Veenema H C, Das M, Aureli F
Department of Ethology and Socio-ecology, University of Utrecht, P.O. Box 80086, 3508 TB Utrecht, theNetherlands.
Behav Processes. 1994 Feb;31(1):29-37. doi: 10.1016/0376-6357(94)90035-3.
The present paper suggests methodological improvements for the study of reconciliation, i.e. affiliative interactions between former opponents shortly after agonistic conflicts. Three methods have been suggested to determine whether post-conflict affiliation between former opponents is higher than what would be expected by chance. Two of these methods may fail to find this higher level when the analyses are based on long-lasting observations. The third method, however, solves this potential shortcoming by identifying the 'relevant' duration of the observations to be considered. We also emphasize the importance of distinguishing post-conflict affiliative interactions on the basis of their timing following a conflict in order to examine their conciliatory functions. Finally we suggest a correction of the conciliatory tendency, a measure used to compare the frequency of reconciliation between dyads of individuals that may have different baseline levels of affiliation. A comparison between the original measure and the corrected one shows that only the latter is independent of the baseline level of affiliation and is, therefore, more suitable for the study of intra- and inter-specific differences in the frequency of reconciliation.
本文提出了研究和解（即敌对冲突后不久前对手之间的亲和互动）的方法改进。已提出三种方法来确定前对手之间冲突后的亲和度是否高于随机预期。当分析基于长期观察时，其中两种方法可能无法发现这种更高水平。然而，第三种方法通过确定要考虑的观察的“相关”持续时间解决了这一潜在缺点。我们还强调了根据冲突后的时间区分冲突后亲和互动的重要性，以便研究它们的和解功能。最后，我们建议对和解倾向进行修正，这是一种用于比较可能具有不同亲和基线水平的个体二元组之间和解频率的度量。原始度量与修正度量之间的比较表明，只有后者与亲和基线水平无关，因此更适合研究种内和种间和解频率的差异。
