The following text is a response to the scientific study ‘Play behavior in wolves: Using ’50:50′ rule to test for egalitarian play styles’ (Essler, J.L. et al., 2016).
The publication addresses the egalitarian play style which supposedly should be demonstrated by wolves as a highly cooperative social species through the acts of observing equality in self-handicapping and aggressive behaviour displays during play.
The scientists fail to discover such equity in the play and individuals (particularly in mixed-age play situations involving adults and pups) who were of more dominant status outside of play situations, tended to keep this status and to display dominating behaviours more frequently also during play thus reflecting the social hierarchy.
Meanwhile, pups that played with one another demonstrated greater equity which could be the result in not yet fully established dominance structure among pups outside of play situations.
It was also not found that individuals who demonstrated greater equity in their play dyads, engaged in more play than individuals whose play style was less egalitarian (i.e., ‘fairness’ did not appear to affect the amount of play between individuals).
I have several commentaries on these findings:
1
Some of the displays of dominance/self-handicapping in play might be simply due to biological discrepancies between individuals who are in full control of their locomotion and those who are yet developing.
In wolf families, dominance is necessarily determined by age (although probably not exclusively) because it is, fundamentally, a parent – older sibling – younger offspring structure.
While in this study a captive wolf population was researched that did not follow the natural group formation ordeals, it is still likely that inter-age dominance differences are also dependent on age and, therefore, on physical prowess.
For example, dyads consisting of an adult and a pup might exhibit a skewed rate of dominance / self-handicapping behaviours simply because some of the self-handicapping behaviours arise out of the physical immaturity of the younger individual.
Lack of coordination might lead to assuming positions that are characterized as subordinate or self-handicapping more often.
E.g., rolling over can happen as a deliberate play act but it can also happen because of the limited motor skills in a younger individual or a physically less capable individual.
It is possible that such behaviour is not considered in terms on equity at all and the dominant individual does not adjust their own ‘share’ in egalitarian balancing out of the play situation when the self-handicapping behaviour is not purposeful and actively managed but it is a result of (temporary) physical incapability.
It would be important to determine what proportion of the self-handicapping behaviours are deliberate and what proportion are accidental and to evaluate individuals’ response relative to both deliberate self-handicapping rates and accidental self-handicapping rates.
For example, if the pup in the dyad cannot physically reach the adult wolf to put their paw over them or to tumble them etc., it is possible that the adult (larger, physically better developed) individual simply assumes the role of the ‘aggressor’ in the play because canid play is often based on wrestling and other play-fighting displays.
The reason behind this might not be the unwillingness to give of dominance status but rather the incapability of the play partner to fully engage in both roles.
2
It is possible that wolves differentiate between physical and social dominance.
If wolves can distinguish between situations where dominance/self-handicapping in play is determined by biological factors vs. social factors, it might follow that wolves do not consider physical superiority and the resulting dominance in play as a status which places them at a position unequal to the dominating individual.
As cooperative hunters, breeders, territorial defenders etc., wolves likely value physical prowess and they also learn that inequality is not always unjust.
For example, they would understand why it is necessary to subject themselves to the command of the dominating individuals (by breeding status, age, experience, initiative etc.) in a hunting or defense situation because their survival depends on it and they would also know that the dominance structure has to be maintained in order to ensure efficient cooperation during these crucial life processes.
Similarly, they would be aware that sometimes some individuals, due to biological reasons, have an advantage that possibly places them at a disadvantage.
For example, the breeding female might not participate in hunting when she is close to whelping and during the denning period.
Meanwhile, she would be provisioned by the pack.
Also, research shows that wolves do not ‘begrudge’ a social favour to individuals who are afflicted with, e.g., mange.
Mange-ridden individuals are frequently unable to contribute to the group activities with the same efficiency as healthy individuals and some free-riding occurs but it is not observed that the healthy wolves ostracize such individuals and, in large groups (that can provide for everybody) they have a higher likelihood of recovery.
Thus, wolves are used to ‘suffering’ some inequity that arises out of biological, physical reasons and differences.
It is possible that they do not perceive physical dominance (inequality) in the same way as social dominance (inequality) and, therefore, in the play situation, they would not account for all acts of self-handicapping or dominance but rather they would account for the social acts (those that are taken purposefully to demonstrate goodwill or intent).
It might be important to differentiate between dominance/self-handicapping that arises out of intent and that arises out of physical differences or merely out of the laws of physics of the play sequence.
3
Finally, not all dominating behaviours can be considered aggressive.
In human societies, we tend to perceive dominance or certain degree of ‘rough handling’ as aggressive or unjust treatment (mistreatment).
Meanwhile, wolves have to communicate an array of emotions, attitudes and dispositions through the use of body language.
For example, if a wolf parent or older sibling has to prevent the pup from getting into trouble (minding a potentially dangerous situation), alarm calls might be used but also, the adult individual might growl to keep the pup away from a treacherous object or situation or they might use other behaviour that could be interpreted as dominance or aggression for the purposes of discipline or threat-prevention.
Discipline, on this occasion, is not necessarily defined as ensuring obedience but rather as a mechanism of achieving a state of order which is crucial for cooperation and, consequentially, survival.
We should not perceive displays of wolf behaviour from the perspective of how it would make us feel but from the perspective how they are received (e.g., on an emotional level) by the wolves themselves.
Some behaviours that seem restrictive or diminishing might not provoke a sense of inequality, oppression or disrespect in the recipient but rather a sense of safety, being protected, being small and carefree, lightening up etc.
They might even remind the play partner of the state which was pleasant and which was known to them when they were young and submissive to adults (for example, parents).
Just like we sometimes enjoy ‘playing the baby’ although it renders us to a lesser state, it is not inconceivable that wolves, too, enjoy being ‘forced’ into self-handicapping roles because it awakens bodily memories of being provided for, taken care of, protected etc.
In fact, in some cases, such acts might even serve to reduce tension in the playmate.
This means that the self-handicapping individual might have been encouraged to acquire such position in order not to achieve a more aggressive state (namely, dominance over the other might not be performed to ‘humiliate’ them but to stop them from aggression and taking the play ‘too seriously’ – such behaviour is then aimed not at a submissive but at overly or growingly tense (hostile) individual that needs to release some of the tension it has worked up).
If we are not aware of how the wolves perceive these behaviours, we also cannot claim to quantify equity in play because we are unable to determine how equity is perceived by wolves.
***
Often I also think that we are wrong in assuming that dominance behaviour is restricted to certain manifestations and other manifestations are regarded as submissive behaviour.
For example, if an individual uses ‘submissive acts’ in order to achieve its intent (to elicit a desired response in the partner), who is the dominant individual in this situation?
If rolling over and showing belly leads to a situation where the ‘self-handicapping’ individual effectively subjects the ‘dominating’ individual to their will (to continue the play sequence or a life situation in a manner that is devised by them), would they not have conquered the other in this circumstance?
When we consider animal societies, we tend to regard certain behaviours as dominance or victory.
Meanwhile, in our societies we have learned that our purpose can be achieved in various ways and we value, e.g., clever strategists who attain their schemes through persuading others (on an intellectual, emotional etc. level) into agreeing with them or taking their course of action.
Charm and charisma can be as powerful as physical force and often they are manifested in acts that we would not necessarily describe as dominating.
What if it is simply speciest to believe that animals are not capable of applying different strategies to achieve their purpose (to dominate, to conquer)?
What if playing adorable and submissive is not always an act that arises out of incapacity or agreeableness but also out of strong will to have one’s own way?
***
I believe this video by Wolf Conservation Center makes for a nice illustration of the point.
The play bout is clearly gentle and lacks in true aggression yet the young pup assumes subordinate position due to its size and due to the ease with which certain types of movements are made relative to height, body mass, length of limbs etc.
It should be noted that the two wolf individuals are not actual brothers. They are room-mates in a captive setting.
The younger wolf Silas in this video is about 4 months old while the older wolf Nikai is already of a more considerable age (born in 2014; 9 years old in 2023).
Nikai’s age could also contribute to the mobility distance between the two playmates because it is probably more difficult for Nikai to perform the usual wolf play gestures of rolling over etc.
Notes by Ieva 