title: Intermediate-term emotional bookkeeping is necessary for long-term reciprocal grooming partner preferences in an agent-based model of macaque groups.
abstract: Whether and how primates are able to maintain long-term affiliative relationships is still under debate. Emotional bookkeeping (EB), the partner-specific accumulation of emotional responses to earlier interactions, is a candidate mechanism that does not require high cognitive abilities. EB is difficult to study in real animals, due to the complexity of primate social life. Therefore, we developed an agent-based model based on macaque behavior, the EMO-model, that implements arousal and two emotional dimensions, anxiety-FEAR and satisfaction-LIKE, which regulate social behavior. To implement EB, model individuals assign dynamic LIKE attitudes towards their group members, integrating partner-specific emotional responses to earlier received grooming episodes. Two key parameters in the model were varied to explore their effects on long-term affiliative relationships: (1) the timeframe over which earlier affiliation is accumulated into the LIKE attitudes; and (2) the degree of partner selectivity. EB over short and long timeframes gave rise to low variation in LIKE attitudes, and grooming partner preferences were only maintained over one to two months. Only EB over intermediate-term timeframes resulted in enough variation in LIKE attitudes, which, in combination with high partner selectivity, enables individuals to differentiate between regular and incidental grooming partners. These specific settings resulted in a strong feedback between differentiated LIKE attitudes and the distribution of grooming, giving rise to strongly reciprocated partner preferences that could be maintained for longer periods, occasionally up to one or two years. Moreover, at these settings the individual's internal, socio-emotional memory of earlier affiliative episodes (LIKE attitudes) corresponded best to observable behavior (grooming partner preferences). In sum, our model suggests that intermediate-term LIKE dynamics and high partner selectivity seem most plausible for primates relying on emotional bookkeeping to maintain their social bonds.
authors.affiliation: Department of Animal Ecology, Utrecht University , Utrecht , The Netherlands.
authors.forename: Ellen
authors.initials: E
authors.lastname: Evers
authors.affiliation: Department of Animal Ecology, Utrecht University , Utrecht , The Netherlands.
authors.forename: Han
authors.initials: H
authors.lastname: de Vries
authors.affiliation: Department of Animal Ecology, Utrecht University , Utrecht , The Netherlands.
authors.forename: Berry M
authors.initials: BM
authors.lastname: Spruijt
authors.affiliation: Department of Animal Ecology, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands; Animal Science Department, Biomedical Primate Research Center, Rijswijk, The Netherlands.
authors.forename: Elisabeth H M
authors.initials: EH
authors.lastname: Sterck
keywords: Agent-based model; EMO-model; Emotional bookkeeping; Long-term affiliative relationships; Macaques; Reciprocity; Social bonds; Socio-emotional memory
references.citation: Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2005 May;29(3):469-91
references.pmid: 15820551
references.citation: Behav Processes. 2009 Mar;80(3):269-77
references.pmid: 18950694
references.citation: Hum Nat. 2002 Mar;13(1):129-52
references.pmid: 26192598
references.citation: Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 2010 Nov;64(11):1733-1747
references.pmid: 20976293
references.citation: Horm Behav. 2008 Nov;54(5):613-9
references.pmid: 18625235
references.citation: PLoS One. 2014 Feb 04;9(2):e87955
references.pmid: 24504194
references.citation: Behaviour. 1974;49(1):62-87
references.pmid: 4208112
references.citation: J Theor Biol. 2014 Mar 7;344:49-55
references.pmid: 24316108
references.citation: Front Biosci. 2003 May 01;8:s438-51
references.pmid: 12700104
references.citation: Int J Primatol. 2012 Feb;33(1):73-92
references.pmid: 22389539
references.citation: PLoS One. 2015 Mar 18;10(3):e0118921
references.pmid: 25785601
references.citation: Proc Biol Sci. 2013 Jan 23;280(1755):20122765
references.pmid: 23345575
references.citation: Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2007 Sep 29;362(1485):1685-98
references.pmid: 17434852
references.citation: Proc Biol Sci. 2014 Jan 15;281(1778):20133096
references.pmid: 24430853
references.citation: Horm Behav. 1993 Sep;27(3):318-31
references.pmid: 8225256
references.citation: Mol Ecol. 2012 Feb;21(3):699-714
references.pmid: 21880090
references.citation: PLoS One. 2011;6(11):e26189
references.pmid: 22125595
references.citation: Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 2012 Jun;66(6):931-945
references.pmid: 22661823
references.citation: Anim Behav. 2012 Jun 1;83(6):1511-1518
references.pmid: 23885128
references.citation: Proc Biol Sci. 2009 Dec 22;276(1677):4417-22
references.pmid: 19793756
references.citation: Physiol Behav. 1989 Mar;45(3):667-70
references.pmid: 2756061
references.citation: Proc Biol Sci. 2001 Feb 7;268(1464):263-7
references.pmid: 11217896
references.citation: Proc Biol Sci. 2009 Sep 7;276(1670):3099-104
references.pmid: 19515668
references.citation: PLoS One. 2015 Feb 25;10(2):e0118695
references.pmid: 25714095
references.citation: J Comp Psychol. 2007 May;121(2):181-8
references.pmid: 17516796
references.citation: Primates. 2011 Jul;52(3):237-47
references.pmid: 21416218
references.citation: J Comp Psychol. 2008 Feb;122(1):19-25
references.pmid: 18298277
references.citation: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009 Aug 18;106(33):13850-3
references.pmid: 19667179
references.citation: Science. 2003 Nov 14;302(5648):1234-6
references.pmid: 14615544
references.citation: J Comp Psychol. 1999 Mar;113(1):59-65
references.pmid: 10098269
references.citation: Anim Behav. 2000 May;59(5):1035-1048
references.pmid: 10860531
references.citation: Pharmacol Biochem Behav. 1989 Apr;32(4):919-26
references.pmid: 2798541
references.citation: Biol Lett. 2007 Jun 22;3(3):231-3
references.pmid: 17327200
references.citation: Proc Biol Sci. 2009 Feb 22;276(1657):699-706
references.pmid: 18957365
references.citation: Anim Behav. 2000 Aug;60(2):253-261
references.pmid: 10973728
references.citation: Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2010 Feb;34(2):260-8
references.pmid: 18662717
references.citation: J Acoust Soc Am. 2003 Jun;113(6):3390-402
references.pmid: 12822809
references.citation: Proc Biol Sci. 2006 Mar 7;273(1586):513-22
references.pmid: 16537121
references.citation: Am J Primatol. 1989;19(2):69-82
references.pmid: 31964015
references.citation: Horm Behav. 2008 Jun;54(1):170-7
references.pmid: 18396288
references.citation: Curr Biol. 2010 Aug 10;20(15):1359-61
references.pmid: 20598541
references.citation: Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2007 Apr 29;362(1480):561-75
references.pmid: 17255006
references.citation: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010 Nov 16;107(46):19949-54
references.pmid: 21041638
references.citation: Cognition. 1990 Nov;37(1-2):167-96
references.pmid: 2269006
references.citation: Am J Primatol. 2009 Oct;71(10):840-51
references.pmid: 19475543
references.citation: Science. 2003 Nov 14;302(5648):1231-4
references.pmid: 14615543
references.citation: Psychoneuroendocrinology. 1989;14(1-2):155-61
references.pmid: 2525263