CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 819Primate Behavior and EcologyEvolutionary Psychology and Human BehaviorAnimal Behavior and Reproduction

The evolution of self-control.

Open access
MacLean, Evan L., Hare, Brian, Nunn, Charles L., Addessi, Elsa, Amici, Federica, Anderson, Rindy C., Aureli, Filippo, Baker, Joseph M. +50 more·2014·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
DOI 10.1073/pnas.1323533111PMC PMC4034204
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Significance: Although scientists have identified surprising cognitive flexibility in animals and potentially unique features of human psychology, we know less about the selective forces that favor cognitive evolution, or the proximate biological mechanisms underlying this process. We tested 36 species in two problem-solving tasks measuring self-control and evaluated the leading hypotheses regarding how and why cognition evolves. Across species, differences in absolute (not relative) brain volume best predicted performance on these tasks. Within primates, dietary breadth also predicted cognitive performance, whereas social group size did not. These results suggest that increases in absolute brain size provided the biological foundation for evolutionary increases in self-control, and implicate species differences in feeding ecology as a potential selective pressure favoring these skills.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This study experimentally compared self-control across 567 individuals from 36 mammal and bird species using two problem-solving tasks and phylogenetic comparative methods. It found that absolute brain volume, not relative brain volume, best predicted performance, and that within primates dietary breadth—but not social group size—was strongly associated with self-control.

Key findings

  • Across species, absolute brain volume (endocranial volume, ECV) was a robust predictor of self-control, explaining substantial variance on the cylinder task and composite score (r² = 0.43–0.60); residual brain volume explained only 3% of variance in composite scores.
  • Within primates, absolute brain volume was the best predictor (r² = 0.55–0.68), and dietary breadth also covaried strongly with self-control (r² = 0.68); a multiple regression including both ECV and dietary breadth explained 82% of variance in primate composite scores.
  • Social group size (population and foraging group size) and percent fruit in diet were not significant predictors of primate self-control, whereas observational measures such as social learning, extractive foraging, tool use, tactical deception, and g_s covaried positively with experimental scores.
  • Performance on the two tasks was strongly correlated across species (r = 0.53, n = 23, P < 0.01), and scores from multiple populations of the same species were highly correlated (cylinder: r = 0.95, n = 5, P = 0.01; A-not-B: r = 0.87, n = 6, P = 0.03).

Methods

  • The study tested 567 individuals representing 36 species on two self-control tasks: the A-not-B task (27 species, n = 344) and the cylinder task (32 species, n = 439), using standardized pretest criteria and species-level mean performance.
  • Phylogenetic generalized least squares (PGLS) was used to test associations between cognitive performance and neuroanatomical predictors (absolute ECV, residual brain volume, encephalization quotient) and socioecological predictors (group size, frugivory, dietary breadth), accounting for phylogenetic nonindependence.
  • For primates, the authors also fit a multiple regression with absolute ECV and dietary breadth as predictors of composite cognitive scores, and reconstructed ancestral states along the primate phylogeny.

Limitations

  • The paper states that analyses were restricted to whole-brain volume measures because comparative data on finer neuroanatomical substrates (e.g., neuron counts, regional volumes, functional connectivity) were limited.
  • The paper cautions that single-task species data must be interpreted cautiously, citing the Asian elephant’s A-not-B performance, and notes that task features may be more appropriate for some species than others.
  • The paper states that ecological analyses focused on primates because they were best represented and had systematically compiled ecological data; it also notes that more nuanced social/ecological measures may be needed to detect relationships. Evident from the text: the design is correlational, taxonomic sampling is uneven across groups, and the composite score was available for only 23 species.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1073/pnas.1323533111

Cites

226 of 226 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

0 of 46 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Findingown data

    Within primates, the analysis using EQ as a predictor of composite scores was similar to that using ECV residuals (β = 0.24, t13 = 1.65, P = 0.06, λ = 0.66, r2 = 0.17).

    “Within primates the analysis using EQ as a pre-dictor of composite scores was similar to that using ECV residuals (β = 0.24, t 13 = 1.65,P = 0.06, λ = 0.66, r 2 = 0.17).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The two problem-solving tasks validly measure self-control across species.
  • Findingown data

    The percent of fruit in a species' diet was not a significant predictor of any of the cognitive measures.

    “The percent of fruit in a species' diet was not a significant predictor of any of the cognitive measures (Fig. 3, Table 2, and Table S7).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The two problem-solving tasks validly measure self-control across species.
  • Findingown data

    Across species, absolute brain volume measured as endocranial volume (ECV) was a robust predictor of performance on the self-control tasks.

    “Across species, absolute brain volume (measured as ECV) was a robust predictor of performance (Fig. 2 and Table 2), supporting the predictions of the cortical reorganization hypothesis.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The two problem-solving tasks validly measure self-control across species.
  • Findingown data

    Within nonprimate species, residual brain volume was not a significant predictor of any of the cognitive measures.

    “Residual brain volume was not a significant predictor of any of these measures (Table 2)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The two problem-solving tasks validly measure self-control across species.
  • Findingown data

    Supplemental analyses involving home range size, day journey length, the defensibility index, and substrate use revealed no significant associations.

    “Supplemental analyses involving home range size, day journey length, the defensibility index, and substrate use revealed no significant associations (SI Text and Fig. S1).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The two problem-solving tasks validly measure self-control across species.
  • May combine two claims. 21
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 7

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Maximum likelihood reconstruction of ancestral states implies gradual cognitive evolution in the lineage leading to apes, with a convergence between apes and capuchin monkeys.

    “Maximum likelihood reconstruction of ancestral states implies gradual cognitive evolution in the lineage leading to apes, with a convergence between apes and capuchin monkeys (Fig. 4 and SI Text).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The two problem-solving tasks validly measure self-control across species.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Within primates, residual brain volume was predictive of performance on both tasks, although it explained much less variance than absolute brain volume (r2 = 0.18-0.30).

    “In contrast to the analysis across all species, residual brain volume was predictive of performance on both tasks within primates, although it explained much less variance than absolute brain volume (r 2 = 0.18-0.30;Fig. 3 and Table 2).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The two problem-solving tasks validly measure self-control across species.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    A multiple regression including absolute brain volume and dietary breadth as predictors of primates' composite cognitive scores explained 82% of variance between species, with significant positive coefficients for both controlling for each other (ECV: t11 = 3.30, P < 0.01; dietary breadth: t11 = 3.02, P < 0.01; λ = 0.00, r2 = 0.82).

    “This model explained 82% of variance in performance between species with significant and positive coefficients for both absolute ECV and dietary breadth, controlling for the effects of one another (ECV: t 11 = 3.30, P < 0.01; dietary breadth: t 11 = 3.02, P < 0.01; λ = 0.00, r 2 = 0.82).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The two problem-solving tasks validly measure self-control across species.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Across the entire sample, residual brain volume was far less predictive than absolute brain volume: it explained only 3% of variance in composite scores and was a significant predictor of performance in only one of the tasks.

    “Across the entire sample, residual brain volume was far less predictive than absolute brain volume: it explained only 3% of variance in composite scores, and was a significant predictor of performance in only one of the tasks (Table 2, SI Text, and Fig. 2).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The two problem-solving tasks validly measure self-control across species.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Within primates, neither species-typical population group size nor foraging group size was associated with task performance.

    “Neither measure of group size was associated with task performance (Fig. 3, Table 2, and Table S7), echoing findings using observational data on behavioral flexibility (92).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [92] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • Rests on an assumption: The two problem-solving tasks validly measure self-control across species.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    ECV covaried positively with performance on the cylinder task and the composite score and explained substantial variance in performance (r2 = 0.43-0.60).

    “ECV covaried positively with performance on the cylinder task and the composite score and explained substantial variance in performance (r 2 = 0.43-0.60;Table 2).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The two problem-solving tasks validly measure self-control across species.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Within nonprimate species, ECV was the best predictor of self-control and was significantly and positively associated with composite scores and scores on the cylinder task, but not the A-not-B task.

    “Within the nonprimate species, ECV was again the best predictor of self-control, and was significantly and positively associated with composite scores and scores on the cylinder task, but not the A-not-B task (Table 2).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The two problem-solving tasks validly measure self-control across species.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The association between ECV and A-not-B performance was much weaker, reflecting that the largest-brained species, the Asian elephant, had the lowest score on this measure.

    “This association was much weaker for the A-not-B task, reflecting that the largestbrained species (Asian elephant) had the lowest score on this measure (Fig. 2 and Table 2).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The two problem-solving tasks validly measure self-control across species.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Scores on the self-control tasks were more similar among closely related species, with phylogenetic signal λ significantly greater than zero in most cases.

    “Phylogenetic analyses revealed that scores were more similar among closely related species, with the maximum likelihood estimate of λ, a measure of phylogenetic signal, significantly greater than zero in most cases (Table 1).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The two problem-solving tasks validly measure self-control across species.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    EQ was positively related to composite scores across species (β = 0.28, t21 = 3.23, P < 0.01, λ = 0, r2 = 0.33) but explained far less variance than absolute brain volume.

    “EQ was positively related to composite scores across species (β = 0.28, t 21 = 3.23, P < 0.01, λ = 0, r 2 = 0.33) but again explained far less variance than absolute brain volume.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The two problem-solving tasks validly measure self-control across species.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Within primates, absolute brain volume was the best predictor of performance across tasks and explained substantial variation across species (r2 = 0.55-0.68).

    “Within primates, absolute brain volume was the best predictor of performance across tasks and explained substantial variation across species (r 2 = 0.55-0.68;Fig. 3 and Table 2).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The two problem-solving tasks validly measure self-control across species.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    A comparison of models using only body mass or ECV as the predictor of composite scores yielded stronger support for the ECV model across all species (ΔAICc = 0.77) and within primates (ΔAICc = 3.12).

    “First, a comparison of models using only body mass or ECV as the predictor of composite scores yielded stronger support for the ECV model both in an analysis across all species [change in the Akaike information criterion (Δ AICc ) = 0.77], and within primates (Δ AICc = 3.12).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The two problem-solving tasks validly measure self-control across species.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Residual brain volume was only weakly related, and social group size was unrelated, to variance in self-control.

    “In contrast, residual brain volume was only weakly related, and social group size was unrelated, to variance in selfcontrol.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The two problem-solving tasks validly measure self-control across species.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Both brain volume and dietary complexity account for unique components of variance in primate cognition, together explaining the majority of interspecific variation on these tasks.

    “Thus, while correlated with one another (t = 3.04, P < 0.01, λ = 0, r 2 = 0.32), both brain volume and dietary complexity account for unique components of variance in primate cognition, together explaining the majority of interspecific variation on these tasks.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The two problem-solving tasks validly measure self-control across species.
    • Rests on an assumption: The composite score averaging performance across tasks is a valid broader index of self-control.

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given

    In both tasks, all species were required to meet the same pretest criteria, demonstrating a basic understanding of the task and allowing meaningful comparison of test data across species.

    “In both tasks, all species were required to meet the same pretest criteria, demonstrating a basic understanding of the task, and allowing meaningful comparison of test data across species.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The two problem-solving tasks validly measure self-control across species.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductown data

    Phylogenetic generalized least squares (PGLS) was used to control for the nonindependence of species-level data.

    “To control for the nonindependence of species level data, we used phylogenetic generalized least squares (PGLS) to test the association between performance on the cognitive tasks and the explanatory variables associated with each hypothesis.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    The foraging hypothesis posits that dietary complexity, indexed by field reports of dietary breadth and reliance on fruit, was the primary driver of primate cognitive evolution.

    “The foraging hypothesis posits that dietary complexity, indexed by field reports of dietary breadth and reliance on fruit (a spatiotemporally distributed resource), was the primary driver of primate cognitive evolution (151-154).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 4 sources checked
    • cites [151] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [152] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [153] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [154] source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    The encephalization hypothesis argues that an increase in brain volume relative to body size was of primary importance.

    “In contrast, the encephalization hypothesis argues that an increase in brain volume relative to body size was of primary importance (108, 110, 111, 123).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [108]

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [110] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [111] source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    The social intelligence hypothesis proposes that increased social complexity, frequently indexed by social group size, was the major selective pressure in primate cognitive evolution.

    “The social intelligence hypothesis proposes that increased social complexity (frequently indexed by social group size) was the major selective pressure in primate cognitive evolution (6, 44, 48, 50, 87, 115, 120, 125-141).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [6] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [44] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [48] source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The relationship between absolute brain volume and self-control may be most pronounced in the primate species in the sample and may not generalize to all other large-brained animals or taxa whose brains are organized differently than primates.

    “Thus, the relationship between absolute brain volume and self-control may be most pronounced in the primate species in our sample, and may not generalize to all other large-brained animals (e.g., whales, elephants), or taxa whose brains are organized differently than primates (e.g., birds).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The two problem-solving tasks validly measure self-control across species.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    The research was approved by the Duke University Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (protocol numbers A303-11-12, A199-11-08, and A055-11-03).

    “This research was approved by the Duke University Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (protocol numbers A303-11-12, A199-11-08, and A055-11-03).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Multiple lines of evidence implicate selection for brain volume and organization independent of selection for body size, and the data illustrate the cognitive consequences of these evolutionary trends.

    “Thus, multiple lines of evidence implicate selection for brain volume (and organization) independent of selection for body size, and our data illustrate the cognitive consequences of these evolutionary trends.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The two problem-solving tasks validly measure self-control across species.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Dietary breadth is an important ecological correlate and potential selective pressure for the evolution of self-control.

    “Our findings also implicate dietary breadth as an important ecological correlate, and potential selective pressure for the evolution of these skills.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The two problem-solving tasks validly measure self-control across species.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The number of neurons in primate brains scales isometrically with brain size, indicating selection for constant neural density and neuron size, a scaling relationship that contrasts with other orders of animals.

    “Second, the number of neurons in primate brains scales isometrically with brain size, indicating selection for constant neural density and neuron size, a scaling relationship that contrasts with other orders of animals (100).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [100] source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    The cortical reorganization hypothesis suggests that selection for absolutely larger brains, and concomitant cortical reorganization, was the predominant mechanism supporting cognitive evolution.

    “The cortical reorganization hypothesis suggests that selection for absolutely larger brains-and concomitant cortical reorganization-was the predominant mechanism supporting cognitive evolution (77, 91, 100-106, 120).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 9 sources checked
    • cites [77] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [91] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [100] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [101] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [102] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [103] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [104] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [105] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [106] source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    The data likely represent relatively accurate estimates of species-typical cognition because large samples were collected within each species, scores from multiple populations of the same species were highly correlated, and performance was not associated with previous experience in cognitive tasks.

    “The data reported here likely represent relatively accurate estimates of species-typical cognition because we collected data from large samples within each species (mean n = 15.3 ± 2.0 subjects per species, range = 6-66), scores from multiple populations of the same species were highly correlated, and performance was not associated with previous experience in cognitive tasks (SI Text).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The two problem-solving tasks validly measure self-control across species.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    In humans, self-control has been linked to health, economic, social, and academic achievement, and is known to be heritable.

    “In humans, self-control has been linked to health, economic, social, and academic achievement, and is known to be heritable (170-172).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [170] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [171] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [172] source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Anthropoid primates have evolved unique prefrontal areas that are thought to provide a cognitive advantage in foraging decisions that rely on executive function.

    “For example, the best performing species in our sample were predominantly anthropoid primates, species that have evolved unique prefrontal areas that are thought to provide a cognitive advantage in foraging decisions that rely on executive function (176-178).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [176] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [177] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [178] source

      Not checked in the free run.

28 of 28

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The two problem-solving tasks validly measure self-control across species.

    “We experimentally evaluated these major evolutionary explanations by quantitatively comparing the cognitive performance of 567 individuals representing 36 species on two problem-solving tasks measuring self-control.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The composite score averaging performance across tasks is a valid broader index of self-control.

    “Because the two tasks assessed complementary but not identical abilities, the composite score serves as a broader index of self-control across tasks.”
2 of 2

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Brain-volume results contradict the claim that no measure explained over 30% of variance

    Major

    The paper says even its most predictive neuroanatomical measures explained no more than 30% of cognitive variance across species, but Table 2 reports that absolute brain volume explained 60% of variance in the composite score across all species.

  • Figure caption calls the full-sample A-not-B association significant

    Minor

    The Fig. 2 caption says ECV significantly predicted self-control in both tasks, but Table 2 reports P = 0.16 for the all-species A-not-B analysis. The significant A-not-B result excludes the elephant.

2 of 2

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. D Maestripieri Primate Psychology (Harvard Univ Press, Cambridge, MA, 2003).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
MacLean, E. L., Hare, B., Nunn, C. L., Addessi, E., Amici, F., Anderson, R. C., Aureli, F., Baker, J. M., Bania, A. E., Barnard, A. M., Boogert, N. J., Brannon, E. M., Bray, E. E., Bray, J., Brent, L. J. N., Burkart, J. M., Call, J., Cantlon, J. F., Cheke, L. G., Clayton, N. S., Delgado, M. M., DiVincenti, L. J., Fujita, K., Herrmann, E., Hiramatsu, C., Jacobs, L. F., Jordan, K. E., Laude, J. R., Leimgruber, K. L., Messer, E. J. E., de A. Moura, A. C., Ostojić, L., Picard, A., Platt, M. L., Plotnik, J. M., Range, F., Reader, S. M., Reddy, R. B., Sandel, A. A., Santos, L. R., Schumann, K., Seed, A. M., Sewall, K. B., Shaw, R. C., Slocombe, K. E., Su, Y., Takimoto, A., Tan, J., Tao, R., van Schaik, C. P., Virányi, Z., Visalberghi, E., Wade, J. C., Watanabe, A., Widness, J., Young, J. K., Zentall, T. R., & Zhao, Y.
Affiliations
  • Departments of aEvolutionary Anthropology,
  • Institut des Sciences Cognitives Marc Jeannerod (FR)
  • National Research Council (IT)
  • Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology (DE)
  • Duke University (US)
  • Universidad Veracruzana (MX)
  • Stanford Medicine (US)
  • Smithsonian Institution (US)
  • Department of Brain and Cognitive Science and
  • University of St Andrews (GB)
  • Psychology and Neuroscience, and
  • University of Pennsylvania (US)
  • University of Zurich (CH)
  • University of Cambridge (GB)
  • Department of Psychology and
  • University of Rochester (US)
  • Kyoto University (JP)
  • University of California, Berkeley (US)
  • Departments of vPsychology and
  • University of Kentucky (US)
  • Yale University (US)
  • Departamento Engenharia e Meio Ambiente, Universidade Federal da Paraiba, 58059-900, João Pessoa, Brazil;
  • University of York (GB)
  • University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna (AT)
  • McGill University (CA)
  • University of Michigan (US)
  • Peking University (CN)
  • Anthropological Institute and Museum, University of Zurich, 8057 Zurich, Switzerland;
  • Utah State University (US)
ORCID
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Publisher
National Academy of Sciences
Published
2014-04-21
Volume
111
Issue
20
Pages
E2140-8
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
DOI
10.1073/pnas.1323533111
PMC
PMC4034204
OpenAlex
W2100359507
Cited by
819
References
226
Citations by year
2026: 33 · 2025: 43 · 2024: 80 · 2023: 41 · 2022: 94 · 2021: 91 · 2020: 91 · 2019: 92 · 2018: 74 · 2017: 63 · 2016: 68 · 2015: 31 · 2014: 17
FWCI
88.52
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Digital Commons - USU (Utah State University) (submittedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
  • eScholarship@McGill (McGill) (submittedVersion)
  • St Andrews Research Repository (St Andrews Research Repository) (submittedVersion)
  • VTechWorks (Virginia Tech) (submittedVersion)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (0923791, 220020242, 1106401, NSF-BCS-25172, 1028319, 0905606, FP/2007‐2013)
  • U.S. Department of Agriculture
  • Alfred P. Sloan Foundation
  • James S. McDonnell Foundation (220020242)
  • National Evolutionary Synthesis Center (EF0905606, 0905606)
  • European Commission (2007–2013, 012-984, FP/2007/2013)
  • National Natural Science Foundation of China (973 Program, FP/2007-2013, 31170995)
  • Vienna Science and Technology Fund (CS11-026)
  • Austrian Science Fund (P 21244)
  • Royal Canin (311870)
  • Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche
  • National Institutes of Health (5r03hd070649-02, DGE-1106401, 1106401, FP/2007-2013)
  • Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (26119514, 20220004, 10J04395, 25118002, 25240020)
  • National Key Research and Development Program of China (2010CB833904)
  • National Institute of Mental Health (R01MH089484, R01MH096875)
  • Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (5 R03 HD070649-02, R03 HD070649)
  • National Wildlife Research Center
  • FP7 Ideas: European Research Council (311870)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Primate Behavior and Ecology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Evolutionary Psychology and Human Behavior
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Animal Behavior and Reproduction
Keywords
self-control, cognitive evolution, brain size, diet breadth, social group size, primate cognition, problem solving, cortical reorganization, phylogenetic comparative analysis, evolutionary neurobiology
MeSH terms
Animals, Brain, Cognition, Diet, Biological Evolution, Humans, Learning, Organ Size, Phylogeny, Primates, Problem Solving, Selection, Genetic, Social Behavior, Species Specificity, Models, Statistical, Likelihood Functions

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-10.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-10.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review