|
|
Rumbaugh, D. M., Riesen, A. H., & Wright, S. C. (1972). Creative responsiveness to objects: a report of a pilot study with young apes. Folia Primatol (Basel), 17(5), 397–403.
|
|
|
|
Menzel, E. W. J. (1971). Communication about the environment in a group of young chimpanzees. Folia Primatol (Basel), 15(3), 220–232.
|
|
|
|
de Waal, F. B. (1999). Cultural primatology comes of age. Nature, 399(6737), 635–636.
|
|
|
|
Byrne, R. W., & Bates, L. A. (2006). Why are animals cognitive? Curr Biol, 16(12), R445–8.
|
|
|
|
de Waal, F. B. M. (2005). A century of getting to know the chimpanzee. Nature, 437(7055), 56–59.
Abstract: A century of research on chimpanzees, both in their natural habitat and in captivity, has brought these apes socially, emotionally and mentally much closer to us. Parallels and homologues between chimpanzee and human behaviour range from tool-technology and cultural learning to power politics and intercommunity warfare. Few behavioural domains have remained untouched by this increased knowledge, which has dramatically challenged the way we view ourselves. The sequencing of the chimpanzee genome will no doubt bring more surprises and insights. Humans do occupy a special place among the primates, but this place increasingly has to be defined against a backdrop of substantial similarity.
|
|
|
|
de Waal, F. B., & Seres, M. (1997). Propagation of handclasp grooming among captive chimpanzees. Am. J. Primatol., 43(4), 339–346.
Abstract: A grooming posture previously reported for two wild chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) communities developed spontaneously in a captive group of the same species. This offered a unique opportunity to follow the propagation of a new social custom. The posture consists of two partners grasping hands--either both right hands or both left hands--and raising the arms in an A-frame above their heads while mutually grooming with their free hands. The propagation of this pattern was followed over a 5 year period. In the beginning, handclasps were always initiated by the same adult female. This female initiated the posture mainly with her adult female kin. In subsequent years, these relatives became frequent participants in the posture with each other as well as with nonrelatives. Over the years the posture increased in frequency and duration and spread to the majority of adults and also to a few adolescents and older juveniles. The pattern persisted after removal of the apparent originator.
|
|
|
|
Langergraber, K., Mitani, J., & Vigilant, L. (2009). Kinship and social bonds in female chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). Am. J. Primatol., 71(10), 840–851.
Abstract: A large body of theoretical and empirical research suggests that kinship influences the development and maintenance of social bonds among group-living female mammals, and that human females may be unusual in the extent to which individuals form differentiated social relationships with nonrelatives. Here we combine behavioral observations of party association, spatial proximity, grooming, and space use with extensive molecular genetic analyses to determine whether female chimpanzees form strong social bonds with unrelated individuals of the same sex. We compare our results with those obtained from male chimpanzees who live in the same community and have been shown to form strong social bonds with each other. We demonstrate that party association is as good a predictor of spatial proximity and grooming in females as it is in males, that the highest party association indices are consistently found between female dyads, that the sexes do not differ in the long-term stability of their party association patterns, and that these results cannot be explained as a by-product of the tendency of females to selectively range in particular areas of the territory. We also show that close kin (i.e. mother-daughter and sibling dyads) are very rare, indicating that the vast majority of female dyads that form strong social bonds are not closely related. Additional analyses reveal that “subgroups” of females, consisting of individuals who frequently associate with one another in similar areas of the territory, do not consist of relatives. This suggests that a passive form of kin-biased dispersal, involving the differential migration of females from neighboring communities into subgroups, was also unlikely to be occurring. These results show that, as in males, kinship plays a limited role in structuring the intrasexual social relationships of female chimpanzees.
|
|
|
|
Kaminski, J., Call, J., & Tomasello, M. (2004). Body orientation and face orientation: two factors controlling apes' behavior from humans. Anim. Cogn., 7(4), 216–223.
Abstract: A number of animal species have evolved the cognitive ability to detect when they are being watched by other individuals. Precisely what kind of information they use to make this determination is unknown. There is particular controversy in the case of the great apes because different studies report conflicting results. In experiment 1, we presented chimpanzees, orangutans, and bonobos with a situation in which they had to request food from a human observer who was in one of various attentional states. She either stared at the ape, faced the ape with her eyes closed, sat with her back towards the ape, or left the room. In experiment 2, we systematically crossed the observer's body and face orientation so that the observer could have her body and/or face oriented either towards or away from the subject. Results indicated that apes produced more behaviors when they were being watched. They did this not only on the basis of whether they could see the experimenter as a whole, but they were sensitive to her body and face orientation separately. These results suggest that body and face orientation encode two different types of information. Whereas face orientation encodes the observer's perceptual access, body orientation encodes the observer's disposition to transfer food. In contrast to the results on body and face orientation, only two of the tested subjects responded to the state of the observer's eyes.
|
|
|
|
Horowitz, A. C. (2003). Do humans ape? Or do apes human? Imitation and intention in humans (Homo sapiens) and other animals. J Comp Psychol, 117(3), 325–336.
Abstract: A. Whiten, D. M. Custance, J.-C. Gomez, P. Teixidor, and K. A. Bard (1996) tested chimpanzees' (Pan troglodytes) and human children's (Homo sapiens) skills at imitation with a 2-action test on an “artificial fruit.” Chimpanzees imitated to a restricted degree; children were more thoroughly imitative. Such results prompted some to assert that the difference in imitation indicates a difference in the subjects' understanding of the intentions of the demonstrator (M. Tomasello, 1996). In this experiment, 37 adult human subjects were tested with the artificial fruit. Far from being perfect imitators, the adults were less imitative than the children. These results cast doubt on the inference from imitative performance to an ability to understand others' intentions. The results also demonstrate how any test of imitation requires a control group and attention to the level of behavioral analysis.
|
|
|
|
Lilienfeld, S. O., Gershon, J., Duke, M., Marino, L., & de Waal, F. B. (1999). A preliminary investigation of the construct of psychopathic personality (psychopathy) in chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). J Comp Psychol, 113(4), 365–375.
Abstract: Although the construct of psychopathy has received considerable attention in humans, its relevance to other animals is largely unknown. We developed a measure of psychopathy for use in chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes), the Chimpanzee Psychopathy Measure (CPM), and asked 6 raters to complete this index on 34 chimpanzees. The CPM (a) demonstrated satisfactory interrater reliability and internal consistency; (b) exhibited marginally significant sex differences (males > females); (c) correlated positively with measures of extraversion, agreeableness, and observational ratings of agonism, sexual activity, daring behaviors, teasing, silent bluff displays, and temper tantrums, and negatively with observational ratings of generosity; and (d) demonstrated incremental validity above and beyond a measure of dominance. Although further validation of the CPM is needed, these findings suggest that the psychopathy construct may be relevant to chimpanzees.
|
|
