On operationally defining reconciliation

Post‐conflict reconciliatory behavior has been reported to occur with variable frequencies in different primate groups and species. Because different investigators have used different criteria to operationalize reconciliation, however, it is possible that the variation reported merely reflects different methods of study. To compare different groups and species in a meaningful way, an accurate operationalization of reconciliation is necessary. This study explores the correlation between operationally defined reconciliation (what observers recognize, such as friendly reunion) and functional reconciliation (behavior that restores a dyadic social relationship) in a group of captive long‐tailed macaques, using results from an experiment originally undertaken to demonstrate the function of friendly reunions in restoring dyadic tolerance after aggression. In dyads of unrelated animals, reunions were equally effective in restoring tolerance whether they involved body contact, overt friendly gestures, or mere proximity. Classification of post‐conflict reunions as “reconciliations” depends on comparisons with control observations; these comparisons have been carried out in several ways. Comparisons using the “n‐minute rule” missed functional reconciliations, whereas those based on the “post‐conflict/matched‐control rule” appeared to lead to more accurate classification of functional reconciliations. Post‐conflict reunions were equally effective in restoring tolerance whether they were initiated by the original aggressor or by the victim. An accurate operational definition of reconciliation, not a conservative one, is prerequisite to comparisons of the frequency of this behavior, and depends on empirical verification. This study suggests specific guidelines for an operational definition based on such verification. © 1993 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.