A meta-analysis of interindividual differences in innovation

Amici, Federica; Widdig, Anja; Lehmann, Julia; Majolo, Bonaventura

doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2019.07.008

Cited by 35 publications

(69 citation statements)

References 113 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Furthermore, sex and rank seem to affect whether an individual will innovate a new behaviour, as low‐ranking male chimpanzees are observed most often making these innovations (Reader & Laland, 2001). A more recent meta‐analysis incorporating multiple taxa (not only primates), and examining performance in experimental novel foraging tasks in both wild and captive settings, found that innovation is more common in older animals, and in those of the larger sex (Amici et al ., 2019), a finding in agreement with that of Reader & Laland (2001) of a sex difference in chimpanzee innovation. Personality factors such as neophilia and exploration tendency were also found to influence propensity to innovate, though the extent of their influence differed in wild and captive subjects (Amici et al ., 2019).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

“…This is in line with the findings of Reader & Laland (2001), whose meta‐analysis found that male chimpanzees were more likely to innovate than females, and with Amici et al . (2019), whose meta‐analysis found that members of the larger sex were more likely to innovate in novel foraging tasks. In terms of specific personality traits, studies across multiple taxa have shown that there are traits that vary among individuals that may increase an individual's likelihood of innovating, including neophilia (Day et al ., 2003, exploratory tendency (Overington et al ., 2011), and motivation or persistence (Morand‐Ferron et al ., 2011).…”

Section: Quantitative Findingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Innovation in chimpanzees

Bandini

Harrison

2020

Biological Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The study of innovation in non‐human animals (henceforth: animals) has recently gained momentum across fields including primatology, animal behaviour and cultural evolution. Examining the rate of innovations, and the cognitive mechanisms driving these innovations across species, can provide insights into the evolution of human culture. Especially relevant to the study of human culture is one of our closest living relatives, the chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes). Both wild and captive chimpanzees demonstrate an impressive ability to innovate solutions to novel problems, but also a striking level of conservatism in some contexts, creating a unique and at times puzzling, picture of animal innovation. Whilst the animal innovation field is rife with potential for expanding our knowledge of human and non‐human cognition and problem‐solving, it is undermined by a lack of consistency across studies. The field is yet to settle on a definition of the term ‘innovation’, leading to studies being incomparable across and even within the same species. Here, we fill two gaps in the literature. First, we discuss some of the most prevalent definitions of ‘innovation’ from different fields, highlighting similarities and differences between them. Secondly, we provide an up‐to‐date review of accounts of innovations in both wild and captive chimpanzees. We hope this review will provide a resource for researchers interested in the study of innovation in chimpanzees and other animals, as well as emphasising the need for consistency in the way in which innovations are reported.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Section: Quantitative Findingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Innovation in chimpanzees

Bandini

Harrison

2020

Biological Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…number of different exploratory or functional behaviours during the innovation task, number of different objects/tasks manipulated during other tasks, time spent interacting with the box 18,19 ). Even more importantly, most previous studies on innovation have not differentiated between functional and non-functional manipulations of the testing boxes 18 .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Therefore, the ability to innovate may be context-dependent, as has been proposed for neophobia 101 . This would also explain why studies on innovation often provide contrasting results on the effect of individual characteristics on innovation 18 . Moreover, these results suggest that innovation may be spread across conspecifics regardless of their individual characteristics.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Innovation in wild Barbary macaques (Macaca sylvanus)

Amici

Caicoya

Majolo

et al. 2020

Sci Rep

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Innovation is the ability to solve novel problems or find novel solutions to familiar problems, and it is known to affect fitness in both human and non-human animals. In primates, innovation has been mostly studied in captivity, although differences in living conditions may affect individuals' ability to innovate. Here, we tested innovation in a wild group of Barbary macaques (Macaca sylvanus). In four different conditions, we presented the group with several identical foraging boxes containing food. To understand which individual characteristics and behavioural strategies best predicted innovation rate, we measured the identity of the individuals manipulating the boxes and retrieving the food, and their behaviour during the task. Our results showed that success in the novel task was mainly affected by the experimental contingencies and the behavioural strategies used during the task. Individuals were more successful in the 1-step conditions, if they participated in more trials, showed little latency to approach the boxes and mainly manipulated functional parts of the box. In contrast, we found no effect of inhibition, social facilitation and individual characteristics like sex, age, rank, centrality, neophobia and reaction to humans, on the individuals' ability to innovate. Innovation has been defined as the solution to a novel problem, or the novel solution to a familiar problem 1,2. In humans, the ability to innovate and socially transmit innovations has been crucial through evolution, allowing us to reach a unique level of behavioural and cultural complexity 3,4. However, innovation also provides a variety of benefits to other animals, allowing them to develop novel responses against predators, exploit novel resources and invade new niches 1,5-15. By allowing individuals to better cope with novel socio-ecological challenges, innovation is thought to provide direct fitness benefits, especially in dynamic environments 1,2,9,10,12,13,16,17 The ability to innovate is therefore widespread across taxa. Several species of birds, fish, carnivores and rodents, just to name a few, show evidence of innovation 2,18,19 for reviews. Studies in captivity have also shown that some primate species are excellent problem-solvers 20-27. Great apes, for instance, can use several new solutions to extract food from a container, inhibiting old strategies when they become inefficient 24. When presented with a novel foraging task, great apes could successfully move food through a maze, planning up to two steps ahead to avoid food falling into traps 28. Even lemurs (Varecia spp.) and callitrichid monkeys (Leontopithecus spp., Saguinus spp., Callithrix spp.), who are phylogenetically more distant from humans and have relatively small brain sizes 29 , can solve novel foraging tasks by retrieving food from different containers 21. Apart from inter-specific differences, there are also several intra-specific differences in terms of innovation. Traditionally, these differences have been explained by the Innovation by Necessity and the Free T...

show abstract

“…In a recent meta-analysis surveying published innovation literature in mammals and birds, Amici et al (2019) also found that older individuals were more likely to invent, but there was no consistent methodology for defining inventions. The problem with the data contained within these literature reviews is that they are not reports from researchers explicitly measuring invention and innovation, and are susceptible to observer biases (such as for behaviours that look especially human-like or peculiar to the human eye); furthermore, larger literature reviews such as (Amici et al, 2019;Reader and Laland, 2001) do not always distinguish between invention or innovation defined as "success at solving a problem" versus "creativity." The former definition might be biased towards older (larger, stronger, more experienced) individuals and the latter towards younger individuals.…”

Section: What Characteristics Of Individuals Make Them More Likely Tomentioning

confidence: 99%

Not by transmission alone – the role of invention in cultural evolution

Perry¹,

Carter²,

Smolla³

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Invention and social learning have together empowered our species to inhabit virtually every part of the world. For the past fifty years, however, social learning has been regarded as the fundamental driver for the emergence of tradition and culture. As a result, innovation has been relatively understudied, outside the human lineage. This has left basic questions unanswered, such as: What factors promote the creation of new ideas and practices? And what affects whether they are spread or lost? We review the existing literature, focusing on the following four levels of investigation: traits (what sorts of behaviours are easiest to invent?), individuals (what intrinsic and contextual factors make some individuals more likely to invent new things?), populations (what features of social relationships and societies promote the rise and spread of new inventions?), and ecological contexts. We aim to inspire new research agendas by summarizing what is known and highlighting theoretical and empirical gaps in our understanding of the innovative process. Understanding the origin of humans’ noteworthy levels of creativity requires a well-developed theory of creativity and innovation as well as a large comparative data set investigating these processes in nonhuman species from a wide range of taxa.

show abstract

A meta-analysis of interindividual differences in innovation

Cited by 35 publications

References 113 publications

Innovation in chimpanzees

Innovation in chimpanzees

Innovation in wild Barbary macaques (Macaca sylvanus)

Not by transmission alone – the role of invention in cultural evolution

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About