{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.0176, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0021333333333333334, 'mean_word_length': 5.316498316498317, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 1, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Agonistic aiding: Kinship, rank, age, and sex influences

An analysis of 3,774 episodes of agonistic aiding collected during a two‐year study of a rhesus monkey group (Macaca, mulatta) indicated the differential influence of kinship and rank relationships on the participation of different age‐sex classes in both aid to victims and aid to aggressors. Most aiding favored victims rather than aggressors and was much more likely to occur when matrilineal kin were involved. Females were more likely to aid than were males, and the frequency of their participation increased with age. Females were much more influenced by kinship than were males and defended or aggressively supported kin against any third party regardless of dominance relationships. Adult males seldom aided against animals that were dominant to themselves; the rare exceptions occurred when adult males defended kin. Aiding was far more likely to occur if the victim was squealing, and noisy agonistic episodes often involved multiple aiders on both sides. Aiding patterns had some potential to insure dominance rank inheritance within families, in accordance with the Kawamura hypothesis. In aiding animals outside of their own matrilines, however, group members aided randomly with respect to this model. There was little evidence that aiding functioned to support individuals when they targeted animals to which they should be dominant as adults based on matrilineal dominance relationships. Most defensive aiding seemed to function primarily to defend victims (primarily kin) of aggression. Aggressive support of the attacker, on the other hand, seemed to function primarily to reinforce coalitions with the attacker. The identity of the victim was unimportant as long as it was neither kin to nor dominant to the aider. Aggressive support of attackers did not overturn existing dominance relationships.