Quaresmini, C., Forrester, G. S., Spiezio, C., & Vallortigara, G. (2014). Social environment elicits lateralized behaviors in gorillas (Gorilla gorilla gorilla) and chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). Journal of Comparative Psychology, 128(3), 276–284.
Abstract: The influence of the social environment on lateralized behaviors has now been investigated across a wide variety of animal species. New evidence suggests that the social environment can modulate behavior. Currently, there is a paucity of data relating to how primates navigate their environmental space, and investigations that consider the naturalistic context of the individual are few and fragmented. Moreover, there are competing theories about whether only the right or rather both cerebral hemispheres are involved in the processing of social stimuli, especially in emotion processing. Here we provide the first report of lateralized social behaviors elicited by great apes. We employed a continuous focal animal sampling method to record the spontaneous interactions of a captive zoo-living colony of chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) and a biological family group of peer-reared western lowland gorillas (Gorilla gorilla gorilla). We specifically focused on which side of the body (i.e., front, rear, left, right) the focal individual preferred to keep conspecifics. Utilizing a newly developed quantitative corpus-coding scheme, analysis revealed both chimpanzees and gorillas demonstrated a significant group-level preference for focal individuals to keep conspecifics positioned to the front of them compared with behind them. More interestingly, both groups also manifested a population-level bias to keep conspecifics on their left side compared with their right side. Our findings suggest a social processing dominance of the right hemisphere for context-specific social environments. Results are discussed in light of the evolutionary adaptive value of social stimulus as a triggering factor for the manifestation of group-level lateralized behaviors. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)
|
|
Tomasello, M., Davis-Dasilva, M., Camak, L., & Bard, K. (1987). Observational learning of tool-use by young chimpanzees. Human Evolution, 2(2), 175–183.
Abstract: In the current study two groups of young chimpanzees (4–6 and 8–9 years old) were given a T-bar and a food item that could only be reached by using the T-bar. Experimental subjects were given the opportunity to observe an adult using the stick as a tool to obtain the food; control subjects were exposed to the adult but were given no demonstration. Subjects in the older group did not learn to use the tool. Subjects in the younger group who were exposed to the demonstrator learned to use the stick as a tool much more readily than those who were not. None of the subjects demonstrated an ability to imitatively copy the demonstrator's precise behavioral strategies. More than simple stimulus enhancement was involved, however, since both groups manipulated the T-bar, but only experimental subjects used it in its function as a tool. Our findings complement naturalistic observations in suggesting that chimpanzee tool-use is in some sense «culturally transmitted» — though perhaps not in the same sense as social-conventional behaviors for which precise copying of conspecifics is crucial.
|
|
Lonsdorf, E. V., Ross, S. R., Linick, S. A., Milstein, M. S., & Melber, T. N. (2009). An experimental, comparative investigation of tool use in chimpanzees and gorillas. Anim. Behav., 77(5), 1119–1126.
Abstract: Studies of ape tool use have been conducted in captivity since the early 1900s and in the wild since the 1960s. Chimpanzees are the most prolific tool users among the apes, and are known to use more tools than any other nonhuman animal. In contrast, reports of gorilla tool use are rare both in wild and captive settings. Studies of the processes involved in tool use learning have been limited in the wild by the lack of ability to control several unpredictable variables, and in captivity by tool use opportunities that are often presented in non-naturalistic contexts. We attempted to address both of these limitations by providing naïve subjects with a naturalistic tool use device (built to simulate a termite mound) while housed in a more natural social setting to approximate how learning would occur in the wild. Both gorillas and chimpanzees participated in the experiment to allow comparative analyses of acquisition of tool behaviour and the factors that may affect acquisition. Both species showed low frequencies of interaction with the mound in the baseline condition, before baiting with a food reward. Once baited, chimpanzees both attempted and succeeded to extract the reward more quickly than did gorillas. The number of social group members at the mound was significantly higher for chimpanzees than for gorillas and may have affected skill acquisition. We advocate that comparative approaches to skill acquisition and learning are valuable, but that researchers need to be cognizant of species differences in social structure that may affect results.
|
|
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.
|
|
|
Köhler, W. (1921). Intelligenzprüfungen an Menschenaffen. Berlin: Springer.
|
|