Variation in withholding of information in three monkey species

Abstract

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.

Delay Maintenance in Tonkean Macaques (Macaca tonkeana) and Brown Capuchin Monkeys (Cebus apella)

“…However, the propensity of capuchins to manipulate objects and use them as tools is noteworthy whereas their rates of social interactions appear relatively low compared to those of macaques (Anderson 1996;Fragaszy et al 2004;Schino et al 2009;Westergaard and Fragaszy 1987). If inhibitory skills are necessary to face uncertainties in social interactions (Amici et al 2009;Pelé et al 2010), it is understandable that the more socially oriented macaques can perform better in delay-maintenance tasks. Future research should investigate possible links between delaying gratification and the cognitive abilities respectively used in the physical and social domains.…”

How does cognition evolve? Phylogenetic comparative psychology

“…For this reason, we suspect that the first generation of broad comparative studies will be most successful if they employ testing procedures that (1) minimize or eliminate the need for training, (2) require few trials/sessions per subject, and (3) are easily implemented with few methodological modifications across species (e.g., Tomasello et al 1998; Amici et al 2009; Sandel et al 2011). By developing methods that meet these criteria, researchers can contribute to working groups in a manner that is minimally disruptive to each participating group’s primary research focus.…”

“…However, our ability to rigorously test these hypotheses will rely on comparative work at a much larger scale. For example, researchers have now identified links between feeding ecology and performance on memory tests (Balda and Kamil 1989; Shettleworth 1990; Clayton and Krebs 1994; Jacobs and Spencer 1994; Macdonald 1997), social dominance hierarchies and transitive reasoning (Bond et al 2003, 2010; Paz-y-Miño et al 2004; Grosenick et al 2007; MacLean et al 2008), domestication’s effect on cognition (Hare et al 2002, 2005; Kaminski et al 2005; Lewejohann et al 2010; Proops et al 2010), fission–fusion dynamics and inhibitory control (Amici et al 2008, 2009; Aureli et al 2008), and social relationships and cooperative problem-solving (Hare et al 2007; Drea and Carter 2009). In order to determine whether these associations reflect robust evolutionary relationships, we will need to explore these questions from a phylogenetic comparative approach.…”

Sneaky Monkeys: An Audience Effect of Male Rhesus Macaques (Macaca mulatta) on Sexual Behavior

“…Disruption can involve aggression such as chasing or attacking copulating individuals [M. mulatta, Chapais, 1983;Lindburg, 1971;Ruiz de Elvira & Herndon, 1986; Pan troglodytes schweinfurthi, Tutin, 1979]. Simple operant learning, combining sexual behavior in close proximity of disrupting individuals with punishment, may then result in a simple rule such as "freeze particular behavior when in close proximity of the dominant" [Amici et al, 2009].…”