Assessing joint commitment as a process in great apes

•Great apes exchange signals and gaze before entering exiting joint actions•Joint action structure of both ape species resembles that humans•Coordinated phases indicate an underlying commitment•Social bonds affect more in bonobos than chimpanzees Many social animals interact jointly, but only humans experience a specific sense obligation toward their co-participants, commitment. However, commitment is not mental state also process reveals itself the coordination efforts deployed during entry exit action. Here, we investigated presence duration such N = 1,242 natural play grooming interactions captive bonobos. The frequently exchanged mutual communicative prior to after engaging activities with conspecifics, demonstrating comparable those human activities. Although rank effects were less clear, moderated by friendship compared chimpanzees, suggesting likely reflect patterns analogous “face management”. This suggests as was already present our last common ancestor Pan. animal engage cooperative activities, which sometimes require participants coordinate actions (Boesch, 2002Boesch C. Cooperative hunting roles among Taï chimpanzees.Hum. Nat. 2002; 13: 27-46Crossref PubMed Scopus (150) Google Scholar; Holekamp et al., 2007Holekamp K.E. Sakai S.T. Lundrigan B.L. spotted hyena (Crocuta crocuta) model system for study evolution intelligence.J. Mammal. 2007; 88: 545-554Crossref (39) MacNulty 2014MacNulty D.R. Tallian A. Stahler Smith D.W. Influence group size on success wolves bison.PLoS One. 2014; 9e112884Crossref (74) Pitman Durban, 2012Pitman R.L. Durban J.W. behavior, prey selectivity handling pack ice killer whales (Orcinus orca), type B, Antarctic Peninsula waters.Mar. Mammal Sci. 2012; 28: 16-36Crossref (89) Vail 2013Vail A.L. Manica Bshary R. Referential gestures fish collaborative hunting.Nat. Commun. 2013; 4: 1765Crossref (84) Scholar). Yet, evidence whether socio-cognitive abilities underpinning are still remains equivocal (Tomasello Moll, 2010Tomasello M. Moll H. gap social: shared intentionality culture.in: Kappeler P.M. Silk J.B. Mind Gap. Tracing Origins Human Universals. Springer, Berlin, Germany2010: 331-349Crossref (49) In humans, perform individual make them fit together part whole (Clark, 1996Clark H.H. Using Language. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK1996Crossref Successful relies predictive inferences about behavior other participants. fueled establishment, maintenance dissolution commitments 2006Clark Social actions, commitments.in: Enfield N.J. Levinson S.C. Roots Sociality: Culture, Cognition Interaction. Berg, Oxford, England2006: 126-150Google Joint entail high-level cooperation, notably (1) ability conceive one's co-participants intentional agents whose goal-directed, (2) proclivity share experiences. While former possessed nonhuman like great (Buttelmann 2012Buttelmann D. Schütte S. Carpenter Call J. Tomasello Great infer others’ goals based context.Anim. Cogn. 15: 1037-1053Crossref (28) 2004Call Hare B. “Unwilling” versus “unable”: chimpanzees’ understanding action.Dev. 2004; 7: 488-498Crossref (234) Scholar), latter seems unique 2017Buttelmann Buttelmann F. distinguish true from false beliefs interactive helping task.PLoS 2017; 12e0173793Crossref (61) see Krupenye 2016Krupenye Kano Hirata anticipate individuals will act according beliefs.Science. 2016; 354: 110-114Crossref Moore, 2020Moore cultural mind-modelling.Synthese. 2020; : 1-26PubMed Rakoczy, 2015Rakoczy Comparative metaphysics: development representing normative regularities non-human primates.Phenomenol. 2015; 14: 683-697Crossref (5) Tomasello, 2016Tomasello A Natural History Morality. Harvard MA2016Crossref Additionally, involve reciprocal partner. feeling presumably develops early children (Gräfenhain 2009Gräfenhain Behne T. Young children’s commitments.Dev. Psychol. 2009; 45: 1430-1443Crossref (109) Gräfenhain 2013Gräfenhain Three-year-olds’ consequences commitments.PLoS 8e73039Crossref (32) disputed (Warneken 2006Warneken Chen young chimpanzees.Child Dev. 2006; 77: 640-663Crossref (331) new Heesen 2020Heesen Bangerter Zuberbühler K. Iglesias Rossano Guéry J.P. Genty E. Bonobos commitment.Sci. Adv. 6eabd1306Crossref can be viewed product (Gilbert, 2017Gilbert commitment.in: Jankovic Ludwig Routledge Handbook Collective Intentionality. Routledge, New York2017: 130-139Crossref refers fulfill has been established. It visible humans' reluctance unilaterally abandon endeavors they have committed themselves to, or attempts re-engage partners who interrupt participation. When reneged on, feel unjustly treated, triggering emotions range mild irritation (when friend fails turn up lunch date) major turmoil fiancé at altar). necessary would-be arrive belief course where each his her play. For any spontaneous emerge, need be, what adopt, perform, when But do that, very possibility interacting together, creating participation framework encounter (Goffman, 1981aGoffman Erving Footing.in: Goffman Forms Talk. Pennsylvania Philadelphia, PA1981: 124-159Google Mondada, 2009Mondada L. Emergent focused public places: systematic analysis multimodal achievement interactional space.J. Pragmat. 41: 1977-1997Crossref (235) And once completed, gracefully disengaging (Albert Kessler, 1976Albert Kessler Processes ending encounters: conceptual archaeology temporal place.J. Theory Soc. Behav. 1976; 6: 147-170Crossref (33) Schegloff Sacks, 1973Schegloff E.A. Sacks Opening closings.Semiotica. 1973; 8: 289-327Crossref (2306) As result these processes, unfolds into three publicly recognizable phases: opening phase (establishing commitments), main body (performing proper) closing (disengaging encounter) comprises all coordinative enter interaction. typically recognition identification, often involves greeting rituals (Pillet-Shore, 2012Pillet-Shore Greeting: displaying stance through prosodic recipient design.Res. Lang. Interact. 375-398Crossref (41) Scholar, Pillet-Shore, 2018aPillet-Shore How begin.Res. 2018; 51: 213-231Crossref (16) 2018bPillet-Shore Arriving: Expanding personal sequence.Res. 232-247Crossref (9) Depending physical circumstances encounter, may look while physically far removed, mutually movement one another informative (Kendon, 1990Kendon Conducting Interaction: Patterns Behavior Focused Encounters. Cambridge1990Google At close range, build frameworks 1981bGoffman Blackwell, England1981Google Kendon, 1976Kendon F-formation system: spatial organization encounters.Man-environment Syst. 291-296Google establishing focus attention orientation other. Participants then establish nature content well it should take place transitions actual business initiated, e.g., taking first step waltz, proceeding topic agenda meeting, bite meal. get out completed. reach conviction ready end (Schegloff To avoid impression unilateral disengagement, explicit suggestions avoided. English, exchanges okay conventionally signal readiness. openly suggested, this justified appealing externally driven necessities (e.g., “I really go”) rather internal factors desire Once agree readiness express pleasure having other's company, project future encounters “see you next week”), finally leave (via expressions well-wishing “goodbye”) Broth 2013Broth Mondada Walking away: embodied activity closings mobile interaction.J. 47: 41-58Crossref (82) Clark French, 1981Clark French Telephone goodbyes.Lang. 1981; 10: 1-19Crossref Scholar) walking away). Besides linguistic expressions, display nonverbal behaviors delineate (Mondada, 2014Mondada Pointing, talk, bodies.in: Seyfeddinipur Gullberg From Gesture Conversation Visible Action Utterance: Essays Honor Adam Kendon. John Benjamins Publishing Company, Amsterdam/Philadelphia2014: 95-124Crossref (43) example, phase, orient bodies other, intention touch, hug kiss even start talking turning away partner, thus announcing upcoming interaction, negotiable until officially agreed upon (Broth Mutual particularly important regulate interaction displays availability Rossano, 2013aRossano Gaze conversation.in: Sidnell Stivers Analysis. Wiley-Blackwell, Malden, MA2013: 308-329Google switching turns between speaker- listener body, 1967Kendon Some functions gaze-direction interaction.Acta 1967; 26: 22-63Crossref way monitoring means eliciting behavioral responses continued engagement elicit nodding verbal feedback telling speaker might addressee moments story, Bavelas 2002Bavelas Coates Johnson Listener process: role gaze.J. 52: 566-580Crossref Goodwin, 1984Goodwin Notes story participation.in: Atkinson Heritage Structures Action. UK1984: 225-246Google simply mobilize response complete (e.g. pressure answer if produced, 2009Rossano Brown P. Gaze, questioning Analysis: Perspectives. UK2009: 187-249Crossref (106) 2010Stivers Mobilizing response.Res. 2010; 43: 3-31Crossref (403) sequences. Moreover, sustained participant presumed sequence would denote continue, withdrawal time possibly (Rossano, constitute dissolving reconstruct relationship such, performance actions. Like kind act, openings carry potential threatening partners' face (honor, reputation, stature), improperly performed misunderstandings affronts. Thus, calibrated key dimensions via acts politeness (Brown Levinson, 1987Brown Politeness: Universals Language Usage. Cambridge1987Crossref Politeness reduce threat interlocutor's face. strategies indirectness, emphasizing closeness relationship, minimizing imposition. Two distance (how other) power difference (the relative amount over visible, parameters greetings terms address contact. closings, strangers produce external justifications, statements, statements positive friends 1978Albert Ending encounters.J. Exp. 1978; 541-553Crossref (34) head-nodding looking (O’Leary Gallois, 1985O’Leary M.J. Gallois ten turns: sequencing friends’ strangers’ conversational findings.J. Nonverbal 1985; 9: 8-27Crossref (14) Power effort respect required recruit higher stature (Morand, 1996Morand D.A. Dominance, deference, egalitarianism organizational interaction: sociolinguistic politeness.Organ. 1996; 544-556Crossref Morand, 2000Morand power: empirical used superior± subordinate communication.J. Organ. 2000; 21: 235-248Crossref approach (until 1873, Thailand, approaching king court could done crawling hands knees, pain committing lèse-majesté). words, people politer status unfamiliar individuals, lower familiar individuals. So, peon) recruits king) around. socially distant partner never met before), opposed someone living same village). distinction opens avenues assessment extent exist humans. Indeed, current demonstrations exclusively Kachel 2019Kachel U. 3- 5-year-old adherence implicit 2019; 55: 80-88Crossref (12) MacLean Hare, 2013MacLean Spontaneous triadic (Pan paniscus) troglodytes).J. Comp. 127: 245-255Crossref (19) Pika Zuberbühler, 2008Pika games humans: intentionality?.Am. Primatol. 2008; 70: 207-210Crossref (26) Warneken logically product: established ground come ontogenetically product. learn others develop conduct (Hamann 2012Hamann Children’s developing goals.Child 83: 137-145Crossref goal article assess phylogenetically That is, arguably cooperation imbued norms, processes getting observable primate species, assessing prevalence components bracketing encounters. Unlike product, binary measure, offers continuous because many (Genty 2020Genty Guery actions: precursors intentionality?.Interact. Stud. 353-386Crossref 2017Heesen action: achievement.Learn. 390-405Crossref (15) yardstick gauging emergence forms particular, depend striking similarity behavior. aim explore bonobos, documenting how members naturally occurring conspecifics. We two several reasons. Being closest relatives, represent pivotal models reconstruction cognitive (Prüfer 2012Prüfer Munch Hellmann I. Akagi Miller J.R. Walenz Koren Sutton G. Kodira Winer al.The bonobo genome chimpanzee genomes.Nature. 486: 527-531Crossref (308) They offer interesting comparisons studying cognition due differences structure. Both live large complex societies, challenges, managing intra-group aggression (Kaburu 2013Kaburu S.S.K. Inoue Newton-Fisher N.E. Death alpha: within-community lethal violence Mahale Mountains National Park.Am. 75: 789-797Crossref (48) gaining access food reproductive (Surbeck 2012Surbeck Deschner Schubert Weltring Hohmann Mate competition, testosterone intersexual relationships Pan paniscus.Anim. 659-669Crossref securing support conflicts (Koyama 2006Koyama N.F. Caws Aureli Interchange agonistic chimpanzees.Int. 27: 1293-1309Crossref (55) Contrary despotic dominance hierarchies style documented egalitarian (Hare 2007Hare Melis A.P. Woods V. Hastings Wrangham Tolerance allows outperform task.Curr. Biol. 17: 619-623Abstract Full Text PDF (304) Jaeggi 2010Jaeggi A.V. Stevens J.M.G. Van Schaik C.P. Tolerant sharing reciprocity precluded despotism chimpanzees.Am. Phys. Anthropol. 143: 41-51Crossref (108) males obtain ranks mainly aggression, amicable females mother-son 2017Surbeck Girard-Buttoz Boesch Crockford Fruth Langergraber Wittig R.M. Mundry Sex-specific association cooperation.R. Open 161081Crossref (25) playful, adulthood (Palagi Paoli, 2007Palagi Paoli Play adult paniscus): modality meaning.Am. 134: 219-225Crossref (50) exhibit frequent sexual behaviors, same-sex partners, decoupled reproduction (Hohmann Fruth, 2000Hohmann Use function genital contacts female bonobos.Anim. 60: 107-120Crossref (123) highly socio-sexual promote tolerance (Moscovice 2019Moscovice L.R. Surbeck sex: linked increases oxytocin, proximity coalitions.Horm. 116: 104581Crossref (20) reconcile opponents conflicts, competition (see review Gruber Clay, 2016Gruber Clay Z. comparison chimpanzees: update.Evol. Issues News Rev. 25: 239-252Crossref (58) generally increased levels emotional skills (Herrmann 2010Herrmann Differences