Chalmeau, R., Visalberghi, E., & Gallo, A. (1997). Capuchin monkeys,Cebus apellafail to understand a cooperative task. Anim. Behav., 54(5), 1215–1225.
Abstract: We investigated whether capuchin monkeys cooperate to solve a task and to what extent they take into account the behaviour of another individual when cooperating. Two groups of capuchin monkeys (N=5 and 6) were tested in a task whose solution required simultaneous pulling of two handles which were too far from one another to be pulled by one monkey. Before carrying out the cooperation study, individual monkeys were trained to pull one handle (training phase 1) and to pull two handles simultaneously (training phase 2) for a food reward. Nine subjects were successful in training phase 1, and five in training phase 2. In the cooperation study seven subjects were successful, that is, pulled one handle while a companion pulled the other. Further analyses revealed that capuchins did not increase their pulling actions when a partner was close to or at the other handle, that is, when cooperation might occur. These data suggest that capuchin monkeys acted together at the task and got the reward without understanding the role of the partner and without taking its behaviour into consideration. Social tolerance, as well as their tendency to explore and their manual dexterity, were the major factors accounting for the capuchins' success.
|
Mendres, K. A., & de Waal, F. B. M. (2000). Capuchins do cooperate: the advantage of an intuitive task. Anim. Behav., 60(4), 523–529.
Abstract: We used a cooperative pulling task to examine proximate aspects of cooperation in captive brown capuchin monkeys, Cebus apella. Specifically, our goal was to determine whether capuchins can learn the contingency between their partner's participation in a task and its successful completion. We examined whether the monkeys visually monitored their partners and adjusted pulling behaviour according to their partner's presence. Results on five same-sex pairs of adults indicate that (1) elimination of visual contact between partners significantly decreased success, (2) subjects glanced at their partners significantly more in cooperative tests than in control tests in which no partner-assistance was needed, and (3) they pulled at significantly higher rates when their partner was present rather than absent. Therefore, in contrast to a previous report by Chalmeau et al. (1997, Animal Behaviour, 54, 1215-1225), cooperating capuchins do seem able to take the role of their partner into account. However, the type of task used may be an important factor affecting the level of coordination achieved. Copyright 2000 The Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour.
|
Cuthill, I., & Kacelnik, A. (1990). Central place foraging: a reappraisal of the `loading effect'. Anim. Behav., 40(6), 1087–1101.
Abstract: Animals that provision a central place usually bring back larger loads when foraging far from home. This positive correlation between average load size and distance is typically explained as rate-maximizing behaviour in the face of a trade-off between travel costs and a decelerating rate of prey gain in food patches (the `loading effect'). By using feeders to provide wild parent starlings, Sturnus vulgaris, with constant rates of prey loading, a positive load-distance correlation was shown to exist in the absence of a loading effect (experiment I). However, in a laboratory simulation where no load was transported (experiment II). the average number of prey eaten in patch visits by self-feeding starlings was invariant with travel distance, so the explanation of the load-distance correlation in experiment I must lie in featues peculiar to central place foraging. Bottlenecks in ingestion by chicks and interruption by visual detection of nest disturbance (experiment III) were rejected as causes of the correlation. Risks of dropping prey in flight appeared low, but the risk of kleptoparasitism received weak support. The travel-load size correlation may be an adaptive response to load transport costs, as return travel times increased with the load size being carried (experiment IV).
|
Hare, B., & Tomasello, M. (2004). Chimpanzees are more skilful in competitive than in cooperative cognitive tasks. Anim. Behav., 68(3), 571–581.
Abstract: In a series of four experiments, chimpanzees, Pan troglodytes, were given two cognitive tasks, an object choice task and a discrimination task (based on location), each in the context of either cooperation or competition. In both tasks chimpanzees performed more skilfully when competing than when cooperating, with some evidence that competition with conspecifics was especially facilitatory in the discrimination location task. This is the first study to demonstrate a facilitative cognitive effect for competition in a single experimental paradigm. We suggest that chimpanzee cognitive evolution is best understood in its socioecological context.
|
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.
|
Hare, B., Call, J., Agnetta, B., & Tomasello, M. (2000). Chimpanzees know what conspecifics do and do not see. Anim. Behav., 59(4), 771–785.
Abstract: We report a series of experiments on social problem solving in chimpanzees, Pan troglodytes. In each experiment a subordinate and a dominant individual were put into competition over two pieces of food. In all experiments dominants obtained virtually all of the foods to which they had good visual and physical access. However, subordinates were successful quite often in three situations in which they had better visual access to the food than the dominant, for example, when the food was positioned so that only the subordinate (and not the dominant) could see it. In some cases, the subordinate might have been monitoring the behaviour of the dominant directly and simply avoided the food that the dominant was moving towards (which just happened to be the one it could see). In other cases, however, we ruled out this possibility by giving subordinates a small headstart and forcing them to make their choice (to go to the food that both competitors could see, or the food that only they could see) before the dominant was released into the area. Together with other recent studies, the present investigation suggests that chimpanzees know what conspecifics can and cannot see, and, furthermore, that they use this knowledge to devise effective social-cognitive strategies in naturally occurring food competition situations.
|
Povinelli DJ, Gallup GG, Eddy TJ, Bierschwale DT, & Engstrom MC. (1997). Chimpanzees recognize themselves in mirrors. Anim. Behav., 53, 1083.
|
Tomasello, M., Hare, B., & Agnetta, B. (1999). Chimpanzees, Pan troglodytes, follow gaze direction geometrically. Anim. Behav., 58(4), 769–777.
Abstract: Two experiments on chimpanzee gaze following are reported. In the first, chimpanzee subjects watched as a human experimenter looked around various types of barriers. The subjects looked around each of the barriers more when the human had done so than in a control condition (in which the human looked in another direction). In the second experiment, chimpanzees watched as a human looked towards the back of their cage. As they turned to follow the human's gaze a distractor object was presented. The chimpanzees looked at the distractor while still following the human's gaze to the back of the cage. These two experiments effectively disconfirm the low-level model of chimpanzee gaze following in which it is claimed that upon seeing another animate being's gaze direction chimpanzees simply turn in that direction and look around for something interesting. Rather, they support the hypothesis that chimpanzees follow the gaze direction of other animate beings geometrically to specific locations, in much the same way as human infants. The degree to which chimpanzees have a mentalistic interpretation of the gaze and/or visual experience of others is still an open question.
|
Dugatkin, L. A., & Wilson, D. S. (1994). Choice experiments and cognition: a reply to Lamprecht & Hofer. Anim. Behav., 47(6), 1459–1461.
|
Bang, A., Deshpande, S., Sumana, A., & Gadagkar, R. (2010). Choosing an appropriate index to construct dominance hierarchies in animal societies: a comparison of three indices. Animal Behaviour, 79(3), 631–636.
Abstract: A plethora of indices have been proposed and used to construct dominance hierarchies in a variety of vertebrate and invertebrate societies, although the rationale for choosing a particular index for a particular species is seldom explained. In this study, we analysed and compared three such indices, viz Clutton-Brock et al.'s index (CBI), originally developed for red deer, Cervus elaphus, David's score (DS) originally proposed by the statistician H. A. David and the frequency-based index of dominance (FDI) developed and routinely used by our group for the primitively eusocial wasps Ropalidia marginata and Ropalidia cyathiformis. Dominance ranks attributed by all three indices were strongly and positively correlated for both natural data sets from the wasp colonies and for artificial data sets generated for the purpose. However, the indices differed in their ability to yield unique (untied) ranks in the natural data sets. This appears to be caused by the presence of noninteracting individuals and reversals in the direction of dominance in some of the pairs in the natural data sets. This was confirmed by creating additional artificial data sets with noninteracting individuals and with reversals. Based on the criterion of yielding the largest proportion of unique ranks, we found that FDI is best suited for societies such as the wasps belonging to Ropalidia, DS is best suited for societies with reversals and CBI remains a suitable index for societies such as red deer in which multiple interactions are uncommon.
|