Search

Tactical deception has been widely reported in primates on a functional basis, but details of behavioral mechanisms are usually unspecified. We tested a pair of chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) in the informed forager paradigm, in which the subordinate saw the location of hidden food and the dominant did not. We employed cross-correlations to examine temporal contingencies between chimpanzees' behavior: specifically how the direction of the subordinate's gaze and movement functioned to manipulate the dominant's searching behavior through two tactics, withholding, and misleading information. In Experiment 1, not only did the informed subordinate tend to stop walking toward a single high value food, but she also refrained from gazing toward it, thus, withholding potentially revealing cues from her searching competitor. In a second experiment, in which a moderate value food was hidden in addition to the high value food, whenever the subordinate alternated her gaze between the dominant and the moderate value food, she often paused walking for 5 s; this frequently recruited the dominant to the inferior food, functioning as a "decoy." The subordinate flexibly concealed and revealed gaze toward a goal, which suggests that not only can chimpanzees use visual cues to make predictions about behavior, but also that chimpanzees may understand that other individuals can exploit their gaze direction. These results substantiate descriptive reports of how chimpanzees use gaze to manipulate others, and to our knowledge are the first quantitative data to identify behavioral mechanisms of tactical deception., Research Highlights: Cross correlations show a subordinate chimpanzee tactically deceived a dominant by not gazing toward a valuable food (withholding), and recruiting to a "decoy" food (misleading). Chimpanzees understand that others can exploit their gaze direction., (© 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Tufted or brown capuchin monkeys (Sapajus apella) have been shown to recognize conspecific faces as well as categorize them according to group membership. Little is known, though, about their capacity to differentiate between emotionally charged facial expressions or whether facial expressions are processed as a collection of features or configurally (i.e., as a whole). In 3 experiments, we examined whether tufted capuchins (a) differentiate photographs of neutral faces from either affiliative or agonistic expressions, (b) use relevant facial features to make such choices or view the expression as a whole, and (c) demonstrate an inversion effect for facial expressions suggestive of configural processing. Using an oddity paradigm presented on a computer touchscreen, we collected data from 9 adult and subadult monkeys. Subjects discriminated between emotional and neutral expressions with an exceptionally high success rate, including differentiating open-mouth threats from neutral expressions even when the latter contained varying degrees of visible teeth and mouth opening. They also showed an inversion effect for facial expressions, results that may indicate that quickly recognizing expressions does not originate solely from feature-based processing but likely a combination of relational processes. (PsycINFO Database Record, ((c) 2017 APA, all rights reserved).)

Our species is routinely depicted as unique in its ability to achieve cooperation, whereas our closest relative, the chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes), is often characterized as overly competitive. Human cooperation is assisted by the cost attached to competitive tendencies through enforcement mechanisms, such as punishment and partner choice. To examine if chimpanzees possess the same ability to mitigate competition, we set up a cooperative task in the presence of the entire group of 11 adults, which required two or three individuals to pull jointly to receive rewards. This open-group set-up provided ample opportunity for competition (e.g., freeloading, displacements) and aggression. Despite this unique set-up and initial competitiveness, cooperation prevailed in the end, being at least five times as common as competition. The chimpanzees performed 3,565 cooperative acts while using a variety of enforcement mechanisms to overcome competition and freeloading, as measured by (attempted) thefts of rewards. These mechanisms included direct protest by the target, third-party punishment in which dominant individuals intervened against freeloaders, and partner choice. There was a marked difference between freeloading and displacement; freeloading tended to elicit withdrawal and third-party interventions, whereas displacements were met with a higher rate of direct retaliation. Humans have shown similar responses in controlled experiments, suggesting shared mechanisms across the primates to mitigate competition for the sake of cooperation., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Background: The operating room (OR) is a highly social and hierarchical setting where interprofessional team members must work interdependently under pressure. Due primarily to methodological challenges, the social and behavioral sciences have had trouble offering insight into OR dynamics., Purpose: We adopted a method from the field of ethology for observing and quantifying the interpersonal interactions of OR team members., Methods: We created and refined an ethogram, a catalog of all our subjects' observable social behaviors. The ethogram was then assessed for its feasibility and interobserver reliability., Results: It was feasible to use an ethogram to gather data in the OR. The high interobserver reliability (Cohen's Kappa coefficients of 81 % and higher) indicates its utility for yielding largely objective, descriptive, quantitative data on OR behavior., Conclusions: The method we propose has potential for social research conducted in healthcare settings as complex as the OR.

A recent report suggested that chimpanzees demonstrate the cognitive capacities necessary to understand cooking (Warneken & Rosati, 2015). We offer alternate explanations and mechanisms that could account for the behavioral responses of those chimpanzees, without invoking the understanding of cooking as a process. We discuss broader issues surrounding the use of chimpanzees in modeling hominid behavior and understanding aspects of human evolution.

A recent report suggested that chimpanzees demonstrate the cognitive capacities necessary to understand cooking (Warneken & Rosati, 2015). We offered alternative explanations and mechanisms that could account for the behavioral responses of those chimpanzees, and questioned the manner in which the data were used to examine human evolution (Beran, Hopper, de Waal, Sayers, & Brosnan, 2015). Two commentaries suggested either that we were overly critical of the original report's claims and methodology (Rosati & Warneken, 2016), or that, contrary to our statements, early biological thinkers contributed little to questions concerning the evolutionary importance of cooking (Wrangham, 2016). In addition, both commentaries took issue with our treatment of chimpanzee referential models in human evolutionary studies. Our response offers points of continued disagreement as well as points of conciliation. We view Warneken and Rosati's general conclusions as a case of affirming the consequent-a logical conundrum in which, in this case, a demonstration of a partial list of the underlying abilities required for a cognitive trait/suite (understanding of cooking) are suggested as evidence for that ability. And although we strongly concur with both Warneken and Rosati (2015) and Wrangham (2016) that chimpanzee research is invaluable and essential to understanding humanness, it can only achieve its potential via the holistic inclusion of all available evidence-including that from other animals, evolutionary theory, and the fossil and archaeological records.

Research has shown that great apes possess certain expectations about social regularities and both perceive and act according to social rules within their group. During natural and experimentally induced contexts, such as the inequitable distribution of resources, individuals also show protesting behaviors when their expectations about a social situation are violated. Despite broad interest in this topic, systematic research examining the nature of these expectations and the communicative signals individuals use to express them remains scant. Here, we addressed this by exploring whether bonobos (Pan paniscus) respond to violations of social expectations in naturally occurring social interactions, focusing on the vocal behavior of victims following socially expected and unexpected aggression. Expected aggression included conflicts over a contested resource and conflicts that were provoked by the victim. Unexpected aggression was any spontaneous, unprovoked hostility toward the victim. For each conflict, we also determined its severity and the composition of the nearby audience. We found that the acoustic and temporal structure of victim screams was individually distinct and varied significantly depending on whether or not aggression could be socially predicted. Certain acoustic parameters also varied as a function of conflict severity, but unlike social expectation, conflict severity did not discriminate scream acoustic structure overall. We found no effect of audience composition. We concluded that, beyond the physical nature of a conflict, bonobos possess certain social expectations about how they should be treated and will publicly protest with acoustically distinctive vocal signals if these expectations are violated., ((c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved).)

Consolation behavior toward distressed others is common in humans and great apes, yet our ability to explore the biological mechanisms underlying this behavior is limited by its apparent absence in laboratory animals. Here, we provide empirical evidence that a rodent species, the highly social and monogamous prairie vole (Microtus ochrogaster), greatly increases partner-directed grooming toward familiar conspecifics (but not strangers) that have experienced an unobserved stressor, providing social buffering. Prairie voles also match the fear response, anxiety-related behaviors, and corticosterone increase of the stressed cagemate, suggesting an empathy mechanism. Exposure to the stressed cagemate increases activity in the anterior cingulate cortex, and oxytocin receptor antagonist infused into this region abolishes the partner-directed response, showing conserved neural mechanisms between prairie vole and human., (Copyright © 2016, American Association for the Advancement of Science.)

The human sense of fairness is an evolutionary puzzle. To study this, we can look to other species, in which this can be translated empirically into responses to reward distribution. Passive and active protest against receiving less than a partner for the same task is widespread in species that cooperate outside kinship and mating bonds. There is less evidence that nonhuman species seek to equalize outcomes to their own detriment, yet the latter has been documented in our closest relatives, the apes. This reaction probably reflects an attempt to forestall partner dissatisfaction with obtained outcomes and its negative impact on future cooperation. We hypothesize that it is the evolution of this response that allowed the development of a complete sense of fairness in humans, which aims not at equality for its own sake but for the sake of continued cooperation., (Copyright © 2014, American Association for the Advancement of Science.)

In a dyadic informed forager task, chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) are known to exploit the knowledge of informed subordinates; however, the behavioral mechanisms they employ are unknown. It is tempting to interpret outcome measures, such as which individual obtained the food, in a cognitively richer way than the outcomes may justify. We employed a different approach from prior research, asking how chimpanzees compete by maneuvering around each other, whether they use gaze cues to acquire information from others, and what information they use in moment-to-moment decision-making. We used cross correlations, which plot the correlation between two variables as a function of time, systematically to examine chimpanzee interactions in a series of dyadic informed forager contests. We used cross correlations as a "proof of concept" so as to determine whether the target actions were contingent on, or occurred in a time-locked pattern relative to, the referent actions. A subordinate individual was given privileged knowledge of food location. As expected, an ignorant dominant followed the informed subordinate's movement in the enclosure. The dominant also followed the subordinate's gaze direction: after she looked at the subordinate, she was more likely to gaze toward this same direction within one second. In contrast, the subordinate only occasionally followed the dominant's movement and gaze. The dominant also changed her own direction of movement to converge on the location to which the subordinate directed her gaze and movement. Cross correlation proves an effective technique for charting contingencies in social interactions, an important step in understanding the use of cognition in natural situations., (© 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

[Correction Notice: An Erratum for this article was reported in Vol 40(4) of Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Learning and Cognition (see record 2014-35305-001). For the article, the below files were used to create the audio used in this study. The original West African akan and North Indian raga pieces were used in their entirety and the Japanese taiko piece was used from the 0:19 second mark through the end. The tempo of each piece was adjusted so that they maintained an identical base tempo of 90 beats per minute, then looped to create 40 minutes of continuous music. Additionally, the volume of the music was standardized at 50 dB so that the all music maintained the same average amplitude. All audio manipulations were completed using GarageBand © (Apple Inc.).] All primates have an ability to distinguish between temporal and melodic features of music, but unlike humans, in previous studies, nonhuman primates have not demonstrated a preference for music. However, previous research has not tested the wide range of acoustic parameters present in many different types of world music. The purpose of the present study is to determine the spontaneous preference of common chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) for 3 acoustically contrasting types of world music: West African akan, North Indian raga, and Japanese taiko. Sixteen chimpanzees housed in 2 groups were exposed to 40 min of music from a speaker placed 1.5 m outside the fence of their outdoor enclosure; the proximity of each subject to the acoustic stimulus was recorded every 2 min. When compared with controls, subjects spent significantly more time in areas where the acoustic stimulus was loudest in African and Indian music conditions. This preference for African and Indian music could indicate homologies in acoustic preferences between nonhuman and human primates. .

Humans will, at times, act against their own economic self-interest, for example, in gambling situations. To explore the evolutionary roots of this behavior, we modified a traditional human gambling task, the Iowa Gambling Task (IGT), for use with chimpanzees, capuchin monkeys and humans. We expanded the traditional task to include two additional payoff structures to fully elucidate the ways in which these primate species respond to differing reward distributions versus overall quantities of rewards, a component often missing in the existing literature. We found that while all three species respond as typical humans do in the standard IGT payoff structure, species and individual differences emerge in our new payoff structures. Specifically, when variance avoidance and reward maximization conflicted, roughly equivalent numbers of apes maximized their rewards and avoided variance, indicating that the traditional payoff structure of the IGT is insufficient to disentangle these competing strategies. Capuchin monkeys showed little consistency in their choices. To determine whether this was a true species difference or an effect of task presentation, we replicated the experiment but increased the intertrial interval. In this case, several capuchin monkeys followed a reward maximization strategy, while chimpanzees retained the same strategy they had used previously. This suggests that individual differences in strategies for interacting with variance and reward maximization are present in apes, but not in capuchin monkeys. The primate gambling task presented here is a useful methodology for disentangling strategies of variance avoidance and reward maximization.

The purpose of the present study was to push the boundaries of cooperation among captive chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). There has been doubt about the level of cooperation that chimpanzees are able to spontaneously achieve or understand. Would they, without any pre-training or restrictions in partner choice, be able to develop successful joint action? And would they be able to extend cooperation to more than two partners, as they do in nature? Chimpanzees were given a chance to cooperate with multiple partners of their own choosing. All members of the group (N = 11) had simultaneous access to an apparatus that required two (dyadic condition) or three (triadic condition) individuals to pull in a tray baited with food. Without any training, the chimpanzees spontaneously solved the task a total of 3,565 times in both dyadic and triadic combinations. Their success rate and efficiency increased over time, whereas the amount of pulling in the absence of a partner decreased, demonstrating that they had learned the task contingencies. They preferentially approached the apparatus when kin or nonkin of similar rank were present, showing a preference for socially tolerant partners. The forced partner combinations typical of cooperation experiments cannot reveal these abilities, which demonstrate that in the midst of a complex social environment, chimpanzees spontaneously initiate and maintain a high level of cooperative behavior.

Human empathy can extend to strangers and even other species, but it is unknown whether non-humans are similarly broad in their empathic responses. We explored the breadth and flexibility of empathy in chimpanzees, a close relative of humans. We used contagious yawning to measure involuntary empathy and showed chimpanzees videos of familiar humans, unfamiliar humans and gelada baboons (an unfamiliar species). We tested whether each class of stimuli elicited contagion by comparing the effect of yawn and control videos. After including previous data on the response to ingroup and outgroup chimpanzees, we found that familiar and unfamiliar humans elicited contagion equal to that of ingroup chimpanzees. Gelada baboons did not elicit contagion, and the response to them was equal to that of outgroup chimpanzees. However, the chimpanzees watched the outgroup chimpanzee videos more than any other. The combination of high interest and low contagion may stem from hostility towards unfamiliar chimpanzees, which may interfere with an empathic response. Overall, chimpanzees showed flexibility in that they formed an empathic connection with a different species, including unknown members of that species. These results imply that human empathic flexibility is shared with related species.

Contact directed by uninvolved bystanders toward others in distress, often termed consolation, is uncommon in the animal kingdom, thus far only demonstrated in the great apes, canines, and corvids. Whereas the typical agonistic context of such contact is relatively rare within natural elephant families, other causes of distress may trigger similar, other-regarding responses. In a study carried out at an elephant camp in Thailand, we found that elephants affiliated significantly more with other individuals through directed, physical contact and vocal communication following a distress event than in control periods. In addition, bystanders affiliated with each other, and matched the behavior and emotional state of the first distressed individual, suggesting emotional contagion. The initial distress responses were overwhelmingly directed toward ambiguous stimuli, thus making it difficult to determine if bystanders reacted to the distressed individual or showed a delayed response to the same stimulus. Nonetheless, the directionality of the contacts and their nature strongly suggest attention toward the emotional states of conspecifics. The elephants' behavior is therefore best classified with similar consolation responses by apes, possibly based on convergent evolution of empathic capacities.

Social and emotional skills are tightly interlinked in human development, and both are negatively impacted by disrupted social development. The same interplay between social and emotional skills, including expressions of empathy, has received scant attention in other primates however, despite the growing interest in caring, friendships, and the fitness benefits of social skills. Here we examine the development of socio-emotional competence in juvenile bonobos (Pan paniscus) at a sanctuary in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, focusing on the interplay between various skills, including empathy-related responding. Most subjects were rehabilitated orphans, but some were born at the sanctuary and mother-reared there. We observed how juveniles with different rearing backgrounds responded to stressful events, both when the stress affected themselves (e.g., a lost fight) or others (e.g., witnessing the distress of others). The main dependent variable was the consolation of distressed parties by means of calming body contact. As in children, consolation was predicted by overall social competence and effective emotion regulation, as reflected in the speed of recovery from self-distress and behavioral measures of anxiety. Juveniles more effective at self-regulation were more likely to console others in distress, and such behavior was more typical of mother-reared juveniles than orphans. These results highlight the interplay between the development of social and emotional skills in our ape relatives and the importance of the mother-offspring bond in shaping socio-emotional competence.

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.

Species comparisons of personality structure (i.e., how many personality dimensions and the characteristics of those dimensions) can facilitate questions about the adaptive function of personality in nonhuman primates. Here we investigate personality structure in the brown capuchin monkey (Sapajus apella), a New World primate species, and compare this structure to those of chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes), orangutans (Pongo spp.), and rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatta). Brown capuchins evolved behavioral and cognitive traits that are qualitatively similar to those of great apes, and individual differences in behavior and cognition often reflect differences in personality. Thus, we hypothesized that brown capuchin personality structure would overlap more with great apes than with rhesus macaques. We obtained personality ratings from seven sites, including 127 brown capuchin monkeys. Principal-components analysis identified five personality dimensions (Assertiveness, Openness, Neuroticism, Sociability, and Attentiveness), which were reliable across raters and, in a subset of subjects, significantly correlated with relevant behaviors up to a year later. Comparisons between species revealed that brown capuchins and great apes overlapped in personality structure, particularly chimpanzees in the case of Neuroticism. However, in some respects (i.e., capuchin Sociability and Openness) the similarities between capuchins and great apes were not significantly greater than those between capuchins and rhesus macaques. We discuss the relevance of our results to brown capuchin behavior and the evolution of personality structure in primates.

Humans can behave fairly, but can other species? Recently we tested chimpanzees on a classic human test for fairness, the Ultimatum Game, and found that they behaved similarly to humans. In humans, Ultimatum Game behavior is cited as evidence for a human sense of fairness. By that same logic, we concluded that chimpanzees behaved fairly in our recent study. However, we make a distinction between behavior and motivation. Both humans and chimpanzees behaved fairly, but determining why they did so is more challenging.

Is the sense of fairness uniquely human? Human reactions to reward division are often studied by means of the ultimatum game, in which both partners need to agree on a distribution for both to receive rewards. Humans typically offer generous portions of the reward to their partner, a tendency our close primate relatives have thus far failed to show in experiments. Here we tested chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) and human children on a modified ultimatum game. One individual chose between two tokens that, with their partner's cooperation, could be exchanged for rewards. One token offered equal rewards to both players, whereas the other token favored the chooser. Both apes and children responded like humans typically do. If their partner's cooperation was required, they split the rewards equally. However, with passive partners--a situation akin to the so-called dictator game--they preferred the selfish option. Thus, humans and chimpanzees show similar preferences regarding reward division, suggesting a long evolutionary history to the human sense of fairness.

How animals respond to conflict provides key insights into the evolution of socio-cognitive and emotional capacities. Evidence from apes has shown that, after social conflicts, bystanders approach victims of aggression to offer stress-alleviating contact behavior, a phenomenon known as consolation. This other-orientated behavior depends on sensitivity to the other's emotional state, whereby the consoler acts to ameliorate the other's situation. We examined post-conflict interactions in bonobos (Pan paniscus) to identify the determinants of consolation and reconciliation. Thirty-six semi-free bonobos of all ages were observed at the Lola ya Bonobo Sanctuary, DR Congo, using standardized Post-conflict/Matched Control methods. Across age and sex classes, bonobos consoled victims and reconciled after conflicts using a suite of affiliative and socio-sexual behaviors including embracing, touching, and mounting. Juveniles were more likely to console than adults, challenging the assumption that comfort-giving rests on advanced cognitive mechanisms that emerge only with age. Mother-reared individuals were more likely to console than orphans, highlighting the role of rearing in emotional development. Consistent with previous studies, bystanders were more likely to console relatives or closely bonded partners. Effects of kinship, affiliation and rearing were similarly indicated in patterns of reconciliation. Nearby bystanders were significantly more likely to contact victims than more distal ones, and consolation was more likely in non-food contexts than during feeding. The results did not provide convincing evidence that bystander contacts served for self-protection or as substitutes for reconciliation. Overall, results indicate that a suite of social, developmental and contextual factors underlie consolation and reconciliation in bonobos and that a sensitivity to the emotions of others and the ability to provide appropriate consolatory behaviors emerges early in development.

Nonhuman primates show remarkable variation in several aspects of social structure. One way to characterize this variation in the genus Macaca is through the concept of social style, which is based on the observation that several social traits appear to covary with one another in a linear or at least continuous manner. In practice, macaques are more simply characterized as fitting a four-grade scale in which species range from extremely despotic (grade 1) to extremely tolerant (grade 4). Here, we examine the fit of three core measures of social style-two measures of dominance gradients (hierarchical steepness) and another closely related measure (counter-aggression)-to this scale, controlling for phylogenetic relationships. Although raw scores for both steepness and counter-aggression correlated with social scale in predicted directions, the distributions appeared to vary by measure. Counter-aggression appeared to vary dichotomously with scale, with grade 4 species being distinct from all other grades. Steepness measures appeared more continuous. Species in grades 1 and 4 were distinct from one another on all measures, but those in the intermediate grades varied inconsistently. This confirms previous indications that covariation is more readily observable when comparing species at the extreme ends of the scale than those in intermediate positions. When behavioral measures were mapped onto phylogenetic trees, independent contrasts showed no significant consistent directional changes at nodes below which there were evolutionary changes in scale. Further, contrasts were no greater at these nodes than at neutral nodes. This suggests that correlations with the scale can be attributed largely to species' phylogenetic relationships. This could be due in turn to a structural linkage of social traits based on adaptation to similar ecological conditions in the distant past, or simply to unlinked phylogenetic closeness., (© 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

The debate about the origins of human prosociality has focused on the presence or absence of similar tendencies in other species, and, recently, attention has turned to the underlying mechanisms. We investigated whether direct reciprocity could promote prosocial behavior in brown capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella). Twelve capuchins tested in pairs could choose between two tokens, with one being "prosocial" in that it rewarded both individuals (i.e., 1/1), and the other being "selfish" in that it rewarded the chooser only (i.e., 1/0). Each monkey's choices with a familiar partner from their own group was compared with choices when paired with a partner from a different group. Capuchins were spontaneously prosocial, selecting the prosocial option at the same rate regardless of whether they were paired with an in-group or out-group partner. This indicates that interaction outside of the experimental setting played no role. When the paradigm was changed, such that both partners alternated making choices, prosocial preference significantly increased, leading to mutualistic payoffs. As no contingency could be detected between an individual's choice and their partner's previous choice, and choices occurred in rapid succession, reciprocity seemed of a relatively vague nature akin to mutualism. Having the partner receive a better reward than the chooser (i.e., 1/2) during the alternating condition increased the payoffs of mutual prosociality, and prosocial choice increased accordingly. The outcome of several controls made it hard to explain these results on the basis of reward distribution or learned preferences, and rather suggested that joint action promotes prosociality, resulting in so-called attitudinal reciprocity.

The view of humans as violent war-prone apes is poorly supported by archaeological evidence and only partly supported by the behavior of our closest primate relatives, chimpanzees and bonobos. Whereas the first species is marked by xenophobia, the second is relatively peaceful and highly empathic in both behavior and brain organization. Animal empathy is best regarded as a multilayered phenomenon, built around motor mirroring and shared neural representations at basal levels, that develops into more advanced cognitive perspective-taking in large-brained species. As indicated by both observational and experimental studies on our closest relatives, empathy may be the main motivator of prosocial behavior.

A recent report by the Institute of Medicine leaves few urgent reasons standing for the continued use of chimpanzees in biomedical research. It is high time to think about their retirement, Frans de Waal argues, without neglecting prospects for non-invasive research on behavior, cognition, and genetics., Competing Interests: The author is a longtime board member of ChimpHaven, an NIH-sponsored chimpanzee sanctuary in Louisiana.

The face inversion effect may be defined as the general impairment in recognition that occurs when faces are rotated 180°. This phenomenon seems particularly strong for faces as opposed to other objects and is often used as a marker of a specialized face-processing mechanism. Four brown capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella) were tested on their ability to discriminate several classes of facial and non-facial stimuli presented in both their upright and inverted orientations in an oddity task. Results revealed significantly better performance on upright than inverted presentations of capuchin and human face stimuli, but not on chimpanzee faces or automobiles. These data support previous studies in humans and other primates suggesting that the inversion effect occurs for stimuli for which subjects have developed an expertise., (© Springer-Verlag 2011)

We investigated whether capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella) would choose to observe a high- or low-status adult female from their group during experimental foraging tests. The subject was located in the center of a test chamber, with a low- and high-ranking demonstrator on either side of two partitions. A peephole allowed the subject to observe the models by looking through either respective partition. Each model was trained on one of the two different methods, lift or pull, for retrieving food from a foraging apparatus. There were 22 subjects and four models. During the 40-trial test sessions, subjects could choose which model they would watch in each trial. It was predicted that subjects would prefer observing the model with whom it was closer in rank, and therefore share greater affiliation with. Results showed that only half the subjects showed a preference and that preference was not linked to status. Relatedness played a larger role in determining if a subject showed a preference for a model, and a correlation was found for relatedness and observer preference. After the observer preference tests, subjects were presented with the foraging apparatus to determine if they displayed a preference for one of the two tasks. The majority of subjects (17/22) showed a preference for the pull method, suggesting that this method may have been more salient to the monkeys in this study., (© 2011 Wiley-Liss, Inc.)

The study of human and primate altruism faces an evolutionary anomaly: There is ample evidence for altruistic preferences in our own species and growing evidence in monkeys, but one of our closest relatives, the chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes), is viewed as a reluctant altruist, acting only in response to pressure and solicitation. Although chimpanzee prosocial behavior has been reported both in observational captive studies and in the wild, thus far Prosocial Choice Tests have failed to produce evidence. However, methodologies of previous Prosocial Choice Tests may have handicapped the apes unintentionally. Here we present findings of a paradigm in which chimpanzees chose between two differently colored tokens: one "selfish" token resulting in a reward for the actor only (1/0), and the other "prosocial" token rewarding both the actor and a partner (1/1). Seven female chimpanzees, each tested with three different partners, showed a significant bias for the prosocial option. Prosocial choices occurred both in response to solicitation by the partner and spontaneously without solicitation. However, directed requests and pressure by the partner reduced the actor's prosocial tendency. These results draw into question previous conclusions indicating that chimpanzees have a limited sensitivity to the needs of others and behave prosocially only in response to significant prompting.

Humans favor others seen as similar to themselves (ingroup) over people seen as different (outgroup), even without explicitly stated bias. Ingroup-outgroup bias extends to involuntary responses, such as empathy for pain. However, empathy biases have not been tested in our close primate relatives. Contagious yawning has been theoretically and empirically linked to empathy. If empathy underlies contagious yawning, we predict that subjects should show an ingroup-outgroup bias by yawning more in response to watching ingroup members yawn than outgroup. Twenty-three chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) from two separate groups watched videos of familiar and unfamiliar individuals yawning or at rest (control). The chimpanzees yawned more when watching the familiar yawns than the familiar control or the unfamiliar yawns, demonstrating an ingroup-outgroup bias in contagious yawning. These results provide further empirical support that contagious yawning is a measure of empathy, which may be useful for evolutionary biology and mental health.

Postconflict management strategies have been defined as any postconflict interaction that mitigates the negative consequences of the preceding agonistic conflict. Although most studies have investigated postconflict interactions between former opponents or between victims and uninvolved bystanders, interactions between aggressors and bystanders have received much less attention. In this study, we examined a database of 1,102 agonistic interactions and their corresponding postconflict periods in two outdoor-housed groups of captive chimpanzees in order to test the occurrence of postconflict third-party affiliation of aggressors. Our results confirmed the occurrence of appeasement, i.e. postconflict affiliation by a bystander toward an aggressor, but failed to detect the occurrence of postconflict affiliation directed from aggressors toward bystanders. Appeasement rates did not differ according to the sex of the involved individuals. In addition, appeasement occurred more often in the absence of reconciliation than after its occurrence suggesting that appeasement may act as an alternative to reconciliation when the latter fails to occur. Both study groups showed behavioral specificity for appeasement, i.e. context-specific use of certain behaviors, supporting the view that chimpanzees exhibit highly visible explicit postconflict affiliation., (© 2010 Wiley-Liss, Inc.)

Elephants are widely assumed to be among the most cognitively advanced animals, even though systematic evidence is lacking. This void in knowledge is mainly due to the danger and difficulty of submitting the largest land animal to behavioral experiments. In an attempt to change this situation, a classical 1930s cooperation paradigm commonly tested on monkeys and apes was modified by using a procedure originally designed for chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) to measure the reactions of Asian elephants (Elephas maximus). This paradigm explores the cognition underlying coordination toward a shared goal. What do animals know or learn about the benefits of cooperation? Can they learn critical elements of a partner's role in cooperation? Whereas observations in nature suggest such understanding in nonhuman primates, experimental results have been mixed, and little evidence exists with regards to nonprimates. Here, we show that elephants can learn to coordinate with a partner in a task requiring two individuals to simultaneously pull two ends of the same rope to obtain a reward. Not only did the elephants act together, they inhibited the pulling response for up to 45 s if the arrival of a partner was delayed. They also grasped that there was no point to pulling if the partner lacked access to the rope. Such results have been interpreted as demonstrating an understanding of cooperation. Through convergent evolution, elephants may have reached a cooperative skill level on a par with that of chimpanzees.

Consolation, i.e., post-conflict affiliation directed from bystanders to recent victims of aggression, has recently acquired an important role in the debate about empathy in great apes. Although similar contacts have been also described for aggressors, i.e., appeasement, they have received far less attention and their function and underlying mechanisms remain largely unknown. An exceptionally large database of spontaneous conflict and post-conflict interactions in two outdoor-housed groups of chimpanzees lends support to the notion that affiliation toward aggressors reduces the latter's aggressive tendencies in that further aggression was less frequent after the occurrence of the affiliation. However, bystander affiliation toward aggressors occurred disproportionally between individuals that were socially close (i.e., affiliation partners) which suggest that it did not function to protect the actor itself against redirected aggression. Contrary to consolation behavior, it was provided most often by adult males and directed toward high ranking males, whereas females engaged less often in this behavior both as actors and recipients, suggesting that affiliation with aggressors is unlikely to be a reaction to the distress of others. We propose that bystander affiliation toward aggressors may function to strengthen bonds between valuable partners, probably as part of political strategies. Our findings also suggest that this post-conflict behavior may act as an alternative to reconciliation, i.e., post-conflict affiliation between opponents, in that it is more common when opponents fail to reconcile.

Non-human primates are marked by well-developed prosocial and cooperative tendencies as reflected in the way they support each other in fights, hunt together, share food and console victims of aggression. The proximate motivation behind such behaviour is not to be confused with the ultimate reasons for its evolution. Even if a behaviour is ultimately self-serving, the motivation behind it may be genuinely unselfish. A sharp distinction needs to be drawn, therefore, between (i) altruistic and cooperative behaviour with knowable benefits to the actor, which may lead actors aware of these benefits to seek them by acting cooperatively or altruistically and (ii) altruistic behaviour that offers the actor no knowable rewards. The latter is the case if return benefits occur too unpredictably, too distantly in time or are of an indirect nature, such as increased inclusive fitness. The second category of behaviour can be explained only by assuming an altruistic impulse, which-as in humans-may be born from empathy with the recipient's need, pain or distress. Empathy, a proximate mechanism for prosocial behaviour that makes one individual share another's emotional state, is biased the way one would predict from evolutionary theories of cooperation (i.e. by kinship, social closeness and reciprocation). There is increasing evidence in non-human primates (and other mammals) for this proximate mechanism as well as for the unselfish, spontaneous nature of the resulting prosocial tendencies. This paper further reviews observational and experimental evidence for the reciprocity mechanisms that underlie cooperation among non-relatives, for inequity aversion as a constraint on cooperation and on the way defection is dealt with.

Consolation, that is, postconflict affiliative contact by a bystander toward a recipient of aggression, has acquired an important role in the debate about empathy in great apes because it has been proposed that the reassuring behavior aimed at distressed parties reflects empathetic arousal. However, the function of this behavior is not fully understood. The present study tests specific predictions about the identity of bystanders on the basis of a database of 1102 agonistic interactions and their corresponding postconflict periods in two outdoor-housed groups of captive chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). We found that recipients of aggression were more likely to be contacted by their own "friends" than by "friends" of the aggressor and that frequent targets of aggression were not more likely to offer consolation than were nontargets of aggression. These findings support the stress reduction hypothesis rather than two proposed alternatives, that is, the opponent relationship repair hypothesis and the self-protection hypothesis. Our results provide further support for relationship quality as a fundamental underlying factor explaining variation in the occurrence of consolation., (2010 APA, all rights reserved)

Chimpanzees are known to spontaneously provide contact comfort to recent victims of aggression, a behavior known as consolation. Similar behavior in human children is attributed to empathic or sympathetic concern. In line with this empathy hypothesis, chimpanzee consolation has been shown to reduce the recipient's state of arousal, hence to likely alleviate distress. Other predictions from the empathy hypothesis have rarely been tested, however, owing to small sample sizes in previous studies. An exceptionally large database of spontaneous consolation in two outdoor-housed groups of chimpanzees lends further support to the empathy hypothesis in that consolation occurred disproportionally between individuals that are socially close (i.e., kin and affiliation partners) and was more typical of females than males, which differences are also known of human empathy. These effects were demonstrated using generalized linear mixed models, which control multiple variables at once. An exception to the above pattern was formed by the highest-ranking males, which frequently offered consolation to victims of aggression, probably as part of their general policing function in chimpanzee society. Consolation occurred more frequently in the absence of reconciliation between former opponents, suggesting that actors are sensitive to the contact need of victims of aggression, which may be greater if the aggressor ignores them. That consolation is an integrated part of close mutual relationships is supported by the tendency for it being reciprocated.

Humans follow the example of prestigious, high-status individuals much more readily than that of others, such as when we copy the behavior of village elders, community leaders, or celebrities. This tendency has been declared uniquely human, yet remains untested in other species. Experimental studies of animal learning have typically focused on the learning mechanism rather than on social issues, such as who learns from whom. The latter, however, is essential to understanding how habits spread. Here we report that when given opportunities to watch alternative solutions to a foraging problem performed by two different models of their own species, chimpanzees preferentially copy the method shown by the older, higher-ranking individual with a prior track-record of success. Since both solutions were equally difficult, shown an equal number of times by each model and resulted in equal rewards, we interpret this outcome as evidence that the preferred model in each of the two groups tested enjoyed a significant degree of prestige in terms of whose example other chimpanzees chose to follow. Such prestige-based cultural transmission is a phenomenon shared with our own species. If similar biases operate in wild animal populations, the adoption of culturally transmitted innovations may be significantly shaped by the characteristics of performers.