|
|
Hopkins, W. D., Taglialatela, J. P., & Leavens, D. A. (2007). Chimpanzees differentially produce novel vocalizations to capture the attention of a human. Anim. Behav., 73(2), 281–286.
Abstract: Chimpanzees, Pan troglodytes, produce numerous species-atypical signals when raised in captivity. We examined contextual elements of the use of two of these vocal signals, the `raspberry' and the extended grunt. Our results demonstrate that these vocalizations are not elicited by the presence of food, but instead function as attention-getting signals. These findings reveal a heretofore underappreciated category of animal signals: attention-getting sounds produced in novel environmental circumstances. The invention and use of species-atypical signals, considered in relation to group differences in signalling repertoires in apes in their natural habitats, may index a generative capacity in these hominoid species without obvious corollary in other primate species.
|
|
|
|
de Waal, F. B. M., & Luttrell, L. M. (1988). Mechanisms of social reciprocity in three primate species: Symmetrical relationship characteristics or cognition? Ethology and Sociobiology, 9(2–4), 101–118.
Abstract: Agonistic intervention behavior was observed in captive groups of chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes), rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta), and stumptail monkeys (M. arctoides). Reciprocity correlations of interventions were determined while removing from the data the effects of several symmetrical relationship characteristics, that is, matrillineal kinship, proximity relations, and same-sex combination. It was considered likely that if significant reciprocity persisted after controlling for these characteristics, the reciprocity was based on cognitive mechanisms. Statistical significance was tested by means of recently developed matrix permutation procedures. All three species exhibited significant reciprocity with regard to beneficial interventions, even after controlling for symmetrical traits. Harmful interventions were, however, reciprocal among chimpanzees only. This species showed a “revenge system”, that is, if A often intervened against B, B did the same to A. In contrast, both macaque species showed significantly inversed reciprocity in their harmful interventions: if A often intervened against B, B rarely intervened against A. Further analysis indicates that the strict hierarchy of macaques prevents them from achieving complete reciprocity. Compared to chimpanzees, macaques rarely intervene against higher ranking group members. The observed contrast can be partially explained on the basis of differences in available space, as indicated by a comparison of indoor and outdoor living conditions for the chimpanzee colony. Yet, even when such spatial factors are taken into account, substantial behavior differences between chimpanzees and macaques remain.
|
|
|
|
Chalmeau, R., & Gallo, A. (1993). Social constraints determine what is learned in the chimpanzee. Behav. Process., 28(3), 173–179.
Abstract: A group of six chimpanzees was placed in a social learning situation, without training. The learning task was an operant conditioning situation; that is, a subject had to pull two handles simultaneously to cause a piece of fruit to fall into the cage. Only three individuals acquired the operant behaviour. For the operant individuals, social influences on the expression of the learning task were then examined; the dominant chimpanzee during feeding had an inhibiting effect when close to the operant subjects. Depending on the subject, social factors may influence not only the specific expression of what is learnt, but also the nature of what is learnt. Chimpanzees appear to experience situations differently: they develop an individual problem-solving strategy according to their social relationships even if the experimental procedure is the same for all.
|
|
|
|
Beck, B. B. (1982). Chimpocentrism: Bias in cognitive ethology. Journal of Human Evolution, 11(1), 3–17.
Abstract: Herring gulls drop hard-shelled mollusks and hermit crab-inhabited molluskan prey in order to break the shells and gain access to the edible interior. A field study of predatory shell dropping on Cape Cod, Massachusetts, U.S.A. showed that the gulls usually drop the same shell repeatedly, orient directly to dropping sites that are invisible from the point at which the mollusks are captured, drop preferentially on hard surfaces, adjust dropping heights to suit the area and elasticity of the substrate, orient directly into the wind while dropping, sever the large defensive cheliped of hermit crabs before consumption, and rinse prey that is difficult to swallow. Proficiency in prey dropping is acquired through dropping objects in play, trial-and-error learning, and perhaps, observation learning.
Observable attributes of predatory shell-dropping support inferences that the gulls are capable of extended concentration, purposefulness, mental representation of spatially and temporally displaced environmental features, cognitive mapping, cognitive modeling, selectivity, and strategy formation. Identical cognitive processes have been inferred to underlie the most sophisticated forms of chimpanzee tool-use.
Advanced cognitive capacities are not restricted to chimpanzees and other pongids, and are not associated uniquely with tool use. The chimpocentric bias should be abandoned, and reconstructions of the evolution of intelligence should be modified accordingly.
|
|
