Cognition presents evolutionary research with one of its greatest challenges. Cognitive evolution has been explained at the proximate level by shifts in absolute and relative brain volume and at the ultimate level by differences in social and dietary complexity. However, no study has integrated the experimental and phylogenetic approach at the scale required to rigorously test these explanations. Instead, previous research has largely relied on various measures of brain size as proxies for cognitive abilities. We experimentally evaluated these major evolutionary explanations by quantitatively comparing the cognitive performance of 567 individuals representing 36 species on two problem-solving tasks measuring self-control. Phylogenetic analysis revealed that absolute brain volume best predicted performance across species and accounted for considerably more variance than brain volume controlling for body mass. This result corroborates recent advances in evolutionary neurobiology and illustrates the cognitive consequences of cortical reorganization through increases in brain volume. Within primates, dietary breadth but not social group size was a strong predictor of species differences in self-control. Our results implicate robust evolutionary relationships between dietary breadth, absolute brain volume, and self-control. These findings provide a significant first step toward quantifying the primate cognitive phenome and explaining the process of cognitive evolution.psychology | behavior | comparative methods | inhibitory control | executive function S ince Darwin, understanding the evolution of cognition has been widely regarded as one of the greatest challenges for evolutionary research (1). Although researchers have identified surprising cognitive flexibility in a range of species (2-40) and potentially derived features of human psychology (41-61), we know much less about the major forces shaping cognitive evolution (62-71). With the notable exception of Bitterman's landmark studies conducted several decades ago (63, 72-74), most research comparing cognition across species has been limited to small taxonomic samples (70, 75). With limited comparable experimental data on how cognition varies across species, previous research has largely relied on proxies for cognition (e.g., brain size) or metaanalyses when testing hypotheses about cognitive evolution (76-92). The lack of cognitive data collected with similar methods across large samples of species precludes meaningful species comparisons that can reveal the major forces shaping cognitive evolution across species, including humans (48,70,89,(93)(94)(95)(96)(97)(98). SignificanceAlthough scientists have identified surprising cognitive flexibility in animals and potentially unique features of human psychology, we know less about the selective forces that favor cognitive evolution, or the proximate biological mechanisms underlying this process. We tested 36 species in two problemsolving tasks measuring self-control and evaluated the leading hypotheses regarding how ...

Now more than ever animal studies have the potential to test hypotheses regarding how cognition evolves. Comparative psychologists have developed new techniques to probe the cognitive mechanisms underlying animal behavior, and they have become increasingly skillful at adapting methodologies to test multiple species. Meanwhile, evolutionary biologists have generated quantitative approaches to investigate the phylogenetic distribution and function of phenotypic traits, including cognition. In particular, phylogenetic methods can quantitatively (1) test whether specific cognitive abilities are correlated with life history (e.g., lifespan), morphology (e.g., brain size), or socio-ecological variables (e.g., social system), (2) measure how strongly phylogenetic relatedness predicts the distribution of cognitive skills across species, and (3) estimate the ancestral state of a given cognitive trait using measures of cognitive performance from extant species. Phylogenetic methods can also be used to guide the selection of species comparisons that offer the strongest tests of a priori predictions of cognitive evolutionary hypotheses (i.e., phylogenetic targeting). Here, we explain how an integration of comparative psychology and evolutionary biology will answer a host of questions regarding the phylogenetic distribution and history of cognitive traits, as well as the evolutionary processes that drove their evolution.

No abstract

Social relationships play an important role in animal behavior. Bonds with kin provide indirect fitness benefits, and those with nonkin may furnish direct benefits. Adult male chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) exhibit social bonds with maternal brothers as well as unrelated adult males, facilitating cooperative behavior, but it is unclear when these bonds develop. Prior studies suggest that social bonds emerge during adolescence. Alternatively, bonds may develop during adulthood when male chimpanzees can gain fitness benefits through alliances used to compete for dominance status. To investigate these possibilities and to determine who formed bonds, we studied the social relationships of adolescent and young adult male chimpanzees (N = 18) at Ngogo in Kibale National Park, Uganda. Adolescent male chimpanzees displayed social bonds with other males, and they did so as often as did young adult males. Adolescent and young adult males frequently joined subgroups with old males. They spent time in proximity to and grooming with old males, although they also did so with their age peers. Controlling for age and age difference, males formed strong association and proximity relationships with their maternal brothers and grooming relationships with their fathers. Grooming bonds between chimpanzee fathers and their adolescent and young adult sons have not been documented before and are unexpected because female chimpanzees mate with multiple males. How fathers recognize their sons and vice versa remains unclear but may be due to familiarity created by relationships earlier in development.

Like many animals, adult male chimpanzees often compete for a limited number of mates. They fight other males as they strive for status that confers reproductive benefits and use aggression to coerce females to mate with them. Nevertheless, small-bodied, socially immature adolescent male chimpanzees, who cannot compete with older males for status nor intimidate females, father offspring. We investigated how they do so through a study of adolescent and young adult males at Ngogo in Kibale National Park, Uganda. Adolescent males mated with nulliparous females and reproduced primarily with these first-time mothers, who are not preferred as mating partners by older males. Two other factors, affiliation and aggression, also influenced mating success. Specifically, the strength of affiliative bonds that males formed with females and the amount of aggression males directed toward females predicted male mating success. The effect of male aggression toward females on mating success increased as males aged, especially when they directed it toward females with whom they shared affiliative bonds. These results mirror sexual coercion in humans, which occurs most often between males and females involved in close, affiliative relationships.

Phylogenetic comparative methods have become standard for investigating evolutionary hypotheses, including in studies of human evolution. While these methods account for the non-independence of trait data due to phylogeny, they often fail to consider intraspecific variation, which may lead to biased or erroneous results. We assessed the degree to which intraspecific variation impacts the results of comparative analyses by investigating the “social brain” hypothesis, which has provided a framework for explaining complex cognition and large brains in humans. This hypothesis suggests that group life imposes a cognitive challenge, with species living in larger social groups having comparably larger neocortex ratios than those living in smaller groups. Primates, however, vary considerably in group size within species, a fact that has been ignored in previous analyses. When within-species variation in group size is high, the common practice of using a mean value to represent the species may be inappropriate. We conducted regression and resampling analyses to ascertain whether the relationship between neocortex ratio and group size across primate species persists after controlling for within-species variation in group size. We found that in a sample of 23 primates, 70% of the variation in group size was due to between-species variation. Controlling for within-species variation in group size did not affect the results of phylogenetic analyses, which continued to show a positive relationship between neocortex ratio and group size. Analyses restricted to non-monogamous primates revealed considerable intraspecific variation in group size, but the positive association between neocortex ratio and group size remained even after controlling for within-species variation in group size. Our findings suggest that the relationship between neocortex size and group size in primates is robust. In addition, our methods and associated computer code provide a way to assess and account for intraspecific variation in other comparative analyses of primate evolution.

The social intelligence hypothesis suggests that living in large social networks was the primary selective pressure for the evolution of complex cognition in primates. This hypothesis is supported by comparative studies demonstrating a positive relationship between social group size and relative brain size across primates. However, the relationship between brain size and cognition remains equivocal. Moreover, there have been no experimental studies directly testing the association between group size and cognition across primates. We tested the social intelligence hypothesis by comparing 6 primate species (total N = 96) characterized by different group sizes on two cognitive tasks. Here, we show that a species' typical social group size predicts performance on cognitive measures of social cognition, but not a nonsocial measure of inhibitory control. We also show that a species' mean brain size (in absolute or relative terms) does not predict performance on either task in these species. These data provide evidence for a relationship between group size and social cognition in primates, and reveal the potential for cognitive evolution without concomitant changes in brain size. Furthermore our results underscore the need for more empirical studies of animal cognition, which have the power to reveal species differences in cognition not detectable by proxy variables, such as brain size.

No abstract