Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39313494›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2024

Domain-specific inferences about conspecifics' skills by chimpanzees.

Stefanie Keupp, Esther Herrmann

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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.

Stefanie KeuppCognitive Ethology Laboratory, German Primate Center - Leibniz Institute for Primate Research, Kellnerweg 4, 37077, Göttingen, Germany. skeupp@dpz.eu.
Esther HerrmannDepartment of Psychology, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, PO1 2UP, UK.

Funding

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft 425330201
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Chimpanzees collaborate with conspecifics in their daily life. However, the cognitive processes underlying partner recruitment aren't fully understood. In the current study, chimpanzees needed to recruit a conspecific partner for either a cooperative or competitive experimental task. They spontaneously preferred to recruit cooperation partners who they have seen performing successfully before on a similar task, over partners who had failed. In contrast, the chimpanzees needed to experience the consequences of competing against co-action partners before settling on a preference for the unsuccessful partner. This divergent pattern may be due to increased cognitive demands of competitive compared to cooperative tasks. Despite the observed differences of social information use in our cooperative and competitive experimental tasks, the findings are exciting as they extend our knowledge of chimpanzee's social evaluation abilities by showing that they can draw domain-specific inferences about conspecifics' skills.

Indexed as

Behavior, AnimalCooperative BehaviorPan troglodytesAnimalsCognitionCompetitive BehaviorFemaleMaleSocial BehaviorChimpanzeesCompetitionCooperationInferenceLearningSocial evaluationTwo informant paradigm

Identifiers

PMID39313494
PMCPMC11420200

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.