static-content.springer.com10.1007... · Web viewRaja 0.95 H L F F A S Raja Dokana 0.89 L L F F S A Capuchin monkeys Pedro Robiola 0.56 H L M F A A Pedro Rucola 0.65 H L M F A A Penelope

TABLE S1.INFORMATION ON SUBJECTS AND PARTNERS IN EACH DYAD.

SPECIES SUBJECT PARTNERSOCIAL TOLERANCE

SUBJECT RANK

PARTNER RANK

SUBJECT SEX

PARTNER SEX

SUBJECT AGE

PARTNER AGE

Chimpanzees

Alex Alexandra 0.95 L M M F S SFifi Jahaga 1.00 H H F F A AFrodo Lome 1.00 H M M M A SFrodo Pia 0.92 H L M F A SFrodo Sandra 0.86 H L M F A ALome Sandra 0.86 H L M F S APia Lome 0.98 L M F M S SPia Sandra 0.79 L L F F S ATrudi Fifi 1.00 M H F F A ATrudi Jahaga 1.00 M H F F A A

Bonobos

Jasongo Kuno - L M M M A ALuisa Ulindi - H H F F S ALuisa Yasa - H M F F S AYasa Ulindi - M H F F A A

Gorillas

Gorgo Kibara 0.69 H M M F A SGorgo Louna 0.97 H L M F A SGorgo Viringika 0.00 H H M F A AKibara Louna 0.69 M L F F S SKibara Viringika 0.00 M H F F S ALouna Viringika 0.00 L H F F S A

Orangutans

Bimbo Dokana 0.93 H L M F A ABimbo Raja 0.64 H L M F A SPini Bimbo 0.95 H H F M A APini Dokana 0.97 H L F F A APini Raja 0.95 H L F F A SRaja Dokana 0.89 L L F F S A

Capuchin monkeys

Pedro Robiola 0.56 H L M F A APedro Rucola 0.65 H L M F A APenelope Pedro 0.39 M H F M A ARobinHood Pedro 0.41 H H M M A ARobinHood Robiola 0.69 H L M F A ARobinHood Rucola 0.56 H L M F A ARobinia Robot 0.39 L H F M A ARobiola Rucola 0.58 L L F F A A

Spider monkeys

Capoccetta RombaGrande 0.48 M L F F S SCapoccetta Salomon 0.47 M H F M S AChavito Capoccetta 0.41 H M M F A SChavito Coco 0.00 H H M M A AChavito RombaGrande 0.28 H L M F A SCoco Capoccetta 0.54 H M M F A SCoco RombaGrande 0.00 H L M F A SPeloBlanco Salomon - M H F M A ARombaGrande Salomon 0.36 L H F M S ASalomon Chavito 0.43 H H M M A ASalomon Coco 0.00 H H M M A ASalomon RombaPequena 0.49 H L M F A S

For each species, we included each tested dyad (Subject and Partner), their mean social tolerance

levels (i.e., mean proportion of time spent drinking simultaneously with the partner on the time spent

drinking), the Subject and Partner’s rank (High, Middle or Low), sex (Female or Male), and age class

(Subadult or Adult).

TABLE S2.FOR EACH SUBJECT, PROPORTION OF TRIALS IN WHICH THE

SUBJECTS PULLED IN THE EXPERIMENTAL AND CONTROL CONDITION,

ACROSS THE FIRST THREE SESSIONS AND ACROSS ALL 10 SESSIONS

(EXCLUDING CAPUCHIN MONKEYS).

SPECIES SUBJECT EXPERIMENTAL (3 sessions)

CONTROL (3 sessions)

EXPERIMENTAL (10 sessions)

CONTROL (10 sessions)

Chimpanzees

Alex 0 0.278 0 0.083Alexandra 0 0 0 0Fifi 0.722 0.528 0.550 0.508Frodo 0.074 0 0.033 0Jahaga 0.639 0.750 0.825 0.792Lome 0.704 0.630 0.789 0.661Pia 0.167 0.019 0.054 0.006Sandra 0 0 0 0Trudi 0.389 0.611 0.200 0.342

Bonobos

Jasongo 0 0 0 0Kuno 0 0 0.083 0Luisa 0.083 0.028 0.042 0.025Ulindi 0.028 0.056 0.008 0.017Yasa 0 0 0 0

Gorillas

Gorgo 0.019 0.037 0.006 0.017Kibara 0.574 0.519 0.600 0.511Louna 0.741 0.611 0.556 0.600Viringika 0.019 0 0.006 0

Orangutans

Bimbo 0.370 0.148 0.428 0.172Dokana 0.130 0 0.189 0.022Pini 0.444 0.056 0.206 0.106Raja 0.111 0.037 0.067 0.072

Capuchin monkeys

Pedro 0.569 0.625 - -Penelope 0 0.389 - -Robinhood 0.444 0.481 - -Robinia 0.500 0.778 - -Robiola 0.556 0.667 - -Robot 0.222 0.833 - -Rucola 0.815 0.981 - -

Spider monkeys

Capoccetta 0 0.069 0.004 0.038Chavito 0 0.014 0.017 0.030Coco 0.014 0.125 0.013 0.067PeloBlanco 0 0.278 0 0.278RombaGrande 0 0.056 0 0.046RombaPequena 0.111 0.389 0.083 0.183Salomon 0.046 0.069 0.016 0.026

FIGURE S1.Photographillustrating the set-upduring the training condition (platforms are

labelled A, B and C from left to right of the photograph; Fig 1).In this condition both

platforms B and C had handles and the subject could either pull B or C. Pulling C was the

correct choice when C was baited, while pulling B was the correct choice(i) when B was

baitedor(ii) when A was baited and the subject had also access to the other room and thus to

platform A.

FIGURE S2. Photographillustrating the set-up during the experimental condition(platforms

are labelled A and B from left to right of the photograph; Fig 1). In this condition,we

alternated 3 trials in which only platform B had a handle (like in the photograph), with 3 trials

in which only platform A had a handle (for a total of 12 trials). Subjects having access to the

handle could choose whether to pull it, thus also pulling the other platform (A in the

photograph) and providing food to the partner.

FIGURE S3. Photographillustrating the set-up during the control condition (platforms are

labelled A and B from left to right of the photograph; Fig 1). In this condition, subjects were

tested alone and only one platform had a handle throughout the session (platform ABin the

photograph). In motivational trials, subjects could pull the platform with the handle to reach

the food that had been placed on its top. In control trials, subjects could pull the platform with

the handle to also pull the other platform (B in the photograph) and provide food to the

adjacent room, which was empty.

FIGURE S4.Number of trials in which Bimbo and Dokana pulled the platform in the

experimental condition (above) and in the control condition (below), across each of the 10

sessions. In the experimental condition, individuals pulled more if the partner had also pulled

in the corresponding block of trials, suggesting contingent reciprocity. Importantly, the food

transfers became more balanced across sessions, with a perfect correspondence of pulling

behaviour in the last 3 sessions.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100

1

2

3

4

5

6 Bimbo - Exp Dokana - Exp

Sessions

Num

ber o

f pul

ls

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100

1

2

3

4

5

6 Bimbo - Ctrl Dokana - Ctrl

Sessions

Num

ber o

f pul

ls