Video demonstrations seed alternative problem-solving techniques in wild common marmosets

Gunhold, Tina; Whiten, Andrew; Bugnyar, Thomas

doi:10.1098/rsbl.2014.0439

Cited by 54 publications

(53 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Studies of multiple groups of wild primates within single populations have demonstrated social learning through field experiments (in four groups of lemurs, Schnoell & Fichtel, ; in up to 13 groups of marmosets, Gunhold, Massen, Schiel, Souto, & Bugnyar, ; Gunhold Whiten, & Bugnyar, ; in up to six groups of vervet monkeys, van de Waal et al, ; van de Waal et al, ; van de Waal, Borgeaud, et al, ; de Waal et al, ; de Waal, Claidière, & Whiten, ; van de Waal & Bshary, ). However, long‐term observations of these populations, with the aim of revealing potential intergroup differences, are to my knowledge lacking, until this present review of behavioural variation in wild vervet monkeys.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

On the neglected behavioural variation among neighbouring primate groups

Waal

2018

Ethology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Behavioural variation in primates has been well studied at the level of individuals by behavioural ecologists, and more recently at a population level by cultural biologists. Behavioural differences between groups of the same population, however, have rarely been considered. Here, I review intergroup variation in universally occurring behaviours between up to six neighbouring groups of vervet monkeys. Group differences have been found in several domains including foraging, conflicts, grooming and proximity. An exclusively ecological explanation for the observed variation appears implausible, as these monkey groups have overlapping home ranges, and their ecology is therefore very similar. The presence of a genetic bias underlying the observed group differences is also implausible, as males disperse between groups at sexual maturity and multiple times within their lives creating a continuous gene flow between the six groups. This leaves socially learned group‐level traditions as the most plausible explanation. I discuss ways in which this working conclusion can be tested. The likely presence of group‐level traditions in close proximity, well known in humans, has rarely been considered for non‐human primates and adds an important dimension to research on conformity in non‐human cultures.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

On the neglected behavioural variation among neighbouring primate groups

Waal

2018

Ethology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This automation process has continued ever since, now reaching the stage of entirely automated phenotyping for dozens of cognitive, behavioural, and personality traits in laboratory rodents (Jhuang et al, 2010;Maroteaux et al, 2012). A number of automated devices have recently been developed for cognitive tests in captivity (Fagot & Bonté, 2010;Steurer, Aust & Huber, 2012) or in the wild (Ohashi, D'Souza & Thomson, 2010;Nachev & Winter, 2012;Gunhold, Whiten & Bugnyar, 2014). These data could be combined with video analysis of behaviour at the device (e.g.…”

Section: (B) Technological Innovationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Studying the evolutionary ecology of cognition in the wild: a review of practical and conceptual challenges

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cognition is defined as the processes by which animals collect, retain and use information from their environment to guide their behaviour. Thus cognition is essential in a wide range of behaviours, including foraging, avoiding predators and mating. Despite this pivotal role, the evolutionary processes shaping variation in cognitive performance among individuals in wild populations remain very poorly understood. Selection experiments in captivity suggest that cognitive traits can have substantial heritability and can undergo rapid evolution. However only a handful of studies have attempted to explore how cognition influences life-history variation and fitness in the wild, and direct evidence for the action of natural or sexual selection on cognition is still lacking, reasons for which are diverse. Here we review the current literature with a view to: (i) highlighting the key practical and conceptual challenges faced by the field; (ii) describing how to define and measure cognitive traits in natural populations, and suggesting which species, populations and cognitive traits might be examined to greatest effect; emphasis is placed on selecting traits that are linked to functional behaviour; (iii) discussing how to deal with confounding factors such as personality and motivation in field as well as captive studies; (iv) describing how to measure and interpret relationships between cognitive performance, functional behaviour and fitness, offering some suggestions as to when and what kind of selection might be predicted; and (v) showing how an evolutionary ecological framework, more generally, along with innovative technologies has the potential to revolutionise the study of cognition in the wild. We conclude that the evolutionary ecology of cognition in wild populations is a rapidly expanding interdisciplinary field providing many opportunities for advancing the understanding of how cognitive abilities have evolved.

show abstract

“…T&M argue we should look at evidence for social learning from the wild. Evidence for social learning in callitrichids in the wild is clearly available, and by no means restricted to parent‐offspring contexts (Gunhold, Whiten & Bugnyar, ; Gunhold et al ., ). However, even though establishing social learning experimentally in the wild is possible (Reader & Biro, ), not all species are equally amenable to field experiments, producing biases.…”

Section: Immediate Consequences: Proximate Mechanisms and Performancementioning

confidence: 99%

Revisiting the consequences of cooperative breeding

Burkart

Schaik

2016

Journal of Zoology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Thornton & McAuliffe (2015) recently questioned the hypothesis that cooperative breeding has a variety of socio-cognitive consequences, invoking both logical and empirical arguments. The cooperative breeding hypothesis (CBH) posits that the immediate tasks associated with extensive allomaternal care require motivational proximate mechanisms, such as increased social tolerance or proactive prosociality which, as a side-effect, also can facilitate performance in socio-cognitive tasks. Eventually, over evolutionary time this constellation may also, under specific conditions, facilitate increases in brain size. Thus, the CBH is not merely a modified version of the social brain hypothesis, as suggested by Thornton & McAuliffe, which would posit that a species has to be particularly smart to engage in cooperative breeding. In this reply, we first clarify these conceptual issues and then systematically address their criticism of the empirical evidence. We conclude that the empirical evidence for the CBH is strong in primates, but that future work on lineages other than primates is required to assess its generality.

show abstract

Video demonstrations seed alternative problem-solving techniques in wild common marmosets

Cited by 54 publications

References 15 publications

On the neglected behavioural variation among neighbouring primate groups

On the neglected behavioural variation among neighbouring primate groups

Studying the evolutionary ecology of cognition in the wild: a review of practical and conceptual challenges

Revisiting the consequences of cooperative breeding

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About