Table 1.

Summary of the results obtained in relation to the different post-conflict behaviours showed by domestic pigs, associated with cognitive substrates and tested hypotheses

Post-conflict strategy	Individual mean ± SD number of PC-MC pairs	Involved participants	Social bias	Cognitive substrates	Tested Hypotheses
Reconciliation PC-MC = 149 CCT = 13.6% ± 3.0 SE	4.03 ± 1.61	AG & VC	Yes, preferentially between weakly-related individuals	Second subject participatory capabilities (individual recognition and implicit memory of previously encountered subjects); attributing different social values to others	Valuable Relationship Hypothesis rejected
Triadic contacts	4.50 ± 2.05	TSC by AG  PC-MC = 134	*	*	*
	4.03 ± 1.60	TSC by VC PC-MC = 141 TCTsol = 20.1% ± 5.0 S.E	Yes, preferentially between closely-related individuals	Intrinsic regulatory mechanisms (change in own experience)	Self-Anxiety Reduction Hypothesis rejected
					Victim Protection Hypothesis rejected
	3.70 ± 1.00	TUC toward AG by TP  PC-MC = 114 TCTuns = 15.9% ± 3.6 S.E	Yes, preferentially between closely-related individuals	Extrinsic regulatory mechanisms (change in others’ experience)	Appeasement Hypothesis supported
	3.50 ± 1.30	TUC toward VC by TP  PC-MC = 144 TCTuns = 14.3% ± 3.4 S.E		More elements of MNS/PAM based social appraisal	Victim Protection Hypothesis rejected
					Consolation Hypothesis supported

AG Aggressor, VC Victim, TP Third-Party, PC-MC Post-conflict/Matched control pairs, CCT Corrected Conciliatory Tendency (mean group value), TSC Triadic Solicited Contact, TUS Triadic Unsolicited Contact, TCT Triadic Contact Tendency (mean group value), PAM Perception–Action Model, MNS Mirror Neuron System