Ape cuddles could prevent conflicts 30%

By Meghan Rosen0%

7/21/2026, 11:01:00 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 20 faulty reasoning types, including Unattributed Quote, Halo Effect, and Appeal to Authority, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 26.2% saturation with 81 hits. Analysis detected 603 faulty-reasoning hits from 309 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 39.9% and a BS Rank of 30% (14,882 of 21,136 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 70.40% of the article peer group.

Hugs and kisses could help primates keep the peace. 
Both chimpanzees and bonobos appear to use friendly physical touch as a way of easing tension among group members in stressful situations, researchers report July 22 in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B. 
Embraces, pats, hand-holding, genital touches, sticking fingers in each other’s mouths ­­— these buddy-buddy behaviors form the social glue that helps groups stick together, says Zanna Clay, a primatologist at Durham University in England. 
Scientists knew that chimpanzees and bonobos use physical touch to resolve conflicts and offer comfort in times of distress. 
But Clay’s team noticed that the animals were also getting friendly when no fighting had occurred, says Jake Brooker, a primatologist now at Utrecht University in the Netherlands. 
He wondered if apes used cuddles to prevent conflicts, not just resolve them. 
The researchers observed five different groups of chimps or bonobos in sanctuaries in Zambia and the Democratic Republic of Congo. 
They filmed the animals before, during and after offering them a limited number of peanuts. 
When the apes learned about the incoming treats, they’d get nervous and excited, Brooker says. 
That’s because there weren’t enough peanuts for everyone to eat their fill. 
But the more friendly touches the animals shared before feeding, the more likely they were to eat together in peace, the team found. 
That trend held true for bonobo and chimp groups alike. 
Chimps often get a bad rap, Clay says; they’re known for being surly and aggressive, while bonobos are considered the ape world’s free-loving hippies. 
The team’s results suggest the two species may be more similar than people think. 
Clay can’t say for sure whether touchy-feely behaviors help apes tolerate one another ­­— or if more tolerant groups just tend to touch each other more. 
But, she says, it’s probably a two-way street. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 13.6%Meghan Rosen: 4.5%Science News: 2.6%Confirmation Bias13.6%This article: 0.0%Meghan Rosen: 0.0%Science News: 1.1%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 9.1%Meghan Rosen: 3.0%Science News: 2.5%Availability Heuristic9.1%This article: 7.4%Meghan Rosen: 2.5%Science News: 1.5%Representativeness Heuristic7.4%This article: 0.0%Meghan Rosen: 2.8%Science News: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 10.0%Meghan Rosen: 3.3%Science News: 2.5%Overconfidence Bias10.0%This article: 1.6%Meghan Rosen: 2.0%Science News: 4.2%Framing Effect1.6%This article: 0.0%Meghan Rosen: 0.0%Science News: 0.3%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Meghan Rosen: 0.0%Science News: 0.3%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Meghan Rosen: 0.0%Science News: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 4.5%Meghan Rosen: 1.5%Science News: 4.2%Optimism Bias4.5%This article: 0.0%Meghan Rosen: 0.0%Science News: 1.2%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 7.8%Meghan Rosen: 2.6%Science News: 4.1%Negativity Bias7.8%This article: 0.0%Meghan Rosen: 0.0%Science News: 0.4%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Meghan Rosen: 0.0%Science News: 0.5%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Meghan Rosen: 0.0%Science News: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 7.8%Meghan Rosen: 2.6%Science News: 0.1%In-Group Bias7.8%This article: 7.8%Meghan Rosen: 2.6%Science News: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias7.8%This article: 18.8%Meghan Rosen: 8.8%Science News: 1.4%Halo Effect18.8%This article: 0.0%Meghan Rosen: 2.6%Science News: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Meghan Rosen: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Meghan Rosen: 0.0%Science News: 0.8%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Meghan Rosen: 0.0%Science News: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 8.4%Meghan Rosen: 2.8%Science News: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias8.4%This article: 0.0%Meghan Rosen: 0.0%Science News: 0.2%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Meghan Rosen: 0.0%Science News: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 17.2%Meghan Rosen: 5.7%Science News: 4.5%Appeal to Authority17.2%This article: 0.0%Meghan Rosen: 0.0%Science News: 1.1%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Meghan Rosen: 0.0%Science News: 1.1%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Meghan Rosen: 0.0%Science News: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 3.2%Meghan Rosen: 6.1%Science News: 4.0%Hasty Generalization3.2%This article: 0.0%Meghan Rosen: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Meghan Rosen: 0.0%Science News: 0.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Meghan Rosen: 0.0%Science News: 2.6%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 4.2%Meghan Rosen: 1.4%Science News: 0.5%Begging the Question4.2%This article: 12.0%Meghan Rosen: 9.3%Science News: 2.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)12.0%This article: 0.0%Meghan Rosen: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Meghan Rosen: 0.0%Science News: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Meghan Rosen: 0.0%Science News: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Meghan Rosen: 0.0%Science News: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 9.1%Meghan Rosen: 3.0%Science News: 1.2%Anecdotal9.1%This article: 0.0%Meghan Rosen: 0.0%Science News: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 3.9%Meghan Rosen: 1.3%Science News: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)3.9%This article: 0.0%Meghan Rosen: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 2.6%Meghan Rosen: 0.9%Science News: 0.2%Middle Ground2.6%This article: 0.0%Meghan Rosen: 0.0%Science News: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Meghan Rosen: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Meghan Rosen: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 20.1%Meghan Rosen: 6.7%Science News: 0.8%Unattributed Quote20.1%This article: 0.0%Meghan Rosen: 0.0%Science News: 0.7%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 26.2%Meghan Rosen: 11.9%Science News: 2.6%Biased Writer Voice26.2%This article: 0.0%Meghan Rosen: 0.0%Science News: 0.9%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Meghan Rosen: 0.0%Science News: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Meghan Rosen: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Meghan Rosen: 0.0%Science News: 0.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

309 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers48%attributed speech161writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 100.0% coverageZanna Clay • 34 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageJake Brooker • 28 words • 100.0% coverageJake Brooker • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageJake Brooker • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageZanna Clay • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageZanna Clay • 26 words • 0.0% coverageZanna Clay • 8 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Zanna Clay

100%flagged-word coverage
92 attributed words62% of attributed speech78% writer coverage
0%32.5%65.0%Biased Writer Voice+48.8 ptsWriter: 14.3%Zanna Clay: 63.0%63.0%Unattributed Quote-21.1 ptsWriter: 21.1%Zanna Clay: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.