The evolution of self-control

Abstract

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 ...

Coevolution of cultural intelligence, extended life history, sociality, and brain size in primates

“…For instance, larger primate brains have more neurons in absolute terms (8)(9)(10)(11), with coordinated expansion particularly in the neocortex and cerebellum (12), potentially supporting a greater diversity of cognitive functions (7,10). In support of this idea, overall brain size increases with broad measures of cognitive ability in primates, including performance in laboratory tests of learning and cognition across primate genera (13) and performance in experimental measures of behavioral inhibition across primate species (14).…”

Innovativeness as an emergent property: a new alignment of comparative and experimental research on animal innovation

“…The data on innovation-brain relations have been criticized, however. Indeed, the conclusion relies fully upon the still controversial assumption that neural volumes provide a meaningful measure of information processing capacity ( [31], but see [32]). The question of whether absolute brain size or brain size corrected for allometric relations with body size is most suited to measuring brain-performance relationships [32,33] and how to measure brain size reliably [34] are on-going debates in the literature.…”

Increased juvenile predation is not associated with evolved differences in adult brain size in Trinidadian killifish (Rivulus hartii)

“…There are clear fitness benefits associated with a larger brain as brain size is positively correlated with increased intelligence, cognition, learning capability, population persistence, and decreased susceptibility to predation (Sol & Lefebvre, 2000; Tebbich & Bshary, 2004; Shultz & Dunbar, 2006a; Sol, Szekely, Liker, & Lefebvre, 2007; Sol, Bacher, Reader, & Lefebvre, 2008; Overington, Morand‐Ferron, Boogert, & Lefebvre, 2009; Barrickman, Bastian, Isler, & van Schaik, 2008; Amiel, Tingley, & Shine, 2011; Reader, Hager, & Laland, 2011; Kotrschal et al., 2013b; MacLean et al., 2014; Kotrschal et al., 2015a; Kotrschal, Corral‐Lopez, Amcoff, & Kolm, 2015b; Benson‐Amram, Dantzer, Stricker, Swanson, & Holekamp, 2016; but also see Drake, 2007). Key hypotheses, such as the expensive tissue hypothesis (i.e., expensive metabolic cost of brain tissue) (Aiello & Wheeler, 1995; Isler & van Schaik, 2009) and energy trade‐off hypothesis (increased encephalization leads to trade‐offs with other functions) (Isler & van Schaik, 2006a,b, 2009; Navarrete, van Schaik, & Isler, 2011; Tsuboi et al., 2015), recognize that brain tissue is costly and that fitness trade‐offs likely underlie increased encephalization (Aiello & Wheeler, 1995).…”