Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31718514›Full record

ArticleBiology letters2019

Why intergroup variation matters for understanding behaviour.

Stephan P Kaufhold, Edwin J C van Leeuwen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Biology letters, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Bonobos respond aversively to unequal reward distributions.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Group-level signatures in bonobo sociality.Evolutionary human sciences · 2024
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Stephan P KaufholdDepartment of Cognitive Science, University of California San Diego, 9500 Gilman Drive, La Jolla, San Diego, CA 92093, USA.
Edwin J C van LeeuwenBehavioral Ecology and Ecophysiology Group, Department of Biology, University of Antwerp, Universiteitsplein 1, 2610, Wilrijk, Antwerp, Belgium.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Intergroup variation (IGV) refers to variation between different groups of the same species. While its existence in the behavioural realm has been expected and evidenced, the potential effects of IGV are rarely considered in studies that aim to shed light on the evolutionary origins of human socio-cognition, especially in our closest living relatives-the great apes. Here, by taking chimpanzees as a point of reference, we argue that (i) IGV could plausibly explain inconsistent research findings across numerous topics of inquiry (experimental/behavioural studies on chimpanzees), (ii) understanding the evolutionary origins of behaviour requires an accurate assessment of species' modes of behaving across different socio-ecological contexts, which necessitates a reliable estimation of variation across intraspecific groups, and (iii) IGV in the behavioural realm is increasingly likely to be expected owing to the progressive identification of non-human animal cultures. With these points, and by extrapolating from chimpanzees to generic guidelines, we aim to encourage researchers to explicitly consider IGV as an explanatory variable in future studies attempting to understand the socio-cognitive and evolutionary determinants of behaviour in group-living animals.

Indexed as

HominidaePan troglodytesAnimalsBiological EvolutionCognitionHumanschimpanzeesculturegroup differencesintergroup variationspecies-typical behaviour

Identifiers

PMID31718514
PMCPMC6892515

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.