That’s an interesting question that doesn’t have a simple answer, because I don’t think an experiment like having chimps raise bonobos or vise versa (especially in the wild, since captive ape groups are a whole other kettle of fish anyways, especially until recent times). But there ARE some lines of evidence we can look at.
First, we know that chimps and bonobos can adopt the cultures of other apes they are raised by, because they adopt the culture of humans when raised by humans. That doesn’t mean they’re particularly well adjusted, but chimps raised by humans often identify themselves more with humans than with other apes. They can speak sign language, wear clothes, enjoy things like watching TV or caring for pets (cats, dogs), express discomfort around other apes, and even sometimes express sexual attraction towards humans rather than apes.
So, if a developing chimp’s social structure is flexible enough to adopt human ways, surely chimps could adopt bonobo ways as well?
Further, while ape groups in captivity are a poor analogue for ape groups in the wild (even the largest zoos cannot facilitate the sort of fission-fusion group dynamics that take place in the wild, for example, and these splits and merges are a catalyst for the violent/non-violent behavior of chimps/bonobos) there are a handful of successful mixed chimp-bonobo groups, for what that is worth.
Finally, we must consider how chimps and bonobos got this way to begin with. About 2 million years ago, an ancestral population of apes had their territory split by the Congo River; these populations would evolve into chimpanzees and bonobos. Why did chimps and bonobos develop differently?
One theory is that the chimps to the north had to deal with gorillas, who compete with them for many of the same resources. But gorillas didn’t live south of the Congo, and so the bonobos did not face this competition. In a world of scarce resources, the most vicious chimpanzee males - those who controlled their troop with an iron fist, who killed the young of other males, and who viciously fought other troops for terrotory - these chimps led successful troops that survived.
Meanwhile, in the south, the bonobos did not find resources scarce. The idea that bonobos are entirely peaceful is a mistaken one - they are nearly as dangerous as a chimp when angered. But bonobos rarely choose violence in confrontations with other troops. It is possible that this behavior evolved in response to more easily available resources, where the successful troops where the ones that didn’t worry so much about paternal descent, where males and females cooperatively care for all the young in a group.
Obviously, 1.8 million years is a long time for bonobo and chimp cultures to diverge. This has even led to some physical changes; chimpanzees are much more sexually dimorphic, with larger males who possess enormous canines. Bonobos have smaller teeth, larger heads and eyes relative to their body, little difference between males and females… traits they share with domesticated animals. And, I might note, with us.
Here’s the point. The ancestors of chimpanzees and bonobos were indistinguishable. Maybe they were more chimp-like, maybe more bonobo like - it’s hard to tell, especially because we have almost no fossil remains at all from either species. But they ended up on opposite sides of a river, and diverged in behavior from there.
In other words, chimpanzees aren’t violent because they have large males with big teeth; they evolved those physical traits because their environment rewarded societies that exhibited heightened aggression, and these traits were then selected for accordingly.
Same thing with the bonobos. Their environment rewarded cooperative groups, which in turn rewarded individuals with bodies that facilitated this behavior.
I would argue that if you’re designing jail to be stressful, you’re doing it wrong. Yes, there are stress factors inherent in being held captive in the company of other criminals; but jails should be built with the goal of mitigating this to the greatest possible extent.
