Skip to content

Research at St Andrews

Great apes (Pan troglodytes, Pan paniscus, Pongo abelii) exploit better the information of failure than capuchin monkeys (Sapajus spp.) when selecting tools to solve the same foraging problem

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

DOI

Author(s)

Héctor M Manrique, Josep Call, Elisabetta Visalberghi, Gloria Sabbatini

School/Research organisations

Abstract

In a previous study, chimpanzees, bonobos, orangutans, and capuchin monkeys faced a task that required the use of a rigid stick-like tool to displace an out-of-reach food reward, which was located outside the cage either hanging on a string (e.g., apes) or on a table (e.g., capuchins). Three unfamiliar stick-like tools were placed on a wooden platform for the subjects to choose. Testing consisted of two consecutive trials, each with the same set of tools. Previous to the test subjects learned about the rigidity of the tool either by handling the tools (manipulation), or by observing an experimenter bending and unbending them in sequence (observation); or did not receive any information since the three tools were presented lying on the platform (visual static). In the current study, we investigated whether failing to select the right type of tool in the first trial affected subjects' choices in the second trial. Results showed that when information about the tool rigidity was obtained before selection, great apes and capuchin monkeys changed options in their second choices. However, in the visual static condition, where no information about the rigidity of the tools had been provided before their selection, only great apes discarded wrong tool exemplars in their second trials benefitting from their own mistakes. In contrast, capuchin monkeys did not. We argue that lower attentional focus and lack of stimuli distinctiveness might account for capuchins monkeys' failure to benefit from their own experience. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).
Close

Details

Original languageEnglish
JournalJournal of comparative psychology (Washington, D.C. : 1983)
Early online date25 Jan 2021
DOIs
Publication statusE-pub ahead of print - 25 Jan 2021

    Research areas

  • Attention, Tool choice, Tool use, Preservation, Primates

Discover related content
Find related publications, people, projects and more using interactive charts.

View graph of relations

Related by author

  1. Targeted helping and cooperation in zoo-living chimpanzees and bonobos

    Nolte, S. & Call, J., 10 Mar 2021, In: Royal Society Open Science. 8, 3, 19 p., 201688.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

  2. Non-human primates use combined rules when deciding under ambiguity

    Romain, A., Broihanne, M-H., De Marco, A., Ngoubangoye, B., Call, J., Rebout, N. & Dufour, V., 1 Mar 2021, In: Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. B, Biological Sciences. 376, 1819

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

  3. Chimpanzees behave prosocially in a group-specific manner

    van Leeuwen, E. J. C., DeTroy, S. E., Kaufhold, S. P., Dubois, C., Schütte, S., Call, J. & Haun, D. B. M., 24 Feb 2021, In: Science Advances. 7, 9, 10 p., eabc7982.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

  4. Evaluating the influence of action- and subject-specific factors on chimpanzee action copying

    Motes-Rodrigo, A., Mundry, R., Call, J. & Tennie, C., 10 Feb 2021, In: Royal Society Open Science. 8, 2, 20 p., 200228.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

  5. Chimpanzees’ (Pan troglodytes) internal arousal remains elevated if they cannot themselves help a conspecific

    Hepach, R., Vaish, A., Kano, F., Albiach-Serrano, A., Benziad, L., Call, J. & Tomasello, M., 14 Dec 2020, In: Journal of Comparative Psychology. Advance online

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Related by journal

  1. How habitat features shape ground squirrel (Urocitellus beldingi) navigation

    Bruck, J. N. & Mateo, J. M., May 2010, In: Journal of comparative psychology (Washington, D.C. : 1983). 124, 2, p. 176-86 11 p.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

ID: 272951426

Top