Members of many primate species approach an opponent shortly after conflict and initiate behaviors such as embracing, grooming, or huddling―a phenomenon researchers call postconflict reconciliation. Existing research, however, suffers from several shortcomings. The variability between groups of the same species is rarely addressed; the majority of studies investigate only a small fraction of the pairings that exist in a given group; and almost all reports are restricted to animals in captivity.

Members of many primate species approach an opponent shortly after conflict and initiate behaviors such as embracing, grooming, or huddling―a phenomenon researchers call postconflict reconciliation. Existing research, however, suffers from several shortcomings. The variability between groups of the same species is rarely addressed; the majority of studies investigate only a small fraction of the pairings that exist in a given group; and almost all reports are restricted to animals in captivity.

In an attempt to address some of these shortcomings, Sommer et al. recently conducted a study of postconflict reconciliation in wild Hanuman langurs, a species of colobine monkey. They observed rates of postconflict reconciliation much lower than would be expected based on previous research, and found that over 80 percent of all pairings exhibited no postconflict affinity whatsoever. The rarity of friendly postconflict reunion in wild langurs draws attention to the possibility that conflicts are modulated through avoidance. The option of temporarily avoiding contact with opponents is not easily available to captive primates, and certainly not to the extent present in the wild. Still, studies of postconflict behavior of primates in captivity remain valuable: above all, they demonstrate the flexibility of nonhuman primates in various environments. It is likely, however, that the reported frequency of reconciliation among primates is artificially inflated by the conditions of captivity.

The passage suggests that one reason that the "conditions of captivity" (see bolded text) were significant was that
A . food and water were readily available to all members of a group
B . researchers were unable to observe animals from an unobtrusive distance
C . climatic conditions seldom matched those of the animals’ natural habitat
D . animals were unable to distance themselves from each other physically
E . animals lacked opportunities to interact with members of other species

View Answer

Answer: D