The reduced canine size and reduced skull robustness in A. ramidus males (about the same size in males and females) is typically correlated with reduced male–male conflict, increased parental investment, and monogamy.
Because of this, it is assumed that A. ramidus lived in a society similar to bonobos and ateline monkeys due to a process of self domestication (becoming more and more docile which allows for a more gracile build).
Because a similar process is thought to have occurred with the comparatively docile bonobos from more aggressive chimps, A. ramidus society may have seen an increase in maternal care and female mate selection compared to its ancestors.
Alternatively, it is possible that increased male size is a derived trait instead of basal (it evolved later rather than earlier), and is a specialized adaptation in modern great apes as a response to a different and more physically exerting lifestyle in males than females rather than being tied to interspecific conflict.

Australian anthropologists Gary Clark and Maciej Henneberg argued that such shortening of the skull—which may have caused a descension of the larynx—as well as lordosis—allowing better movement of the larynx—increased vocal ability, significantly pushing back the origin of language to well before the evolution of Homo.
They argued that self domestication was aided by the development of vocalization, living in a pro-social society, as a means of non-violently dealing with conflict.
They conceded that chimps and A. ramidus likely had the same vocal capabilities, but said that A. ramidus made use of more complex vocalizations, and vocalized at the same level as a human infant due to selective pressure to become more social.
This would have allowed their society to become more complex.
They also noted that the base of the skull stopped growing with the brain by the end of juvenility, whereas in chimps it continues growing with the rest of the body into adulthood; and considered this evidence of a switch from a gross skeletal anatomy trajectory to a neurological development trajectory due to selective pressure for sociability.
Nonetheless, their conclusions are highly speculative.

American primatologist Craig Stanford postulated that A. ramidus behaved similarly to chimps, which frequent both the trees and the ground, have a polygynous society, hunt cooperatively, and are the most technologically advanced non-human.
However, Clark and Henneberg concluded that Ardipithecus cannot be compared to chimps, having been too similar to humans.
According to French paleoprimatologist Jean-Renaud Boisserie, the hands of Ardipithecus would have been dextrous enough to handle basic tools, though it has not been associated with any tools.

The teeth of A. ramidus indicate that it was likely a generalized omnivore and fruit eater which predominantly consumed C3 plants in woodlands or gallery forests.
The teeth lacked adaptations for abrasive foods.
Lacking the speed and agility of chimps and baboons, meat intake by Ardipithecus, if done, would have been sourced from only what could have been captured by limited pursuit, or from scavenging carcasses.
The reduced canine size and reduced skull robustness in A. ramidus males (about the same size in males and females) is typically correlated with reduced male–male conflict, increased parental investment, and monogamy. Because of this, it is assumed that A. ramidus lived in a society similar to bonobos and ateline monkeys due to a process of self domestication (becoming more and more docile which allows for a more gracile build). Because a similar process is thought to have occurred with the comparatively docile bonobos from more aggressive chimps, A. ramidus society may have seen an increase in maternal care and female mate selection compared to its ancestors. Alternatively, it is possible that increased male size is a derived trait instead of basal (it evolved later rather than earlier), and is a specialized adaptation in modern great apes as a response to a different and more physically exerting lifestyle in males than females rather than being tied to interspecific conflict.
Australian anthropologists Gary Clark and Maciej Henneberg argued that such shortening of the skull—which may have caused a descension of the larynx—as well as lordosis—allowing better movement of the larynx—increased vocal ability, significantly pushing back the origin of language to well before the evolution of Homo. They argued that self domestication was aided by the development of vocalization, living in a pro-social society, as a means of non-violently dealing with conflict. They conceded that chimps and A. ramidus likely had the same vocal capabilities, but said that A. ramidus made use of more complex vocalizations, and vocalized at the same level as a human infant due to selective pressure to become more social. This would have allowed their society to become more complex. They also noted that the base of the skull stopped growing with the brain by the end of juvenility, whereas in chimps it continues growing with the rest of the body into adulthood; and considered this evidence of a switch from a gross skeletal anatomy trajectory to a neurological development trajectory due to selective pressure for sociability. Nonetheless, their conclusions are highly speculative.
American primatologist Craig Stanford postulated that A. ramidus behaved similarly to chimps, which frequent both the trees and the ground, have a polygynous society, hunt cooperatively, and are the most technologically advanced non-human. However, Clark and Henneberg concluded that Ardipithecus cannot be compared to chimps, having been too similar to humans. According to French paleoprimatologist Jean-Renaud Boisserie, the hands of Ardipithecus would have been dextrous enough to handle basic tools, though it has not been associated with any tools.
The teeth of A. ramidus indicate that it was likely a generalized omnivore and fruit eater which predominantly consumed C3 plants in woodlands or gallery forests. The teeth lacked adaptations for abrasive foods. Lacking the speed and agility of chimps and baboons, meat intake by Ardipithecus, if done, would have been sourced from only what could have been captured by limited pursuit, or from scavenging carcasses.
Ardipithecus ramidus