ArticlePloS one2025
Do chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) attribute preferences to virtual competitors?
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Utterance evolution: the road to generative, combinatorial communicators.Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society · 2026Review
- Chimpanzees attribute agency to virtual animals, but not to self-propelled shapes.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Many animal species live in multi-level societies regulated by complex patterns of dominance. Avoiding competition with dominant group-mates for resources such as food and mates is an important skill for subordinate individuals in these societies, if they wish to evade harassment and aggression. Chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) are an example of such a species. This study investigated whether chimpanzees could understand the food preferences of their competitors, and make use of this understanding to select non-contested food items. Fifteen chimpanzees were given thorough experience of the differing target preferences of two virtual competitors. In the test, subjects had to select which of the two targets to approach, based on which competitor was present. To choose correctly, they would have to integrate the competitors' preferences from across disparate observations, and then infer, before the competitor acted, what they would do in a novel situation. We also included a control condition featuring two targets for which subjects had no information about the competitors' potential biases. The chimpanzees rapidly learned to direct their virtual agent to collect the targets, and some responded with vocalizations and hard knocking against the screen when competitors "stole" targets from the agent the subject was guiding. However, statistical analyses showed that, both at the individual and the group level, they did not succeed in selecting the correct target item at above-chance levels. Additionally, there was no significant difference between their performance in the test and control. We identify theoretical and methodological discrepancies that could explain the contrasting results of this and other studies.
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.