| Home | << 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 >> [11–20] |
|
Bonnie, K. E., Horner, V., Whiten, A., & de Waal, F. B. M. (2007). Spread of arbitrary conventions among chimpanzees: a controlled experiment. Proc Biol Sci, 274(1608), 367–372.
Abstract: Wild chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) have a rich cultural repertoire--traditions common in some communities are not present in others. The majority of reports describe functional, material traditions, such as tool use. Arbitrary conventions have received far less attention. In the same way that observations of material culture in wild apes led to experiments to confirm social transmission and identify underlying learning mechanisms, experiments investigating how arbitrary habits or conventions arise and spread within a group are also required. The few relevant experimental studies reported thus far have relied on cross-species (i.e. human-ape) interaction offering limited ecological validity, and no study has successfully generated a tradition not involving tool use in an established group. We seeded one of two rewarded alternative endpoints to a complex sequence of behaviour in each of two chimpanzee groups. Each sequence spread in the group in which it was seeded, with many individuals unambiguously adopting the sequence demonstrated by a group member. In one group, the alternative sequence was discovered by a low ranking female, but was not learned by others. Since the action-sequences lacked meaning before the experiment and had no logical connection with reward, chimpanzees must have extracted both the form and benefits of these sequences through observation of others.
|
|
Dindo, M., & De Waal, F. B. M. (2007). Partner effects on food consumption in brown capuchin monkeys. Am. J. Primatol., 69(4), 448–456.
Abstract: It has been claimed that capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella) show inequity aversion in relation to food rewards for a simple exchange task. However, other factors may affect the willingness of a monkey to consume foods of high or low value in the presence of a conspecific. In this study, pairs of monkeys were presented with unequally valued foods, but without any task-performance: they simply received the food under four experimental conditions. By looking at the rate of collection and consumption of low-valued cucumber slices we expected to see variation dependent on whether the partner either had 1) cucumber (equity), 2) grape (inequity), 3) inaccessible cucumber or 4) inaccessible grape. Testing 12 adult capuchin monkeys, our findings differed from those of other authors in that the monkeys failed to show negative reactions to inequity, but rather responded with scramble competition (i.e., fast food collection) in the presence of a conspecific without access to food. They also showed facilitated consumption in the presence of a conspecific consuming high-valued food. Possibly, (in)equity plays a different role if food serves as a reward for a task rather than if it is simply made available for consumption. Am. J. Primatol. 69:1-9, 2007. (c) 2006 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
|
|
Brosnan, S. F., Freeman, C., & De Waal, F. B. M. (2006). Partner's behavior, not reward distribution, determines success in an unequal cooperative task in capuchin monkeys. Am. J. Primatol., 68(7), 713–724.
Abstract: It was recently demonstrated that capuchin monkeys notice and respond to distributional inequity, a trait that has been proposed to support the evolution of cooperation in the human species. However, it is unknown how capuchins react to inequitable rewards in an unrestricted cooperative paradigm in which they may freely choose both whether to participate and, within the bounds of their partner's behavior, which reward they will receive for their participation. We tested capuchin monkeys with such a design, using a cooperative barpull, which has been used with great success in the past. Contrary to our expectations, the equity of the reward distribution did not affect success or pulling behavior. However, the behavior of the partner in an unequal situation did affect overall success rates: pairs that had a tendency to alternate which individual received the higher-value food in unequal reward situations were more than twice as successful in obtaining rewards than pairs in which one individual dominated the higher-value food. This ability to equitably distribute rewards in inherently biased cooperative situations has profound implications for activities such as group hunts, in which multiple individuals work together for a single, monopolizable reward.
|
|
Flack, J. C., de Waal, F. B. M., & Krakauer, D. C. (2005). Social structure, robustness, and policing cost in a cognitively sophisticated species. Am Nat, 165(5), E126–139.
Abstract: Conflict management is one of the primary requirements for social complexity. Of the many forms of conflict management, one of the rarest and most interesting is third-party policing, or intervening impartially to control conflict. Third-party policing should be hard to evolve because policers personally pay a cost for intervening, while the benefits are diffused over the whole group. In this study we investigate the incidence and costs of policing in a primate society. We report quantitative evidence of non-kin policing in the nonhuman primate, the pigtailed macaque. We find that policing is effective at reducing the intensity of or terminating conflict when performed by the most powerful individuals. We define a measure, social power consensus, that predicts effective low-cost interventions by powerful individuals and ineffective, relatively costly interventions by low-power individuals. Finally, we develop a simple probabilistic model to explore whether the degree to which policing can effectively reduce the societal cost of conflict is dependent on variance in the distribution of power. Our data and simple model suggest that third-party policing effectiveness and cost are dependent on power structure and might emerge only in societies with high variance in power.
|
|
de Waal, F. B. M. (2004). Peace lessons from an unlikely source. PLoS. Biol., 2(4), E101.
|
|
de Waal, F. B. M. (2003). Animal communication: panel discussion. Ann N Y Acad Sci, 1000, 79–87.
|
|
de Waal, F. B. M. (2003). Silent invasion: Imanishi's primatology and cultural bias in science. Anim. Cogn., 6(4), 293–299.
|
|
Preston, S. D., & de Waal, F. B. M. (2002). Empathy: Its ultimate and proximate bases. Behav Brain Sci, 25(1), 1–20; discussion 20–71.
Abstract: There is disagreement in the literature about the exact nature of the phenomenon of empathy. There are emotional, cognitive, and conditioning views, applying in varying degrees across species. An adequate description of the ultimate and proximate mechanism can integrate these views. Proximately, the perception of an object's state activates the subject's corresponding representations, which in turn activate somatic and autonomic responses. This mechanism supports basic behaviors (e.g., alarm, social facilitation, vicariousness of emotions, mother-infant responsiveness, and the modeling of competitors and predators) that are crucial for the reproductive success of animals living in groups. The Perception-Action Model (PAM), together with an understanding of how representations change with experience, can explain the major empirical effects in the literature (similarity, familiarity, past experience, explicit teaching, and salience). It can also predict a variety of empathy disorders. The interaction between the PAM and prefrontal functioning can also explain different levels of empathy across species and age groups. This view can advance our evolutionary understanding of empathy beyond inclusive fitness and reciprocal altruism and can explain different levels of empathy across individuals, species, stages of development, and situations.
|
|
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.
|
|
de Waal, F. B. M. (2000). Attitudinal reciprocity in food sharing among brown capuchin monkeys. Anim. Behav., 60(2), 253–261.
Abstract: Capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella) share food even if separated by a mesh restraint. Pairs of capuchins were moved into a test chamber in which one of them received apple pieces for 20 min, and the other received carrot pieces for the next 20 min. Previous research had shown a correlation between the rate of food transfer in both directions across female-female dyads. The present study confirmed this result. Reciprocity across dyads can be explained, however, by symmetry in affiliative and tolerant tendencies between two individuals, provided these tendencies determine food sharing. The present study was designed to exclude this symmetry-based explanation by testing each pair (N=16) of adult females on six separate occasions. There existed a significant covariation across tests of sharing in both dyadic directions, a result unexplained by relationship symmetry. Moreover, control procedures (i.e. testing of a food possessor without a partner, or testing of two individuals with the same food or two different foods at the same time) indicated that behaviour during food trials is not fully explained by mutual attraction or aversion. The monkeys take the quality of their own and the partner's food into account, and possessors limit transfers of high-quality foods. Instead of a symmetry-based reciprocity explanation, a mediating role of memory is suggested, and a mirroring of social attitude between partners. Copyright 2000 The Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour.
|