Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40527471›Full record

ArticleBiology letters2025

Why is mutual grooming rare despite its function? A hypothesis for cognitive constraints.

Ayumi Ogawa, Shinya Yamamoto

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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.

Ayumi OgawaKyoto University, Kyoto, Japan.ORCID 0009-0004-7949-7191
Shinya YamamotoKyoto University, Kyoto, Japan.ORCID 0000-0002-7556-6151

Funding

FORESTJSPS KAKENHI (2H04451)JSTKAKENHI
6 · The paper itself

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

CognitionGroomingPrimatesSocial BehaviorAnimalsbehavioural coordinationbidirectional allogroomingcognitive demand hypothesisjoint actionjoint commitmentmutual grooming

Identifiers

PMID40527471
PMCPMC12173481

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.