Abstract
Contact directed by uninvolved bystanders toward others in distress, often termed consolation, is uncommon in the animal kingdom, thus far only demonstrated in the great apes, canines, and corvids. Whereas the typical agonistic context of such contact is relatively rare within natural elephant families, other causes of distress may trigger similar, other-regarding responses. In a study carried out at an elephant camp in Thailand, we found that elephants affiliated significantly more with other individuals through directed, physical contact and vocal communication following a distress event than in control periods. In addition, bystanders affiliated with each other, and matched the behavior and emotional state of the first distressed individual, suggesting emotional contagion. The initial distress responses were overwhelmingly directed toward ambiguous stimuli, thus making it difficult to determine if bystanders reacted to the distressed individual or showed a delayed response to the same stimulus. Nonetheless, the directionality of the contacts and their nature strongly suggest attention toward the emotional states of conspecifics. The elephants’ behavior is therefore best classified with similar consolation responses by apes, possibly based on convergent evolution of empathic capacities.
Highlights
Most empirical evidence for how animals react to others in distress comes from the study of conflict resolution
Peacekeeping mechanisms have evolved to manage conflict in animal societies, including reconciliation and consolation
The two most prevalent types of physical contact given by bystanders were trunk touches to another individual’s genitals (38.6% of touches), and trunk touches around or inside another’s mouth (35.1%; Fig. 3). (b) Vocal affiliation following distress Because elephants primarily use acoustic modalities for communication (e.g., Poole, 1996; Payne, 2003; Nair et al, 2009; de Silva, 2010), we looked at bystanders’ vocalizations in response to distressed individuals
Summary
Most empirical evidence for how animals react to others in distress comes from the study of conflict resolution (de Waal & van Roosmalen, 1979; de Waal & Aureli, 1996; de Waal, 2000). We recognize that our inability to identify a clear stimulus for each distress event makes it difficult to differentiate between cases where individuals are reacting directly to the stimulus or to another elephant’s distress Because of this, it is unclear if all or most cases of affiliative contact can be classified as ‘‘consolation’’ in the way this label is used in other post-conflict studies (e.g., Call, Aureli & de Waal, 2002; Preston & de Waal, 2002; Koski & Sterck, 2007 ; Seed, Clayton & Emery, 2007 ; Cools, van Hout & Nelissen, 2008; Fraser, Stahl & Aureli, 2008; Koole, 2009; Koski & Sterck, 2009; Fraser & Bugnyar, 2010; Romero, Castellanos & de Waal, 2011). We predicted that bystanders to distress would make physical or vocal contact with one another, in addition to, or instead of contact with the first stressed individual
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
