元分析表明,社会智力假设得到了支持。

IF 11 1区 生物学 Q1 BIOLOGY
Elizabeth M. Speechley, Benjamin J. Ashton, Yong Zhi Foo, Leigh W. Simmons, Amanda R. Ridley
{"title":"元分析表明,社会智力假设得到了支持。","authors":"Elizabeth M. Speechley,&nbsp;Benjamin J. Ashton,&nbsp;Yong Zhi Foo,&nbsp;Leigh W. Simmons,&nbsp;Amanda R. Ridley","doi":"10.1111/brv.13103","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The Social Intelligence Hypothesis (SIH) is one of the leading explanations for the evolution of cognition. Since its inception a vast body of literature investigating the predictions of the SIH has accumulated, using a variety of methodologies and species. However, the generalisability of the hypothesis remains unclear. To gain an understanding of the robustness of the SIH as an explanation for the evolution of cognition, we systematically searched the literature for studies investigating the predictions of the SIH. Accordingly, we compiled 103 studies with 584 effect sizes from 17 taxonomic orders. We present the results of four meta-analyses which reveal support for the SIH across interspecific, intraspecific and developmental studies. However, effect sizes did not differ significantly between the cognitive or sociality metrics used, taxonomy or testing conditions. Thus, support for the SIH is similar across studies using neuroanatomy and cognitive performance, those using broad categories of sociality, group size and social interactions, across taxonomic groups, and for tests conducted in captivity or the wild. Overall, our meta-analyses support the SIH as an evolutionary and developmental explanation for cognitive variation.</p>","PeriodicalId":133,"journal":{"name":"Biological Reviews","volume":"99 5","pages":"1889-1908"},"PeriodicalIF":11.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/brv.13103","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Meta-analyses reveal support for the Social Intelligence Hypothesis\",\"authors\":\"Elizabeth M. Speechley,&nbsp;Benjamin J. Ashton,&nbsp;Yong Zhi Foo,&nbsp;Leigh W. Simmons,&nbsp;Amanda R. Ridley\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/brv.13103\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>The Social Intelligence Hypothesis (SIH) is one of the leading explanations for the evolution of cognition. Since its inception a vast body of literature investigating the predictions of the SIH has accumulated, using a variety of methodologies and species. However, the generalisability of the hypothesis remains unclear. To gain an understanding of the robustness of the SIH as an explanation for the evolution of cognition, we systematically searched the literature for studies investigating the predictions of the SIH. Accordingly, we compiled 103 studies with 584 effect sizes from 17 taxonomic orders. We present the results of four meta-analyses which reveal support for the SIH across interspecific, intraspecific and developmental studies. However, effect sizes did not differ significantly between the cognitive or sociality metrics used, taxonomy or testing conditions. Thus, support for the SIH is similar across studies using neuroanatomy and cognitive performance, those using broad categories of sociality, group size and social interactions, across taxonomic groups, and for tests conducted in captivity or the wild. Overall, our meta-analyses support the SIH as an evolutionary and developmental explanation for cognitive variation.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":133,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Biological Reviews\",\"volume\":\"99 5\",\"pages\":\"1889-1908\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":11.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/brv.13103\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Biological Reviews\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"99\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/brv.13103\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"生物学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"BIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Biological Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/brv.13103","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

社会智能假说(SIH)是认知进化的主要解释之一。自该假说提出以来,已经积累了大量研究该假说预测的文献,其中使用了各种方法和物种。然而,该假说的普遍性仍不明确。为了了解 SIH 作为认知进化解释的稳健性,我们系统地检索了有关调查 SIH 预测的研究文献。因此,我们汇编了来自 17 个分类学目 103 项研究的 584 个效应大小。我们介绍了四项荟萃分析的结果,这些结果表明种间、种内和发育研究都支持 SIH。然而,不同的认知或社会性指标、分类学或测试条件之间的效应大小并无显著差异。因此,在使用神经解剖学和认知表现的研究中,在使用社会性、群体大小和社会互动等广泛类别的研究中,在不同分类群中,以及在人工饲养或野外进行的测试中,对SIH的支持是相似的。总体而言,我们的荟萃分析支持 SIH 作为认知变异的进化和发展解释。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Meta-analyses reveal support for the Social Intelligence Hypothesis

Meta-analyses reveal support for the Social Intelligence Hypothesis

The Social Intelligence Hypothesis (SIH) is one of the leading explanations for the evolution of cognition. Since its inception a vast body of literature investigating the predictions of the SIH has accumulated, using a variety of methodologies and species. However, the generalisability of the hypothesis remains unclear. To gain an understanding of the robustness of the SIH as an explanation for the evolution of cognition, we systematically searched the literature for studies investigating the predictions of the SIH. Accordingly, we compiled 103 studies with 584 effect sizes from 17 taxonomic orders. We present the results of four meta-analyses which reveal support for the SIH across interspecific, intraspecific and developmental studies. However, effect sizes did not differ significantly between the cognitive or sociality metrics used, taxonomy or testing conditions. Thus, support for the SIH is similar across studies using neuroanatomy and cognitive performance, those using broad categories of sociality, group size and social interactions, across taxonomic groups, and for tests conducted in captivity or the wild. Overall, our meta-analyses support the SIH as an evolutionary and developmental explanation for cognitive variation.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Biological Reviews
Biological Reviews 生物-生物学
CiteScore
21.30
自引率
2.00%
发文量
99
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Biological Reviews is a scientific journal that covers a wide range of topics in the biological sciences. It publishes several review articles per issue, which are aimed at both non-specialist biologists and researchers in the field. The articles are scholarly and include extensive bibliographies. Authors are instructed to be aware of the diverse readership and write their articles accordingly. The reviews in Biological Reviews serve as comprehensive introductions to specific fields, presenting the current state of the art and highlighting gaps in knowledge. Each article can be up to 20,000 words long and includes an abstract, a thorough introduction, and a statement of conclusions. The journal focuses on publishing synthetic reviews, which are based on existing literature and address important biological questions. These reviews are interesting to a broad readership and are timely, often related to fast-moving fields or new discoveries. A key aspect of a synthetic review is that it goes beyond simply compiling information and instead analyzes the collected data to create a new theoretical or conceptual framework that can significantly impact the field. Biological Reviews is abstracted and indexed in various databases, including Abstracts on Hygiene & Communicable Diseases, Academic Search, AgBiotech News & Information, AgBiotechNet, AGRICOLA Database, GeoRef, Global Health, SCOPUS, Weed Abstracts, and Reaction Citation Index, among others.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信