Katrina Coffman

3-29-19
Primate Social Behavior

The Strength of Female-Female Relationships Compared to Female-Male Relationships

Introduction
Relationships between primates have shown to be beneficial for individuals and a group
of primates, as a whole. Although group-living does have costs, such as disease and visibility,
benefits like benefits of protection and resource access often make sociality a net positive for
primates (Durgavich 2019). The way primates live together and socialize vary, and are specific
to different species. Some primate species, such as lemurs and baboons, have female philopatry,
in which females stay in the groups or troops they were born into, while males immigrate once
they reach sexual maturity (Durgavich 2019). Research has also demonstrated that primates,
specifically female baboons, in this case, who socialize within their group have greater
reproductive success than those who socialize less (Silk 2006). In addition to socializing being
generally beneficial for female baboons, female-female relationships specifically have shown to
be beneficial for individuals’ fitness: stronger bonds correlate with greater individual and
offspring survival (Silk 2007). The “grooming networks” among female baboons have even
been shown to lessen that stress that comes with living in a group, such instability following a
dominance squabble (Wittig et. al 2008). This general information about non-human primates
from lectures and research likes Silk’s (2006) was taken and applied to human subjects to
hypothesize about human female’s relationships with others.
Hypothesis: Human Female-Female relationships are stronger than Female-Male relationships.
More specific research justifies the following three predictions used to test the above
hypothesis. Silk (2006) corroborates the idea that both “proximity maintenance” and grooming
are the most common female social activities and most commonly accepted measures of the
strength of social bond (Silk 2006). Humans do not groom one another like baboons or other
primates do, but they do initiate and receive contact from others, which leads into Prediction 1.
Prediction 1: Female focal subjects will have more physical contact with other females
than they do with adult males. If female-female relationships are stronger than females’
relationships with males, and grooming is an effective measure of bond strength, measuring the
amount of contact female focal subjects have with others should be an effective way to compare
relationships.
Prediction 2: Female focal subjects will maintain smaller distances between themselves
and another female than they will with another male. Using the same logic as above, comparing
the distance a female focal is from her closest neighbor when they are male or female should
align with the measure of “proximity maintenance”: females should maintain closer proximity to
female neighbors than they do to male ones if the hypothesis is true.
Prediction 3: The parties of female focal subjects will contain more adult females than
adult males. The “grooming networks” Wittig et. al speak of indicate females form strong
groups of mostly females in times of distress, while bonobos form alliances to protect each other
and their infants from aggression (Wittig 2008; Durgavich 2019). If female-female relationships
are stronger, as indicated by the formation of such groups during times of stress, then female
focal subjects may gather with more females than males.

Methods
The data was collected on the Tufts University campus in Medford MA in early March.
Pairs separated to collect focal scans in different places among campus: for example, we did our
observations in the campus center. Each pair did three separate focal scans, the first of a female,
the second of a male, and the third of either a male of female, although our third focal subject
was of a female. The subjects were chosen by visibility and ease of inconspicuous observation.
Each observation consisted of ten focal scans taken a minute apart, at the start of which the
activity of the subject was recorded (eating, socializing, resting, traveling), along with the size
and gender composition of the subject’s party, the sex and distances of the subject’s nearest
neighbor. Additionally, throughout the observation, the number of times the focal subject
initiated contact with members of the same and opposite sex was recorded and vice versa (when
a non-focal subject initiated contact with the subject).
Since the hypothesis centers around female relationships, this analysis only used the data
in which the focal subject was female. As such, the sample size was 25 female humans. The
data used contained observations and tallying on how many physical contacts occurred between
the focal subjects and other adults around her, how many males and females made up her party,
the sex and distance of her nearest neighbor, and a tallying of how many times a female subject’s
nearest neighbor would get within less than a meter of her.

Graph 1
Results

Graph 1
compares the average amount of physical contact between female focal subjects and male and
female members of her party. The average amount of contact between females was .627
instances per minute when initiated by the focal subject and .54792 instances per minute when
initiated by another adult female. Between females and males, the average instances of contact
per minute was .31 when initiated by the focal subject and .34 when initiated by an adult male.
Disregarding who initiated, the total average instances of contact per minute between the female
focal subject and another female adult was .587236, compared to .327 instances per minute
between the female focal subject and a male adult.
Graph 2

.85

.80

Graph 2 compares the average gender composition of a focal subject’s party at any given minute.
The average number of adult males in a female focal subject’s party each scan was .85, while the
average number of adult females each scan was .80. In total, adult males made up 52% of the
total party composition, while adult females made up 48%.

Graph 3
Graph 3 compares differences in the distances of female focal subject and her nearest neighbor
when the gender varies. This data only deals with instances in which the distance was greater
than a meter. When the nearest neighbor was a female, the average distance per scan was 1.82
meters, and when the nearest neighbor was a male, the average distances was 1.71 meters.
Overall, a male was the nearest neighbor during 68 scans, while a female was the nearest
neighbor during 184 scans.

Graph 4

Graph 4 compares how much female focal subjects’ nearest neighbor came within a
meter with them. The nearest neighbor was less than a meter away from the female focal subject
during 76 scans when the nearest neighbor was female, but only came within a meter 15 scans
when the nearest neighbor was male.

Conclusions
The hypothesis that female-female relationships would be stronger than female-male
relationships was mostly supported by the data: contact was highest and distance was lowest
between a focal female and another female adult. Prediction 1, which stated that there would be
more instances of contact between female adults than between a female and a male, was
supported, as the average number of contacts per minute between a female focal subject and
another female adult was .58, while the same between a female focal and a male adult was .327.
Males and females initiated contact with each other fairly equally, at .34 and .31 times per
minute, respectively, while the female focal contact initiated contact with another female .627
times per minute. In total, within the 25 focal observations, there were 567 instances of female-
female contact and 315 instances of male-female contact: the amount of female-female contact
happened just under double the amount male-female contact did. Prediction 2 was also
supported by the data. First, a female was the closest neighbor during 184 scans, almost triple
the number of scans a male was the closest neighbor (68 scans). When the distance was
estimable (so a meter or more), the average distance between the female focal and another
female adult was 1.82 meters, while the average distance between the female focal and a male
adult was 1.71 meters. That difference of .11 meters may be small, but it is a 16% decrease from
the former to the latter. Additionally, there were more instances of a female nearest neighbor
being less than one meter away from the focal subject than a nearest neighbor who was male: 76
scans to 15 scans, respectively, a five time increase in occurrence when the nearest neighbor was
female. Prediction 3 was not supported, as the average amount of adult males in a female focal’s
party was .85, compared to .80 female adults, a 6% difference, or almost equal. However,
female philopatry does not mean there are no males in a unit, just that most of those males that
are sexually mature are immigrants. Since humans do not live in a uni-male polygynous social
structure or travel in the same groupings as non-human primates, it is logical that co-ed parties
will have an equal number of males and females: additionally, the female focal subjects were not
in a time of stress or in an antagonistic position with males, in general, so a more balanced
composition makes sense. Contact and distance between individuals is a stronger way to
demonstrate social bonds and their strength, and the data here support the hypothesis that female-
female relationships are stronger than male-female ones.
However, there were some flaws in the experiment, especially in regard to prediction 2.
The human eye is an imprecise tool, which leads the distance measurements to be imprecise, as
well. Depending on angle or individual depth perception, two observers could come up with
different measurements. Additionally, although focal subjects and gender assumptions were
picked/made based on seemingly obvious masculine and feminine traits, gender as an expression
of identity is a fluid concept in human beings, making it harder to judge sex simply based on
appearance.
Future studies should consist of a greater sample size and use samples in varying
locations to ensure the study has external validity that applies to human females/beings as a
whole, and not just 18-24 year olds in a very specific environment. To further investigate,
observations could be made of female adults under stress to see if their behavior changes when
their circumstance does: one could ask if a female would draw inward and cling tighter to female
bonds or move towards the stereotypical aggressor/protector, the male, and how those differences
would manifest.