Do capuchin monkeys, Cebus apella, know what conspecifics do and do not see?

Capuchin monkeys were tested in five experiments in which two individuals competed over food. When given a choice between retrieving a piece of food that was visible or hidden from the dominant, subordinate animals preferred to retrieve hidden food. This preference is consistent with the hypotheses that either (1) the subordinate knew what the dominant could and could not see or (2) the subordinate was monitoring the behaviour of the dominant and avoiding the piece of food that it approached. To test between these alternatives, we released subordinates with a slight head start forcing them to make their choice (between a piece of food hidden or visible to the dominant) before the dominant entered the area. Unlike chimpanzees, Pan troglodytes, subordinates that were given a head start did not preferentially approach hidden pieces of food first. Therefore, our experiments provide little support for the hypothesis that capuchin monkeys are sensitive to what another individual does or does not see. We compare our results with those obtained with chimpanzees in the same paradigm and discuss the evolution of primate social cognition. Copyright 2003 The Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour. Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.      

Visual Cues Given by Humans Are Not Sufficient for Asian Elephants (Elephas maximus) to Find Hidden Food

Recent research suggests that domesticated species – due to artificial selection by humans for specific, preferred behavioral traits – are better than wild animals at responding to visual cues given by humans about the location of hidden food. \Although this seems to be supported by studies on a range of domesticated (including dogs, goats and horses) and wild (including wolves and chimpanzees) animals, there is also evidence that exposure to humans positively influences the ability of both wild and domesticated animals to follow these same cues. Here, we test the performance of Asian elephants (Elephas maximus) on an object choice task that provides them with visual-only cues given by humans about the location of hidden food. Captive elephants are interesting candidates for investigating how both domestication and human exposure may impact cue-following as they represent a non-domesticated species with almost constant human interaction. As a group, the elephants (n = 7) in our study were unable to follow pointing, body orientation or a combination of both as honest signals of food location. They were, however, able to follow vocal commands with which they were already familiar in a novel context, suggesting the elephants are able to follow cues if they are sufficiently salient. Although the elephants’ inability to follow the visual cues provides partial support for the domestication hypothesis, an alternative explanation is that elephants may rely more heavily on other sensory modalities, specifically olfaction and audition. Further research will be needed to rule out this alternative explanation.     

Bonobos and chimpanzees exhibit human-like framing effects

Humans exhibit framing effects when making choices, appraising decisions involving losses differently from those involving gains. To directly test for the evolutionary origin of this bias, we examined decision-making in humans'' closest living relatives: bonobos (Pan paniscus) and chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). We presented the largest sample of non-humans to date (n = 40) with a simple task requiring minimal experience. Apes made choices between a ‘framed’ option that provided preferred food, and an alternative option that provided a constant amount of intermediately preferred food. In the gain condition, apes experienced a positive ‘gain’ event in which the framed option was initially presented as one piece of food but sometimes was augmented to two. In the loss condition, apes experienced a negative ‘loss'' event in which they initially saw two pieces but sometimes received only one. Both conditions provided equal pay-offs, but apes chose the framed option more often in the positive ‘gain’ frame. Moreover, male apes were more susceptible to framing than were females. These results suggest that some human economic biases are shared through common descent with other apes and highlight the importance of comparative work in understanding the origins of individual differences in human choice.     

Modifying the object-choice task: Is the way you look important for ravens?

Most animals seem to have difficulties in using gaze cues to find hidden food in object-choice tasks. For instance, chimpanzees usually fail in these tests, even though they are capable of following other's gaze geometrically behind barriers. Similar to chimpanzees, common ravens are skilled in tracking other's gaze but fail in object-choice tasks. We here explored whether procedural modifications, which had been used successfully in chimpanzees, would also yield positive results in ravens. In our modifications (a) the experimenter approached the cup while gazing at it, (b) the gaze cue was accompanied by a sound and (c) the experimenter could actually see the food while giving the gaze cue. Two out of seven birds performed above chance level in some of these conditions. However, we ascribe this improvement to the individuals' learning ability rather than to an understanding of the communicative nature of the task. This interpretation is further supported by results of a follow-up experiment suggesting that ravens may not rely on conspecifics' gaze cues for finding food caches in a natural foraging context. In sum, our results suggest that ravens may not transfer their gaze follow abilities to foraging situations involving hidden food.     

Task Design Influences Prosociality in Captive Chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes)

Chimpanzees confer benefits on group members, both in the wild and in captive populations. Experimental studies of how animals allocate resources can provide useful insights about the motivations underlying prosocial behavior, and understanding the relationship between task design and prosocial behavior provides an important foundation for future research exploring these animals'' social preferences. A number of studies have been designed to assess chimpanzees'' preferences for outcomes that benefit others (prosocial preferences), but these studies vary greatly in both the results obtained and the methods used, and in most cases employ procedures that reduce critical features of naturalistic social interactions, such as partner choice. The focus of the current study is on understanding the link between experimental methodology and prosocial behavior in captive chimpanzees, rather than on describing these animals'' social motivations themselves. We introduce a task design that avoids isolating subjects and allows them to freely decide whether to participate in the experiment. We explore key elements of the methods utilized in previous experiments in an effort to evaluate two possibilities that have been offered to explain why different experimental designs produce different results: (a) chimpanzees are less likely to deliver food to others when they obtain food for themselves, and (b) evidence of prosociality may be obscured by more “complex” experimental apparatuses (e.g., those including more components or alternative choices). Our results suggest that the complexity of laboratory tasks may generate observed variation in prosocial behavior in laboratory experiments, and highlights the need for more naturalistic research designs while also providing one example of such a paradigm.     

Kea (Nestor notabilis) consider spatial relationships between objects in the support problem

The ‘Support Problem’ is a benchmark test to investigate the understanding of spatial relationships between objects. We tested kea parrots'' performance in a paradigm that has previously been studied in primates. Kea perform comparably well to tamarins when they are confronted with a choice between two support devices, one of which has a reward resting on it and the other slightly next to it, or when given a choice between a continuous and a disrupted support. Kea did better than chimpanzees in some tasks in which the perceptual connection of the food to the support was altered. The results indicate that kea are capable of assessing the spatial means–end relationships of this problem spontaneously and in a way that is comparable with primates.     

Do chimpanzees know what conspecifics know?

We conducted three experiments on social problem solving by chimpanzees, Pan troglodytes. In each experiment a subordinate and a dominant individual competed for food, which was placed in various ways on the subordinate's side of two opaque barriers. In some conditions dominants had not seen the food hidden, or food they had seen hidden was moved elsewhere when they were not watching (whereas in control conditions they saw the food being hidden or moved). At the same time, subordinates always saw the entire baiting procedure and could monitor the visual access of their dominant competitor as well. If subordinates were sensitive to what dominants did or did not see during baiting, they should have preferentially approached and retrieved the food that dominants had not seen hidden or moved. This is what they did in experiment 1 when dominants were either uninformed or misinformed about the food's location. In experiment 2 subordinates recognized, and adjusted their behaviour accordingly, when the dominant individual who witnessed the hiding was replaced with another dominant individual who had not witnessed it, thus demonstrating their ability to keep track of precisely who has witnessed what. In experiment 3 subordinates did not choose consistently between two pieces of hidden food, one of which dominants had seen hidden and one of which they had not seen hidden. However, their failure in this experiment was likely to be due to the changed nature of the competition under these circumstances and not to a failure of social-cognitive skills. These findings suggest that at least in some situations (i.e. competition with conspecifics) chimpanzees know what conspecifics have and have not seen (do and do not know), and that they use this information to devise effective social-cognitive strategies. Copyright 2001 The Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour.     

Theft in an ultimatum game: chimpanzees and bonobos are insensitive to unfairness

Humans, but not chimpanzees, punish unfair offers in ultimatum games, suggesting that fairness concerns evolved sometime after the split between the lineages that gave rise to Homo and Pan. However, nothing is known about fairness concerns in the other Pan species, bonobos. Furthermore, apes do not typically offer food to others, but they do react against theft. We presented a novel game, the ultimatum theft game, to both of our closest living relatives. Bonobos and chimpanzee ‘proposers’ consistently stole food from the responders'' portions, but the responders did not reject any non-zero offer. These results support the interpretation that the human sense of fairness is a derived trait.     

African grey parrots (Psittacus erithacus) use inference by exclusion to find hidden food

Exclusion allows the detection of hidden food when confronted with the choice between an empty and a potentially baited food location. However, exclusion may be based on avoidance of the empty location without drawing inferences about the presence of the food in the baited location. So far, such inferences have been demonstrated in the great apes only: after seeing an experimenter eating one of two food types, which both had been hidden previously in two boxes, the apes were able to choose the box that still contained the other food type. African grey parrots are capable of exclusion, and we here assessed if they are capable of inference by exclusion. In our task, two different but equally preferred food items were hidden in full view of the birds under two opaque cups. Then, an experimenter secretly removed one food type and showed it to the bird. Similarly to the apes, one out of seven parrots significantly preferred the baited cup; control conditions rule out that its choice was based on associative learning or the use of olfactory cues. Thus, we conclude that-like the apes-some grey parrots are able to infer the location of a hidden food reward.     

Dogs (Canis familiaris), but not chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes), understand imperative pointing

Chimpanzees routinely follow the gaze of humans to outside targets. However, in most studies using object choice they fail to use communicative gestures (e.g. pointing) to find hidden food. Chimpanzees' failure to do this may be due to several difficulties with this paradigm. They may, for example, misinterpret the gesture as referring to the opaque cup instead of the hidden food. Or perhaps they do not understand informative communicative intentions. In contrast, dogs seem to be skilful in using human communicative cues in the context of finding food, but as of yet there is not much data showing whether they also use pointing in the context of finding non-food objects. Here we directly compare chimpanzees' (N = 20) and dogs' (N = 32) skills in using a communicative gesture directed at a visible object out of reach of the human but within reach of the subject. Pairs of objects were placed in view of and behind the subjects. The task was to retrieve the object the experimenter wanted. To indicate which one she desired, the experimenter pointed imperatively to it and directly rewarded the subject for handing over the correct one. While dogs performed well on this task, chimpanzees failed to identify the referent. Implications for great apes' and dogs' understanding of human communicative intentions are discussed.     

Variation in withholding of information in three monkey species

Studies on tactical deception have reported that informed subordinates can withhold information from naive dominants, but they have not directly compared species'' performance. Here, we compared the performance in two withholding-of-information tasks of three monkey species differing in the strictness of their dominance hierarchy and degree of fission–fusion dynamics: spider monkeys, capuchin monkeys and long-tailed macaques. Food was hidden from the dominants'' view either inside an opaque box or in a transparent box that could only be opened by knowledgeable subordinates. All species were capable of withholding information, with subjects refraining from interacting with the box when the dominant was nearby. Spider monkeys were the most efficient at retrieving food, by timing it when the dominant was far from the box. Capuchin monkeys were also quite efficient when alone at the box, but they lost much of the food when manipulating the box with the dominant nearby. The results supported our predictions based on interspecific differences in the strictness of the dominance hierarchy and the degree of fission–fusion dynamics, with the former constraining the subjects'' tendency to approach the box and the latter affecting the subjects’ tendency to wait for the appropriate situation to retrieve the food.     

Domestic dogs and puppies can use human voice direction referentially

Domestic dogs are particularly skilled at using human visual signals to locate hidden food. This is, to our knowledge, the first series of studies that investigates the ability of dogs to use only auditory communicative acts to locate hidden food. In a first study, from behind a barrier, a human expressed excitement towards a baited box on either the right or left side, while sitting closer to the unbaited box. Dogs were successful in following the human''s voice direction and locating the food. In the two following control studies, we excluded the possibility that dogs could locate the box containing food just by relying on smell, and we showed that they would interpret a human''s voice direction in a referential manner only when they could locate a possible referent (i.e. one of the boxes) in the environment. Finally, in a fourth study, we tested 8–14-week-old puppies in the main experimental test and found that those with a reasonable amount of human experience performed overall even better than the adult dogs. These results suggest that domestic dogs’ skills in comprehending human communication are not based on visual cues alone, but are instead multi-modal and highly flexible. Moreover, the similarity between young and adult dogs’ performances has important implications for the domestication hypothesis.     

Co–Residence between Males and Their Mothers and Grandmothers Is More Frequent in Bonobos Than Chimpanzees

In long–lived social mammals such as primates, individuals can benefit from social bonds with close kin, including their mothers. In the patrilocal chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes spp.) and bonobo (Pan paniscus), sexually mature males reside and reproduce in their natal groups and can retain post-dependency bonds with their mothers, while immatures of both sexes might also have their paternal grandmothers available. However, quantitative information on the proportion of males and immatures that co-reside with both types of these close female relatives is limited for both species. Combining genetic parentage determination and group composition data from five communities of wild chimpanzees and three communities of wild bonobos, we estimated the frequency of co-residence between (1) mature males and their mothers, and (2) immature males and females and their paternal grandmothers. We found that adult males resided twice as frequently with their mothers in bonobos than in chimpanzees, and that immature bonobos were three times more likely to possess a living paternal grandmother than were immature chimpanzees. Patterns of female and male survivorship from studbook records of captive individuals of both species suggest that mature bonobo females survive longer than their chimpanzee counterparts, possibly contributing to the differences observed in mother–son and grandmother–immature co-residency levels. Taking into account reports of bonobo mothers supporting their sons'' mating efforts and females sharing food with immatures other than their own offspring, our findings suggest that life history traits may facilitate maternal and grandmaternal support more in bonobos than in chimpanzees.     

Altruism in Forest Chimpanzees: The Case of Adoption

In recent years, extended altruism towards unrelated group members has been proposed to be a unique characteristic of human societies. Support for this proposal seemingly came from experimental studies on captive chimpanzees that showed that individuals were limited in the ways they shared or cooperated with others. This dichotomy between humans and chimpanzees was proposed to indicate an important difference between the two species, and one study concluded that “chimpanzees are indifferent to the welfare of unrelated group members”. In strong contrast with these captive studies, consistent observations of potentially altruistic behaviors in different populations of wild chimpanzees have been reported in such different domains as food sharing, regular use of coalitions, cooperative hunting and border patrolling. This begs the question of what socio-ecological factors favor the evolution of altruism. Here we report 18 cases of adoption, a highly costly behavior, of orphaned youngsters by group members in Taï forest chimpanzees. Half of the adoptions were done by males and remarkably only one of these proved to be the father. Such adoptions by adults can last for years and thus imply extensive care towards the orphans. These observations reveal that, under the appropriate socio-ecologic conditions, chimpanzees do care for the welfare of other unrelated group members and that altruism is more extensive in wild populations than was suggested by captive studies.     

Food Neophobia and Social Learning Opportunities in Great Apes

Finding food resources and maintaining a balanced diet are major concerns for all animals. A compromise between neophobia and neophilia is hypothesised to enable animals to enlarge their diet while limiting the risk of poisoning. However, little is known about how primates respond to novel food items and whether their use is socially transmitted. By comparing how four different species of great apes respond to novel food items, we investigated how differences in physiology (digestive tract size and microbial content), habitats (predictability of food availability), and social systems (group size and composition) affect their response toward novelty. We presented two familiar foods, one novel fruit, four novel aromatic plants from herbal medicine, and kaolin to captive chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes), western gorillas (Gorilla gorilla), Bornean orangutans (Pongo pygmaeus) and Sumatran orangutans (Pongo abelii). We recorded smelling, approach-taste delays, ingestion, interindividual observations, and food transfers with continuous sampling. We found that behaviors differed between the apes: chimpanzees were the most cautious species and observed their conspecifics handling the items more frequently than the other apes. Close observations and food transfers were extremely rare in gorillas in comparison to orangutans and chimpanzees. We suggest that a low neophobia level reflects an adaptive response to digestive physiological features in gorillas and to unpredictable food availability in orangutans. Social interactions appeared to be predominant in chimpanzees and in both orangutan species to overcome food neophobia. They reflect higher social tolerance and more opportunities for social learning and cultural transmission in a feeding context.     

Rats (Rattus norvegicus) and pigeons (Columbia livia) are sensitive to the distance to food,but only rats request more food when distance increases

Three experiments investigated foraging by rats and pigeons. In Experiment 1, each response on a manipulandum delivered food to a cup, with the distance between the manipulandum and the cup varying across conditions. The number of responses made before traveling to collect and eat the food increased with distance for rats, but not for pigeons. In Experiment 2, two manipulanda were placed at different distances from a fixed food source; both pigeons and rats preferentially used the manipulandum closest to the food source. Experiment 3 was a systematic replication of Experiment 1 with pigeons. In different conditions, each peck on the left key increased the upcoming hopper duration by 0.5, 1.5 or 2.5 s. Completing a ratio requirement on the right key of 1, 4, 8, 16 or 32 pecks, depending on the condition, then produced the food hopper for a duration that depended on the number of prior left pecks. As the ratio requirement increased on the right key, pigeons responded more on the left key and earned more food. Overall, the results replicate previous research, underlining similarities and differences between these species. The results are discussed in terms of optimal foraging, reinforcer sensitivity and delay discounting.     

Tokens improve capuchin performance in the reverse–reward contingency task

In humans and apes, one of the most adaptive functions of symbols is to inhibit strong behavioural predispositions. However, to our knowledge, no study has yet investigated whether using symbols provides some advantage to non-ape primates. We aimed to trace the evolutionary roots of symbolic competence by examining whether tokens improve performance in the reverse–reward contingency task in capuchin monkeys, which diverged from the human lineage approximately 35 Ma. Eight capuchins chose between: (i) two food quantities, (ii) two quantities of ‘low-symbolic distance tokens’ (each corresponding to one unit of food), and (iii) two ‘high-symbolic distance tokens’ (each corresponding to a different amount of food). In all conditions, subjects had to select the smaller quantity to obtain the larger reward. No procedural modifications were employed. Tokens did improve performance: five subjects succeeded with high-symbolic distance tokens, though only one succeeded with food, and none succeeded with low-symbolic distance tokens. Moreover, two of the five subjects transferred the rule to novel token combinations. Learning effects or preference reversals could not account for the successful performance with high-symbolic distance tokens. This is, to our knowledge, the first demonstration that tokens do allow monkeys to inhibit strong behavioural predispositions, as occurs in chimpanzees and children.     

Chimpanzees predict that a competitor's preference will match their own

The ability to predict how another individual will behave is useful in social competition. Chimpanzees can predict the behaviour of another based on what they observe her to see, hear, know and infer. Here we show that chimpanzees act on the assumption that others have preferences that match their own. All subjects began with a preference for a box with a picture of food over one with a picture of nothing, even though the pictures had no causal relation to the contents. In a back-and-forth food competition, chimpanzees then avoided the box with the picture of food when their competitor had chosen one of the boxes before them—presumably on the assumption that the competitor shared their own preference for it and had already chosen it. Chimpanzees predicted that their competitor''s preference would match their own and adjusted their behavioural strategies accordingly.     

Social behavior of wild pygmy chimpanzees (Pan paniscus) of Wamba: A preliminary report

The author studied wild pygmy chimpanzees (Pan paniscus) for about eight months on two separate expeditions between 1975 and 1977, in the study area located at Wamba, Zone de Djolu, in the Republic of Zaire. Most of this paper is based on data obtained through observing the pygmy chimpanzees in their natural surroundings. However, some of them were provisioned and frequently visited the feeding area. Some portion of the data on groupings and food sharing were gathered there. Pygmy chimpanzees groupings, although similar to the common chimpanzee groupings, have larger temporary associations that are almost exclusively bisexual. At least in some greeting contexts, they exhibit patterns of behavior distinctly different from the common chimpanzee. A preliminary investigation of their social interactions revealed strong bonds between males and females, and high female sociability, in contrast to the strong male bonds and female unsociability seen among common chimpanzees.     

Perseverance and food sharing among closely affiliated female chimpanzees

Chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) have been frequently observed to share food with one another, with numerous hypotheses proposed to explain why. These often focus on reciprocity exchanges for social benefits (e.g., food for grooming, food for sex, affiliation, kinship, and dominance rank) as well as sharing based on begging and deterring harassment. Although previous studies have shown that each of these hypotheses has a viable basis, they have only examined situations in which males have preferential access to food whereby females are required to obtain the food from males. For example, studies on male chimpanzee food sharing take advantage of successful crop-raids and/or acquisitions of meat from hunting, situations that only leave females access to food controlled by male food possessors. This begs the question how and with whom might a female chimpanzee in sole possession of a high-quality food item choose to share? In two large captive groups of chimpanzees, we examined each of the hypotheses with female food possessors of a high-quality food item and compared these data to a previous study examining food transfers from male chimpanzees. Our results show that alpha females shared significantly more with closely affiliated females displaying perseverance, while kinship and dominance rank had no effect. This positive interaction between long-term affiliation and perseverance shows that individuals with whom the female possessor was significantly affiliated received more food while persevering more than those with neutral or avoidant relationships towards her. Furthermore, females with avoidant relationships persevered far less than others, suggesting that this strategy is not equally available to all individuals. In comparison to the mixed-sex trials, females chose to co-feed with other females more than was observed when the alpha male was sharing food. This research indicates that male and female chimpanzees (as possessors of a desired food item) share food in ways influenced by different factors and strategies.