ArticleBiology letters2025
Why is mutual grooming rare despite its function? A hypothesis for cognitive constraints.
Article in Biology letters, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Mutual grooming, where both participants groom each other simultaneously, is a type of allogrooming and probably also plays an important role as a social and hygienic function; however, it has attracted little attention, probably due to its rarity compared to prevailing unidirectional grooming in many social animals, such as primate species. While previous studies have shown that mutual grooming has functional significance, such as promoting social bonds and maximizing short-term benefits, we do not know why mutual grooming is much rarer than unidirectional grooming, and its restrictive factors have been mostly uninvestigated. In this article, we propose a hypothesis of cognitive constraints in which cognitive complexity is assumed as an underpinning mechanism for mutual grooming, thereby restricting its prevalence across animal species. To achieve joint action and its symmetric nature, mutual grooming is considered to require behavioural coordination between participants, which could be facilitated by active communication and, furthermore, by joint commitment based on a mutual understanding of intention between the two. The fact that joint commitment has been proved only in a limited number of animals may support this cognitive demand hypothesis, although it definitely calls for further in-depth investigation and comparative studies across primate and non-primate species.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.