Primate Behavior: An Observational Study of Physical and Social Interactions as they

This topic submitted by Katy Workman and Michelle Brasseur ( brassemr@muohio.edu ) on 4/25/05. [ Human Nature Team: Katy Workman and Michelle Brasseur-Section: Cummins/Wolfe]

I. Introduction
The birth of the theory of evolution was accompanied by many questions about the nature and origins of human beings. When Charles Darwin suggested that Homo sapiens evolved from a common ancestor that could also be seen in the evolutionary history of modern non-human primates, we began to wonder just what else might we have in common with these distant relatives. If we share many similar genes, might we also have similar behaviors? For a significant period of time, humans were thought to be most closely related to the chimpanzee, but in more recent studies it has been found that Òbonobos , with their slender frames, effortless bipedalism and human-like behaviors have almost replaced the common chimpanzee as the best model for early ape-like hominidÉ,Ó (Collinge p. 111). Social behaviors of bonobos can be observed and compared to typical human behaviors. In bonobos, the strongest affiliations are observed among adult females and between sexes, and the most common foraging units are mixed parties with adult males, adult females and their young, and bisexual groupings of a male and female. One of the most notable differences among these chimpanzees however, is their copulatory behaviors. ÒDespite the higher levels of copulatory behavior and the fact that bonobo females are in estrous for longer periods, the interbirth intervals and general fecundity are the sameÉ It is suspected that the excessive sexual activity in bonobo society serves more to manipulate relationships than to enhance reproductive success,Ó (Collinge p. 112 )
Another slightly more distant primate relative is the Japanese Macaque. ÒJapanese macaques are medium-sized, quadrapedal monkeys found only on the islands of Japan, where they range from 31 to 41 degrees latitude,Ó (Fedigan p. 218) Their social behaviors include a hierarchy within a troop of individuals in which there is an alpha male and an alpha female. ÒThe undisputed higher dominance of the alpha male over the alpha female Ð which she does not challenge Ð is curious because the alpha male requires her support in order to acquire and maintain his position.Ó (Pavelka p. 40) The core of each troop is comprised of groups of related females and their immature offspring with unrelated adult males.
We can also see the implications of comparing humans to Japanese macaques and bonobos, ÒSimilarity is the shadow of difference. Two things are similar by virtue of their difference from another; or different by virtue of oneÕs similarity to a third. So it is with individualsÉDifference is the shadow of similarity,Ó (Ridley, pg. 38). We will be interested to see how shared differences from one group might draw connections between the two others, particularly between humans and bonobos. We can also see how the children we will study will support the author of The Blank Slate, Steven PinkerÕs arguments about the combination of nature and nurture and the problems with the blanks slate. Children are taught not to touch each other, but often act out in violent ways when they choose to go against that social norm. An illustration in one of our resources showed, ÒAttack of a boy, approximately 11 months old, against a baby girl who tried to take an object from his hand. The boy pushes the girl over and scratches her at the same time,Ó (Holloway p. 446).
Historically, studies have been done to gain more in depth understanding of specific non-human primates groups independent of human nature and shared ancestors. Primatologists seem to have had only the relationship between nonhuman primates in mind. ÒNot surprisingly, anthropologists, with their emphasis on the study of human-kind, first put their research energy into the study of nonhuman primates as reflections of the lifeway patterns of early human society,Ó (Collinge p. 3). It is important to note that research of this kind that actually studies animals and humans in the same experiment, is a relatively recent development, ÒIt is only during the past five years that both concepts and methods from animal social ethology have been applied directly to the study of human social interaction. Most of these studies have focused upon preschool behavior,Ó (Freedman p.191). For this reason, it was particularly important to us that we chose two very different non-human primate groups for our own study, so that we could compare a wide variety of primate social behaviors. However, even though bonobos are chimps and Japanese Macaques are monkeys, we felt that a certain relation to humans was helpful to our study. ÒIn their anatomy, social behavior, vocalizations, sexual exploits, infant care, and mental abilities, bonobos possess an eerie human quality,Ó (Hinde p. 93). Our research aims to draw the connections between non-human and human primates and their societal similarities.
The purpose of this study is to observe the social behaviors of both human and nonhuman primates, and to produce results that will effectively illustrate the parallels drawn between physical interactions of these groups. ÒNot surprisingly, anthropologists, with their emphasis on the study of human-kind, first put their research energy into the study of nonhuman primates as reflections of the lifeway patterns of early human society.Ó (Collinge p. 3) Our ultimate goal through this study is to gain insight and further understanding into the nature of human nature by comparing human social behaviors with those of two other nonhuman primate groups. To avoid the biases of past research studies, we are observing three very diverse primate populations: the Japanese Macaques at the Cincinnati Zoo, the Bonobos at the Cincinnati Zoo, and a class of kindergarten students at Miami UniversityÕs Child Development Center. Contrary to the previous research studies that employed only the knowledge of early human society to decode the mysteries of observed nonhuman primate behaviors, we are instead examining the social behaviors of these three primates in lieu of their common ancestors, and attempting to decode the mysteries of innate human behaviors.
Including research and results from all three primate group observations, this study addresses several fundamental issues of human nature. It not only asks questions of violence as a part of human and primate nature, but also challenges the more general prevalence of societal teachings concerning all kinds of physical interactions. ÒIt is proper to ask whether concepts and methods devised from the study of non-human species could be useful also in the human case. Our capacities for cognitive functioning, particularly for language, introduce new dimensions into behavior, including cultural diversity of a different order from that encountered among other animals.Ó (Hinde p.334). We are looking for procedures that are involved in individual interactions, including protocol for grooming among the non-human primates. We believe that these procedures among our evolutionary relatives and the interactions that are taught among children will draw us to some conclusions about societyÕs messages on physical contact.
We plan to accomplish frequent observations and record patterns in all three of the primate groups. We will be looking for behaviors and protocols of dominance, including male over female, as well as dominance within each sex. ÒObservational studies have revealed that high-ranking females are not born dominant but rather acquire the rank of their family through various social processes that are progressively better understood. Females receive support from their relatives and from unrelated females in their conflicts with lower-ranking females,Ó (Asquith p. 254). Once we have accumulated all of our data, our goal is to be able to draw intelligent conclusions about each groupÕs acceptability of different types of physical interactions that will hopefully support our hypotheses, and gain more information about society and human nature.
The major question we will be addressing in this study is: Which primate group, Bonobos, Japanese Macaques, or human children, will have the most frequent, most aggressive physical interactions? Will gender play a major role in the determination of aggressive or peaceful interactions? Our hypothesis is that the non-human primate groups, the Bonobos and Japanese Macaques, will have more frequent physical interactions than the children. This hypothesis is constructed based on the human social practices that teach children to Òkeep their hands to themselves.Ó Therefore it is possible that their physical interactions will be more violent when they do occur, considering violence is a common outlet of aggression. Violence is often a display of aggression among nonhuman primates as well, but we believe that it manifests itself in the form of a decipherable pattern or procedure. We are also observing the sexes of the individuals and the nature of the interactions that occur between the sexes, whether they are aggressive or peaceful.
According to studies done by Mary McDonald Pavelka on Japanese Macaques, ÒMale social success Ð which translates into a system of support which translates into high rank Ð does have a tendency to improve with age and experience.Ó (Pavelka p. 38) Based on this theory and the fact that the males tend to travel and move off as they grow into adulthood, we predict that the older males in captivity at the zoo will be more independent and tend towards more aggressive behavior with other males. Similarly, we predict that the females will have more affectionate interactions overall as one experiment that we researched states: ÒIt is apparent that females are the major groomers, since 88.7% (4,021 bouts) of all social grooming were performed by females,Ó (Asquith, 215). As far as relationships between males and females, because we are beginning our observations in the spring, we hypothesize that we will see aggressive, but non-violent behavior. ÒChasing behavior of males towards females increases dramatically during mating season.Ó (Pavelka p. 107)
Predictions for the Bonobos are a bit different because of what our research has revealed. ÒOne important element characterizing the relationship between adult males is aggressive interactions. Adult males have the highest frequency of aggressive interactions, relative to associations between members of other age-sex classes.Ó (Kano p. 176) Based on this study, we hypothesize that any males kept in the exhibit simultaneously will tend towards more aggressive interactions, with one the dominant and the other submissive. ÒThe pattern of antagonistic behavior between females strongly suggests that dominant-subordinate relationships (or the rank system) are underdeveloped in females compared to males. In general, relations between females are peaceful.Ó (Kano p. 190) Similar to our predictions with the Japanese Macaques, we think that the female bonobos will be more peaceful, though there interactions may be somewhat limited. The same study indicates that, ÒThe frequency of grooming between males and females is extremely high.Ó (Kano p. 186) Accordingly, our prediction is that the males and females will tend towards more affectionate behaviors, and only resort to violence if food is involved.
ÒProbably as a result of the most temperamental differences, boys and girls, like monkey and baboon youngsters, tend to play with others of the same sex Ð from the first moment where such a choice is possible,Ó (Freedman p. 267). Incorporating FreedmanÕs research into our own personal experiences, we hypothesize that the female human children will be more peaceful amongst themselves, but will occasionally experience aggressive interactions with the males. We also predict that the young males will show mildly aggressive behavior towards each other on occasion, and a little less often towards the females as an assertion of dominance.
III. Materials and Methods
This is an observation-based project. The data is collected in ten minute intervals, with a different observation sheet devoted to each. Our major materials for each observational visit will be pens, our observation sheets, a watch to keep track of the ten-minute intervals, and our eyes. On most days we will try to have a camera with us as well to document any unusual behavior. Once the data is collected from all three primate groups we will enter it into the Statview computer program and determine whether our numbers are significant or not. This program will protect our data from miscalculation errors and ensure that the results are accurate.
The primary inspiration for our research design was J.D. Paterson, author of Primate Behavior. This book was also an exercise workbook intended to aid in the construction of primate studies like this one. We are using PatersonÕs method of ÒOne-zero samplingÓ to measure our sampling intervals during our observations. One-zero sampling is designed so that if a specific behavior occurs during the interval, it is recorded as Òone,Ó and if it does not occur, a record of ÒzeroÓ is entered. This is a crucial concept to our observations because we are quantifying the number of touches and physical interactions among the primates, and if they are carried on for an extensive amount of time, for example in the case of Japanese Macaque huddling, we would have no way of noting the continuation.
Another of PatersonÕs suggestions we used was for the design of our observation chart. He placed a sample chart in his book that was a great inspiration to us, as it included multiple study groups, and many different observed traits that were divided into segments based on the nature of the contact. Our observation chart contains the general guidelines for our observations at the zoo and the child development center. The list on the left-hand side are the behaviors that we will be specifically looking for during our observations, and the row along the top indicates where we will mark whether the behavioral interaction was between a male and another male, a male and a female, or a female and another female. The list on the left-hand side is divided into three different categories classifying the nature of the physical contact. The two different male to female options allow specification as to which sex was the instigator of the contact, and which was the receiver. We made the observation chart as appropriate as possible for our observations of both the human and nonhuman primates so that the results would be as regulated as possible, however some of the behaviors will most likely not be applicable for each and every primate. The bottom of the page has space for additional observations in case we note something that is not on the behavior list, or just if we feel the need to expand on another observation. At the top of each page we will note which primate group we are observing, the time of day, and the current weather conditions. The observation chart will draw attention to unusual behaviors, and promote regularity in our observations among primate groups.
The final way J.D. Paterson inspired our presentation was in his Òfixed format schedules.Ó ÒThe planning of such a schedule (fixed format) must take into allowance such factors as the climatic conditions, the availability of the subjects, and the requirements of the research design.Ó (Paterson p. 26) On a warm day for example, if the sun is out, the primates might behave differently or be more prone to one type of physical interaction than if it were cold and rainy outside. By including temperature, weather conditions, and time of day, we can ensure unbiased results, because we will know the circumstances of each incriminating factor.
Timeline for Research:
The expected dates for our visits to the zoo are as follows: April 4th, 10th, and 17th. We will hold our observations between the hours of noon and four p.m., spending two hours at each primate habitat. Hours spent at the child development center on Western drive are scheduled April 5th Ð April 8th. We will spend a total of six hours with each primate group. We plan to meet as a team at least a few times during the week even when we are not doing our observations to review our data and begin trying to make sense of it all. Once our observations are completed we will analyze our data and plug it in to statview to determine whether our results are significant or not. We will then include graphs, charts, and further discussion and interpretations of our conclusions with the final report.

IV. Results
According to our graph, ÒDistributions Species Ð total aggressiveÓ 73.4% of the total physical interactions that we observed were performed by the human children. The Japanese macaques and bonobos had 15.6% and 10.9%, respectively. ÒOneway Analysis of Total Aggressive by Species,Ó with a Prob > F of <.0001, shows that the differences between the primate groups, with respect to aggressive interactions, was significant as it is less than .05. ÒOneway Analysis of Aggressive per Individual by SpeciesÓ takes into account the differences in population data by dividing each groupÕs total aggressive interactions by the number of individuals within the group (i.e. for bonobos we divided by three, 10 for Japanese macaques, and 12 for humans). The data is significant with Prob > F = 0.0026. ÒDistributions Species Ð total peacefulÓ shows the total peaceful interactions according to species. Japanese macaques have the highest percentage of peaceful interactions with 45.1%, bonobos 25.6% and humans 29.2%. ÒOneway Analysis of Total Peaceful by SpeciesÓ shows that the data for peaceful interactions is also significant, Prob > F = 0.0003. ÒOneway Analysis of Peaceful per Individual by SpeciesÓ involves the same divisions of the species groups by their respective number of individuals. In this case, the bonobos are shown to have the more peaceful interactions, followed by Japanese macaques, and then humans. For interactions that were classified as neither aggressive nor peaceful, or both aggressive and peaceful, ÒDistributions Species Ð total otherÓ shows 62.1% humans, 23.2% Japanese macaques, and 14.7 bonobos. However, ÒDistributions Species Ð other per individual,Ó again involving the division by number of individuals, showed Japanese macaques at 12%, bonobos at 52% and humans at 36% of the total peaceful interactions. ÒOneway Analysis of Total Other by SpeciesÓ shows a very significant, Prob > F<.0001 for this data.
We also collected data according to the sex of the animal, including four different categories of classification: male to male, female to female, male to female, and female to male, this was determined by the sex of the animal that we observed to have initiated the interaction. ÒOneway Analysis of M-M Aggressive By SpeciesÓ shows more aggressive male to male interactions among humans, than of either bonobos or Japanese macaques, where Prob > F<.0001. Female to female interactions involving bonobos have insufficient data, however ÒOneway Analysis of F-F Aggressive By SpeciesÓ shows a significant difference between female to female aggressive interactions among Japanese macaques and humans, where human interactions are more frequent, Prob > F = 0.0383. Male to female aggressive differences across species are insignificant, yet female to male aggressive interactions are significant according to ÒOneway Analysis of F-M Aggressive By SpeciesÓ Prob > F = 0.0127, humans have the highest, followed by bonobos and then Japanese macaques. Results for peaceful interactions between sexes follow similar trends. Our data on male to male peaceful interactions shows that humans have the most, followed by bonobos and then Japanese macaques, ÒOneway Analysis of M-M Peaceful by Species.Ó However, peaceful interactions among females according to ÒOneway Analysis of F-F Peaceful By SpeciesÓ shows that Japanese macaque females actually have the highest number of peaceful interactions, where humans are second and bonobos last (although due to insufficient data). Prob > F<.0001. Within the male to male peaceful interactions of ÒOneway Analysis of M-M Peaceful by SpeciesÓ Japanese macaques have a mean score of 0.08333, as compared to the female macaques of ÒOneway Analysis of F-F Peaceful by SpeciesÓ with a staggering mean score of 4.66667. Humans have the least male to female peaceful interactions, as well as female to male, according to ÒOneway Analysis of M-F Peaceful by Species,Ó and ÒOneway Analysis of F-M Peaceful by Species.Ó Interactions between the sexes that could not be classified as aggressive or peaceful, or were classified as both followed the trend of the overall data for other behaviors for each species.
V. Discussion & Conclusions
The data overall supported our hypothesis that humans would have the most aggressive physical interactions. However, we also hypothesized that they would have fewer interactions overall and therefore fewer peaceful interactions as a result of learned boundaries during social development. The section of our data that did not support this part of our hypothesis was the interactions we classified as ÒOther,Ó a category for which we noted more interactions for the humans than the other two species of primates. These kinds of interactions involved chasing and following, among other things, and we noted that the human childrenÕs games often involved some sort of chasing or following, that although not technically aggressive, was often a sign of one individualÕs dominance over the other, depending on who was doing the chasing. As an example, the chasing itself was quite complex, we occasionally noted that one male would instruct the others to chase him, displaying his role as a leader. Another form of chasing involved a male making a face, growling and/or raising his hands threateningly to a female or another male and chasing, displaying his own dominance, or perhaps an innocent game. The humans were a complex group, for which we observed many more aspects than we were able to include in our study. Those interested in our study might take note of the observations we made that the adult (and all female) teachers of the Child Development Center, or Mini University, tended to punish or reprimand the boys more often than the girls. Also, as our study involved interaction between peers, it seemed inappropriate to included physical interactions between adults and children within the other data without making some kind of differentiation, as they have different motivations and connotations, therefore it was not included in our raw data. We did however make note when the teachers would hold the children, and believe that the tendency was more towards physical interactions with the girls, such as the girls being carried (more often among the younger girls) or being allowed to sit in the teacherÕs lap. A tendency that, had we known this before, might have changed the thinking in our hypothesis, in which we considered that children are discouraged from unnecessarily touching one another. A more in-depth study would involve socialization, not only with regards to each other, but what children are taught about what is appropriate between themselves and adults.
Our methods specify that we take the behaviors strictly from ten minute intervals. We realize that certain activities, such as grooming may carry over between intervals, but since our technique will be the same for each primate group, the data will be uniform. One factor that we could not control however was the number of individuals for each population, especially in the case of the bonobos which unfortunately only included one female, making some of our sex-specific data lacking for that species. Our consolation in this case was that we were still able to compare the Japanese macaques to humans. Inversely, there were only two male Japanese macaques, making male to male data for this group not impossible, but not as conclusive as it might otherwise be. One of the most surprising finds we made was that of the disparity between male to male and female to female peaceful interactions among Japanese macaques. This may be due to the small number of males in this population, as again, there are only two. Perhaps we simply observed more female peaceful interactions because there are more females to interact with each other. There was not the same difference, however, between the male to male aggressive interactions and the female to female aggressive interactions. The peaceful behavior of grooming was abundant among the Japanese macaques, and there are studies that support that it is through grooming that they, especially the females, determine the dominant members of the group.
We also made special note of the weather/temperature conditions in the three separate habitats. The bonobos were kept in an indoor habitat, whereas the Japanese macaques have their own outdoor island (with a waterfall and plenty of rocks with shading places, which were where they mostly chose to congregate). The human children on the other hand were observed both indoors and outdoors equally. During our preliminary observations, those that were not included in our data, we noticed that the Japanese macaques tended to have more peaceful physically interactions, such as grooming and huddling, than during our later observations when the weather was much nicer and warmer, and they were more active, if not as physically interactive. Given more time, a change of season, and the ability to select different locations of observation for each individual group, this could be another aspect of our study to explore further.
Future studies interested in comparing human and nonhuman primate groups should strive for an environment or opportunity conducive to equal numbers of total individuals as well as equal representatives of both sexes. This was not as serious a concern for our study, as our question and hypothesis dealt primarily with over-all aggression compared between species, more so than between sexes of each group. However, it was our policy from very early in our observations to record interesting behaviors, whether they pertained directly or not, so as not to limit the information we were able to take from this study, and perhaps inspire and encourage future research to explore the issues and questions we have raised.

Distributions
Species Ð total aggressive

Frequencies
Level Count Prob
Japanese macaques 30 0.15625
bonobos 21 0.10938
humans 141 0.73438
Total 192 1.00000
Distributions
Species Ð aggressive per individual

Frequencies
Level Count Prob
Japanese macaques 0 0.00000
bonobos 3 0.75000
humans 1 0.25000
Total 4 1.00000
Oneway Analysis of Total Aggressive By Species

Oneway Anova
Summary of Fit

Rsquare 0.348223
Adj Rsquare 0.335808
Root Mean Square Error 2.103285
Mean of Response 1.777778
Observations (or Sum Wgts) 108
Analysis of Variance
Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Ratio Prob > F
Species 2 248.16667 124.083 28.0490 <.0001
Error 105 464.50000 4.424
C. Total 107 712.66667
Means for Oneway Anova
Level Number Mean Std Error Lower 95% Upper 95%
Japanese macaques 36 0.83333 0.35055 0.138 1.5284
bonobos 36 0.58333 0.35055 -0.112 1.2784
humans 36 3.91667 0.35055 3.222 4.6117
Std Error uses a pooled estimate of error variance

Oneway Analysis of Aggressive Per Individual By Species

Oneway Anova
Summary of Fit

Rsquare 0.107992
Adj Rsquare 0.090838
Root Mean Square Error 0.290689
Mean of Response 0.203271
Observations (or Sum Wgts) 107
Analysis of Variance
Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Ratio Prob > F
Species 2 1.0639246 0.531962 6.2954 0.0026
Error 104 8.7879861 0.084500
C. Total 106 9.8519107
Means for Oneway Anova
Level Number Mean Std Error Lower 95% Upper 95%
Japanese macaques 36 0.083333 0.04845 -0.0127 0.17941
bonobos 35 0.200000 0.04914 0.1026 0.29744
humans 36 0.326389 0.04845 0.2303 0.42246
Std Error uses a pooled estimate of error variance
Oneway Analysis of M-M Aggressive By Species

Oneway Anova
Summary of Fit

Rsquare 0.226114
Adj Rsquare 0.211373
Root Mean Square Error 2.00337
Mean of Response 0.935185
Observations (or Sum Wgts) 108
Analysis of Variance
Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Ratio Prob > F
Species 2 123.12963 61.5648 15.3395 <.0001
Error 105 421.41667 4.0135
C. Total 107 544.54630
Means for Oneway Anova
Level Number Mean Std Error Lower 95% Upper 95%
Japanese macaques 36 0.13889 0.33390 -0.523 0.8009
bonobos 36 0.22222 0.33390 -0.440 0.8843
humans 36 2.44444 0.33390 1.782 3.1065
Std Error uses a pooled estimate of error variance
Oneway Analysis of F-F Aggressive By Species

Oneway Anova
Summary of Fit

Rsquare 0.060247
Adj Rsquare 0.042347
Root Mean Square Error 0.709534
Mean of Response 0.25
Observations (or Sum Wgts) 108
Analysis of Variance
Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Ratio Prob > F
Species 2 3.388889 1.69444 3.3657 0.0383
Error 105 52.861111 0.50344
C. Total 107 56.250000
Means for Oneway Anova
Level Number Mean Std Error Lower 95% Upper 95%
Japanese macaques 36 0.361111 0.11826 0.1266 0.59559
bonobos 36 0.000000 0.11826 -0.2345 0.23448
humans 36 0.388889 0.11826 0.1544 0.62337
Std Error uses a pooled estimate of error variance
Oneway Analysis of M-F Aggressive By Species

Oneway Anova
Summary of Fit

Rsquare 0.043945
Adj Rsquare 0.025734
Root Mean Square Error 0.69807
Mean of Response 0.203704
Observations (or Sum Wgts) 108
Analysis of Variance
Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Ratio Prob > F
Species 2 2.351852 1.17593 2.4131 0.0945
Error 105 51.166667 0.48730
C. Total 107 53.518519
Means for Oneway Anova
Level Number Mean Std Error Lower 95% Upper 95%
Japanese macaques 36 0.194444 0.11634 -0.0362 0.42514
bonobos 36 0.027778 0.11634 -0.2029 0.25847
humans 36 0.388889 0.11634 0.1582 0.61958
Std Error uses a pooled estimate of error variance
Oneway Analysis of F-M Aggressive By Species

Oneway Anova
Summary of Fit

Rsquare 0.079845
Adj Rsquare 0.062318
Root Mean Square Error 0.792491
Mean of Response 0.388889
Observations (or Sum Wgts) 108
Analysis of Variance
Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Ratio Prob > F
Species 2 5.722222 2.86111 4.5556 0.0127
Error 105 65.944444 0.62804
C. Total 107 71.666667
Means for Oneway Anova
Level Number Mean Std Error Lower 95% Upper 95%
Japanese macaques 36 0.138889 0.13208 -0.1230 0.40078
bonobos 36 0.333333 0.13208 0.0714 0.59523
humans 36 0.694444 0.13208 0.4326 0.95634
Std Error uses a pooled estimate of error variance

Distributions
Species Ð total peaceful

Frequencies
Level Count Prob
Japanese macaques 264 0.45128
bonobos 150 0.25641
humans 171 0.29231
Total 585 1.00000

Oneway Analysis of Total Peaceful By Species

Oneway Anova
Summary of Fit

Rsquare 0.142187
Adj Rsquare 0.125847
Root Mean Square Error 3.427827
Mean of Response 5.416667
Observations (or Sum Wgts) 108
Analysis of Variance
Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Ratio Prob > F
Species 2 204.5000 102.250 8.7021 0.0003
Error 105 1233.7500 11.750
C. Total 107 1438.2500
Means for Oneway Anova
Level Number Mean Std Error Lower 95% Upper 95%
Japanese macaques 36 7.33333 0.57130 6.2005 8.4661
bonobos 36 4.16667 0.57130 3.0339 5.2995
humans 36 4.75000 0.57130 3.6172 5.8828
Std Error uses a pooled estimate of error variance
Oneway Analysis of Peaceful per Individual By Species

Oneway Anova
Summary of Fit

Rsquare 0.24963
Adj Rsquare 0.235337
Root Mean Square Error 0.724946
Mean of Response 0.839352
Observations (or Sum Wgts) 108
Analysis of Variance
Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Ratio Prob > F
Species 2 18.357824 9.17891 17.4654 <.0001
Error 105 55.182431 0.52555
C. Total 107 73.540255
Means for Oneway Anova
Level Number Mean Std Error Lower 95% Upper 95%
Japanese macaques 36 0.73333 0.12082 0.4938 0.9729
bonobos 36 1.38889 0.12082 1.1493 1.6285
humans 36 0.39583 0.12082 0.1563 0.6354
Std Error uses a pooled estimate of error variance
Distributions
Species Ð peaceful per individual

Frequencies
Level Count Prob
Japanese macaques 8 0.16327
bonobos 39 0.79592
humans 2 0.04082
Total 49 1.00000

Oneway Analysis of M-M Peaceful By Species

Oneway Anova
Summary of Fit

Rsquare 0.202667
Adj Rsquare 0.18748
Root Mean Square Error 1.548766
Mean of Response 1.101852
Observations (or Sum Wgts) 108
Analysis of Variance
Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Ratio Prob > F
Species 2 64.01852 32.0093 13.3445 <.0001
Error 105 251.86111 2.3987
C. Total 107 315.87963
Means for Oneway Anova
Level Number Mean Std Error Lower 95% Upper 95%
Japanese macaques 36 0.08333 0.25813 -0.428 0.5952
bonobos 36 1.27778 0.25813 0.766 1.7896
humans 36 1.94444 0.25813 1.433 2.4563
Std Error uses a pooled estimate of error variance

Oneway Analysis of F-F Peaceful By Species

Oneway Anova
Summary of Fit

Rsquare 0.510931
Adj Rsquare 0.501616
Root Mean Square Error 1.918098
Mean of Response 2.101852
Observations (or Sum Wgts) 108
Analysis of Variance
Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Ratio Prob > F
Species 2 403.57407 201.787 54.8468 <.0001
Error 105 386.30556 3.679
C. Total 107 789.87963
Means for Oneway Anova
Level Number Mean Std Error Lower 95% Upper 95%
Japanese macaques 36 4.66667 0.31968 4.033 5.3005
bonobos 36 0.00000 0.31968 -0.634 0.6339
humans 36 1.63889 0.31968 1.005 2.2728
Std Error uses a pooled estimate of error variance

Oneway Analysis of M-F Peaceful By Species

Oneway Anova
Summary of Fit

Rsquare 0.02453
Adj Rsquare 0.00595
Root Mean Square Error 1.289251
Mean of Response 0.972222
Observations (or Sum Wgts) 108
Analysis of Variance
Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Ratio Prob > F
Species 2 4.38889 2.19444 1.3202 0.2715
Error 105 174.52778 1.66217
C. Total 107 178.91667
Means for Oneway Anova
Level Number Mean Std Error Lower 95% Upper 95%
Japanese macaques 36 1.05556 0.21488 0.62950 1.4816
bonobos 36 1.16667 0.21488 0.74061 1.5927
humans 36 0.69444 0.21488 0.26839 1.1205
Std Error uses a pooled estimate of error variance
Oneway Analysis of F-M Peaceful By Species

Oneway Anova
Summary of Fit

Rsquare 0.117282
Adj Rsquare 0.100469
Root Mean Square Error 1.528045
Mean of Response 1.240741
Observations (or Sum Wgts) 108
Analysis of Variance
Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Ratio Prob > F
Species 2 32.57407 16.2870 6.9754 0.0014
Error 105 245.16667 2.3349
C. Total 107 277.74074
Means for Oneway Anova
Level Number Mean Std Error Lower 95% Upper 95%
Japanese macaques 36 1.52778 0.25467 1.023 2.0327
bonobos 36 1.72222 0.25467 1.217 2.2272
humans 36 0.47222 0.25467 -0.033 0.9772
Std Error uses a pooled estimate of error variance

Distributions
Species Ð total other

Frequencies
Level Count Prob
Japanese macaques 95 0.23227
bonobos 60 0.14670
humans 254 0.62103
Total 409 1.00000
Distributions
Species Ð other per individual

Frequencies
Level Count Prob
Japanese macaques 3 0.12000
bonobos 13 0.52000
humans 9 0.36000
Total 25 1.00000
Oneway Analysis of Total Other By Species

Oneway Anova
Summary of Fit

Rsquare 0.254885
Adj Rsquare 0.240692
Root Mean Square Error 4.066348
Mean of Response 3.787037
Observations (or Sum Wgts) 108
Analysis of Variance
Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Ratio Prob > F
Species 2 593.9074 296.954 17.9589 <.0001
Error 105 1736.1944 16.535
C. Total 107 2330.1019
Means for Oneway Anova
Level Number Mean Std Error Lower 95% Upper 95%
Japanese macaques 36 2.63889 0.67772 1.2951 3.9827
bonobos 36 1.66667 0.67772 0.3229 3.0105
humans 36 7.05556 0.67772 5.7118 8.3994
Std Error uses a pooled estimate of error variance

Oneway Analysis of Other Per Individual By Species

Oneway Anova
Summary of Fit

Rsquare 0.073164
Adj Rsquare 0.05551
Root Mean Square Error 0.526052
Mean of Response 0.469136
Observations (or Sum Wgts) 108
Analysis of Variance
Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Ratio Prob > F
Species 2 2.293724 1.14686 4.1443 0.0185
Error 105 29.056728 0.27673
C. Total 107 31.350453
Means for Oneway Anova
Level Number Mean Std Error Lower 95% Upper 95%
Japanese macaques 36 0.263889 0.08768 0.09004 0.43773
bonobos 36 0.555556 0.08768 0.38171 0.72940
humans 36 0.587963 0.08768 0.41412 0.76181
Std Error uses a pooled estimate of error variance