, 798–813.
Silk, J. B. (2007). The adaptive value of sociality in mammalian groups. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 362, 539–559.
Silk, J. B., Alberts, S. C., & Altmann, J. (2004). Patterns of coalition formation by adult female baboons in Amboseli, Kenya. Animal Behaviour, 67, 573–582.
Silk, J. B., & Boyd, R. (1983). Female cooperation, competition, and mate choice in matrilineal macaque groups. In S. K. Wasser (Ed.), Social behavior of female vertebrates (pp. 315–347). New York: Academic Press.
Silk, J. B., Samuels, A., & Rodman, P. S. (1981). The influence of kinship, rank, and sex on affiliation and aggression between adult female and immature bonnet macaques (Macaca radiata). Behaviour, 78, 111–137.
Silk, J. B., Seyfarth, R. M., & Cheney, D. L. (1999). The structure of social relationships among female savanna baboons in Moremi Reserve, Botswana. Behaviour, 136, 679–703.
Slater, K. Y., Schaffner, C. M., & Aureli, F. (2008). Female-directed male aggression in wild Ateles geoffroyi yucatanensis. International Journal of Primatology, 29, 1657–1669.
Slater, K. Y., Schaffner, C. M., & Aureli, F. (2009). Sex differences in the social behavior of wild spider monkeys (Ateles geoffroyi yucatanensis). American Journal of Primatology, 71, 21–29.
Strier, K. B., Dib, L. T., & Figueira, J. E. C. (2002). Social dynamics of male muriquis (Brachyteles arachnoides hypoxanthus). Behaviour, 139, 315–342.
Struhsaker, T. T., & Leland, L. (1976). Socioecology of five sympatric monkey species in the Kibale Forest, Uganda. New York: Academic Press.
Suomi, S. J. (2005). Mother-infant attachment, peer relationships, and the development of social networks in rhesus monkeys. Human Development, 48, 67–79.
Thierry, B. (1990). Feedback loop between kinship and dominance: The macaque model. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 145, 511–522.
Thierry, B., Singh, M., & Kaumanns, W. (Eds.). (2004). Macaque societies: A model for the study of social organization. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Tinbergen, N. (1968). On war and peace in animals and man: An ethologist’s approach to the biology of aggression. Science, 160, 1411–1418.
Trivers, R. L. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In B. Campbell (Ed.), Sexual selection and the descent of man (pp. 139–179). Chicago: Aldine.
Valero, A., Schaffner, C. M., Vick, L. G., Aureli, F., & Ramos-Fernandez, G. (2006). Intragroup lethal aggression in wild spider monkeys. American Journal of Primatology, 68, 732–737.
Van Roosmalen, M. G. M., & Klein, L. L. (1988). The spider monkeys, genus Ateles. In R. A. Mittermeier, A. B. Rylands, C. A. F. Filho, & G. A. B. da Fonseca (Eds.), Ecology and behavior of neotropical primates, Vol. 2 (pp. 455–537). Washington, DC: World Wildlife Fund.
Van Schaik, C. P. (1983). Why are diurnal primates living in groups? Behaviour, 87, 102–144.
Van Schaik, C. P. (1989). The ecology of social relationships amongst female primates. In V. Standen & R. A. Foley (Eds.), Comparative socioecology: The behavioural ecology of humans and other mammals (pp. 195–218). Oxford: Blackwell.
Van Schaik, C. P., & Kappeler, P. M. (1997). Infanticide risk and the evolution of male–female association in primates. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 264, 1687–1694.
Walters, J. R., & Seyfarth, R. M. (1987). Conflict and cooperation. In B. B. Smuts, D. L. Cheney, R. M. Seyfarth, R. W. Wrangham, & T. T. Struhsaker (Eds.), Primate societies (pp. 306–317). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Watts, D. P. (2000a). Grooming between male chimpanzees at Ngogo, Kibale National Park. II. Influence of male rank and possible competition for partners. International Journal of Primatology, 21, 211–238.
Watts, D. P. (2000b). Grooming between male chimpanzees at Ngogo, Kibale National Park. I. Partner number and diversity and grooming reciprocity. International Journal of Primatology, 21, 189–210.
Widdig, A. (2007). Paternal kin discrimination: The evidence and likely mechanisms. Biological Reviews, 82, 319–334.
Widdig, A. (2013). The impact of male reproductive skew on kin structure and sociality in multi-male groups. Evolutionary Anthropology, 22, 239–250.
Widdig, A., Kessler, M. J., Bercovitch, F., Berard, J. D., Duggleby, C., Nürnberg, P., Rawlins, R. G., Sauermann, U., Wang, Q., Krawczak, M., & Schmidtke, J. (2015a). Genetic studies on the Cayo Santiago rhesus macaques: A review of 40 years of research. American Journal of Primatology. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajp.22424/abstract
Widdig, A., Langos, D., & Kulik, L. (2015b). Sex differences in kin bias at maturation: Male rhesus macaques prefer paternal kin prior to natal dispersal. American Journal of Primatology. Available from: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajp.22401/abstract
Widdig, A., Nürnberg, P., Krawczak, M., Streich, W. J., & Bercovitch, F. B. (2001). Paternal relatedness and age proximity regulate social relationships among adult female rhesus macaques. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 98, 13769–13773.
Widdig, A., Nürnberg, P., Krawczak, M., Streich, W. J., & Bercovitch, F. B. (2002). Affiliation and aggression among adult female rhesus macaques: A genetic analysis of paternal cohorts. Behaviour, 139, 371–391.
Widdig, A., Streich, W. J., Nürnberg, P., Croucher, P. J., Bercovitch, F. B., & Krawczak, M. (2006). Paternal kin bias in the agonistic interventions of adult female rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatta). Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 61, 205–214.
Wilson, A. P., & Boelkins, R. C. (1970). Evidence for seasonal variation in aggressive behaviour by Macaca mulatta. Animal Behaviour, 18(Part 4), 719–724.
Wilson, M. L., & Wrangham, R. W. (2003). Intergroup relations in chimpanzees. Annual Review of Anthropology, 32, 363–392.
Wittig, R. M., Crockford, C., Weltring, A., Deschner, T., & Zuberbühler, K. (2015). Single aggressive interactions increase urinary glucocorticoid levels in wild male chimpanzees. PLoS ONE, 10, e0118695.
Wolfheim, J. H. (1977). Sex differences in behavior in a group of captive juvenile talapoin monkeys (Miopithecus talapoin). Behaviour, 63, 110–127.
Worlein, J. M., Eaton, G. G., Johnson, D. F., & Glick, B. B. (1988). Mating season effects on mother-infant conflict in Japanese macaques, Macaca fuscata. Animal Behaviour, 36, 1472–1481.
Wrangham, R. W. (1980). An ecological model of female-bonded primate groups. Behaviour, 75, 262–299.
Wrangham, R. W., Clark, A. P., & Isabirye-Bosuta, G. (1992). Female social relationships and social organisation of Kibale Forest chimpanzees. In Topics in primatology (pp. 81–98). Tokyo: Tokyo University Press.
Young, G. H., Jr., Coehlo, A. M., & Bramblett, C. A. (1982). The development of grooming, sociosexual behavior, play and aggression in captive baboons in their first two years. Primates, 23, 511–519.
Zehr, J. L., Meter, P. E. V., & Wallen, K. (2005). Factors regulating the timing of puberty onset in female rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta): Role of prenatal androgens, social rank, and adolescent body weight. Biology of Reproduction, 72, 1087–1094.
Acknowledgments
We thank the CPRC for allowing us to conduct this study and providing support throughout. We are especially grateful to the staff of the Cayo Santiago Field Station, including Edgar Davila, Julio Resto, Giselle Caraballo Cruz, and Angelina Ruiz, for their cooperation during observations and DNA collection. We also thank Joyce Moewius, Akie Yanagie, Klaus Leipholz, and Margaret Chiavetta for their help with data and sample collection. We are also grateful to Fred Bercovitch, Matt Kessler, John Berard, Michael Krawczak, Peter Nürnberg, and Jörg Schmidtke, who started the genetic data base of the Cayo Santiago population, mainly funded by the National Science Foundation, National Institutes of Health, and the German Research Foundation (DFG). We would further like to thank Andrea Trefilov, Elisabeth Kirst, Peter Nürnberg, Petra Otremba, Marion Nagy, Laura Muniz, and Stefanie Bley for their help in improving and extending the genetic database, and Linda Vigilant for allowing us laboratory access. Moreover, we thank Roger Mundry for statistical advice, Hagen Stenzel for writing a number of macros for data analysis, and Brigitte Weiß for helpful discussion and comments on a previous version of the manuscript. The editor and two anonymous reviewers provided very helpful comments on an earlier version of the manuscript. The population of Cayo Santiago was supported by grant number 8P40 OD012217-25 from the National Center for Research Resources (NCRR), the Office of Research Infrastructure Programs (ORIP) of the National Institutes of Health, and the Medical Sciences Campus of the University of Puerto Rico. The content of this publication is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of NCRR or ORIP. We conducted this project within the Jr. Research Group of Primate Kin Selection, an Emmy-Noether Group funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG) (grant numbers WI 1801/1-1, 1-2, 2-1, 3-1 awarded to A. Widdig). Further funding was provided by a PhD grant of the University of Leipzig (awarded to L. Kulik and D. Langos) and the KKGS Stiftung, Elsa-Neumann Stiftung, and the DAAD (awarded to D. Langos). We are grateful to the Max-Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig, for their logistic support and for hosting the Jr. Research Group of Primate Kin Selection.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kulik, L., Amici, F., Langos, D. et al. Sex Differences in the Development of Aggressive Behavior in Rhesus Macaques (Macaca mulatta). Int J Primatol 36, 764–789 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10764-015-9853-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10764-015-9853-1