|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Byrne, R. W., & Bates, L. A. (2006). Why are animals cognitive? Curr Biol, 16(12), R445–8.
|
|
|
|
Hopkins, W. D., & Washburn, D. A. (2002). Matching visual stimuli on the basis of global and local features by chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) and rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta). Anim. Cogn., 5(1), 27–31.
Abstract: This study was designed to examine whether chimpanzees and monkeys exhibit a global-to-local precedence in the processing of hierarchically organized compound stimuli, as has been reported for humans. Subjects were tested using a sequential matching-to-sample paradigm using stimuli that differed on the basis of their global configuration or local elements, or on both perceptual attributes. Although both species were able to discriminate stimuli on the basis of their global configuration or local elements, the chimpanzees exhibited a global-to-local processing strategy, whereas the rhesus monkeys exhibited a local-to-global processing strategy. The results suggest that perceptual and attentional mechanisms underlying information-processing strategies may account for differences in learning by primates.
|
|
|
|
Bjorklund, D. F., Yunger, J. L., Bering, J. M., & Ragan, P. (2002). The generalization of deferred imitation in enculturated chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). Anim. Cogn., 5(1), 49–58.
Abstract: Deferred imitation of object-related actions and generalization of imitation to similar but not identical tasks was assessed in three human-reared (enculturated) chimpanzees, ranging in age from 5 to 9 years. Each ape displayed high levels of deferred imitation and only slightly lower levels of generalization of imitation. The youngest two chimpanzees were more apt to generalize the model's actions when they had displayed portions of the target behaviors at baseline, consistent with the idea that learning is more likely to occur when working within the “zone of proximal development.” We argue that generalization of imitation is the best evidence to date of imitative learning in chimpanzees.
|
|
