Social evaluation of skilfulness in Tonkean macaques (Macaca tonkeana) and brown capuchins (Sapajus apella)

IF 2.3 2区 生物学 Q3 BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
Marie Hirel, Michele Marziliano, Hélène Meunier, Hannes Rakoczy, Julia Fischer, Stefanie Keupp
{"title":"Social evaluation of skilfulness in Tonkean macaques (Macaca tonkeana) and brown capuchins (Sapajus apella)","authors":"Marie Hirel,&nbsp;Michele Marziliano,&nbsp;Hélène Meunier,&nbsp;Hannes Rakoczy,&nbsp;Julia Fischer,&nbsp;Stefanie Keupp","doi":"10.1007/s10071-025-02039-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n <p>For optimal decision-making, social animals can benefit from evaluating others’ behaviours. Some species seemingly consider the skills of others when deciding who to interact with in different contexts. Yet, whether and how nonhuman animals form impressions about others’ competence is still unclear. In this study, we investigated whether Tonkean macaques (<i>Macaca tonkeana</i>) and brown capuchins (<i>Sapajus apella</i>) can evaluate the skilfulness of others. Subjects observed two human actors (one skilful, one unskilled) trying to open several food containers. Only the skilful actor successfully opened the containers and released food so the experimenter could give it to the subjects. Our results revealed that subjects did not choose the skilful actor significantly more frequently than the unskilled one. Their choices for the skilful actor did not increase through trials nor were they based on the outcomes experienced in previous trials. However, when we considered their initial preferences for the human actors, we observed a significant shift in preference for the skilful actor. Our subjects also looked preferentially at the skilful over the unskilled actor when both simultaneously manipulated a container. While the underlying cognitive mechanisms (impression formation vs. outcome-based process) are still unclear, our findings indicate that Tonkean macaques and brown capuchins may have used social information about the actors’ skills to inform their decisions and raise questions about which behavioural measures best capture social evaluation in nonhuman species.</p>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":7879,"journal":{"name":"Animal Cognition","volume":"29 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2026-01-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10071-025-02039-9.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Animal Cognition","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10071-025-02039-9","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

For optimal decision-making, social animals can benefit from evaluating others’ behaviours. Some species seemingly consider the skills of others when deciding who to interact with in different contexts. Yet, whether and how nonhuman animals form impressions about others’ competence is still unclear. In this study, we investigated whether Tonkean macaques (Macaca tonkeana) and brown capuchins (Sapajus apella) can evaluate the skilfulness of others. Subjects observed two human actors (one skilful, one unskilled) trying to open several food containers. Only the skilful actor successfully opened the containers and released food so the experimenter could give it to the subjects. Our results revealed that subjects did not choose the skilful actor significantly more frequently than the unskilled one. Their choices for the skilful actor did not increase through trials nor were they based on the outcomes experienced in previous trials. However, when we considered their initial preferences for the human actors, we observed a significant shift in preference for the skilful actor. Our subjects also looked preferentially at the skilful over the unskilled actor when both simultaneously manipulated a container. While the underlying cognitive mechanisms (impression formation vs. outcome-based process) are still unclear, our findings indicate that Tonkean macaques and brown capuchins may have used social information about the actors’ skills to inform their decisions and raise questions about which behavioural measures best capture social evaluation in nonhuman species.

东京猕猴(Macaca tonkeana)和棕色卷尾猴(Sapajus apella)技能的社会评价。
为了做出最优决策,社会性动物可以从评估其他动物的行为中获益。有些物种在决定在不同的环境中与谁互动时,似乎会考虑其他物种的技能。然而,非人类动物是否以及如何形成对他人能力的印象仍不清楚。在这项研究中,我们调查了东京猕猴(Macaca tonkeana)和棕色卷尾猴(Sapajus apella)是否能够评估他人的技巧。受试者观察到两个人类演员(一个熟练,一个不熟练)试图打开几个食品容器。只有熟练的演员才能成功地打开容器并释放食物,这样实验者就可以把食物给实验对象了。我们的研究结果显示,受试者选择熟练演员的频率并不明显高于选择不熟练演员的频率。他们对熟练演员的选择并没有随着试验的进行而增加,也不是基于之前试验的结果。然而,当我们考虑他们对人类演员的最初偏好时,我们观察到对熟练演员的偏好发生了重大变化。当我们的实验对象同时操作一个容器时,他们会优先看熟练的演员而不是不熟练的演员。虽然潜在的认知机制(印象形成与基于结果的过程)仍不清楚,但我们的研究结果表明,东京猕猴和棕色卷尾猴可能使用有关行动者技能的社会信息来告知他们的决定,并提出了关于哪种行为措施最能捕捉非人类物种的社会评价的问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Animal Cognition
Animal Cognition 生物-动物学
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
18.50%
发文量
125
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Animal Cognition is an interdisciplinary journal offering current research from many disciplines (ethology, behavioral ecology, animal behavior and learning, cognitive sciences, comparative psychology and evolutionary psychology) on all aspects of animal (and human) cognition in an evolutionary framework. Animal Cognition publishes original empirical and theoretical work, reviews, methods papers, short communications and correspondence on the mechanisms and evolution of biologically rooted cognitive-intellectual structures. The journal explores animal time perception and use; causality detection; innate reaction patterns and innate bases of learning; numerical competence and frequency expectancies; symbol use; communication; problem solving, animal thinking and use of tools, and the modularity of the mind.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书