CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 246Primate Behavior and EcologyLanguage and cultural evolutionChild and Animal Learning Development

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 36 of the 37 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Prestige Affects Cultural Learning in Chimpanzees

Open access
Horner, Victoria, Proctor, Darby, Bonnie, Kristin E., Whiten, Andrew, de Waal, Frans B. M.·2010·PLoS ONE
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0010625PMC PMC2873264
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Humans follow the example of prestigious, high-status individuals much more readily than that of others, such as when we copy the behavior of village elders, community leaders, or celebrities. This tendency has been declared uniquely human, yet remains untested in other species. Experimental studies of animal learning have typically focused on the learning mechanism rather than on social issues, such as who learns from whom. The latter, however, is essential to understanding how habits spread. Here we report that when given opportunities to watch alternative solutions to a foraging problem performed by two different models of their own species, chimpanzees preferentially copy the method shown by the older, higher-ranking individual with a prior track-record of success. Since both solutions were equally difficult, shown an equal number of times by each model and resulted in equal rewards, we interpret this outcome as evidence that the preferred model in each of the two groups tested enjoyed a significant degree of prestige in terms of whose example other chimpanzees chose to follow. Such prestige-based cultural transmission is a phenomenon shared with our own species. If similar biases operate in wild animal populations, the adoption of culturally transmitted innovations may be significantly shaped by the characteristics of performers.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1371/journal.pone.0010625

Cites

36 of 36 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 Model and apparatus allocations for chimpanzees in groups 1 and 2. Group 1 (top): Model A was trained to deposit tokens into the spotted receptacle while model B was trained to use the striped receptacle. Group 2 (bottom): Models A and B were trained to use the opposite receptacles from Group1.
Figure 1 Model and apparatus allocations for chimpanzees in groups 1 and 2. Group 1 (top): Model A was trained to deposit tokens into the spotted receptacle while model B was trained to use the striped receptacle. Group 2 (bottom): Models A and B were trained to use the opposite receptacles from Group1.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 2 Experimental procedure used during the observation period. (A) trained models retrieve a token from an experimenter standing between the receptacles outside the enclosure fence; (B) models deposit their token into their respective receptacles; (C) a food reward is thrown to the model by a second experimenter standing on an observation tower.
Figure 2 Experimental procedure used during the observation period. (A) trained models retrieve a token from an experimenter standing between the receptacles outside the enclosure fence; (B) models deposit their token into their respective receptacles; (C) a food reward is thrown to the model by a second experimenter standing on an observation tower.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 3 The percentage of deposits into each receptacle by chimpanzees from groups 1 and 2. The receptacles used by models A and B were counterbalanced between groups: the method used by model A in Group 1 was the method used by model B in Group 2, and vice versa.
Figure 3 The percentage of deposits into each receptacle by chimpanzees from groups 1 and 2. The receptacles used by models A and B were counterbalanced between groups: the method used by model A in Group 1 was the method used by model B in Group 2, and vice versa.CC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 246

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Horner, V., Proctor, D., Bonnie, K. E., Whiten, A., & de Waal, F. B. M.
Affiliations
  • Emory University (US)
  • Beloit College (US)
  • University of St Andrews (GB)
Corresponding author
Horner, Victoria
ORCID
Venue
PLoS ONE
Publisher
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Published
2010-05-19
Volume
5
Issue
5
Pages
e10625
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1371/journal.pone.0010625
PMC
PMC2873264
OpenAlex
W2137020248
Cited by
245
References
37
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 23 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 39 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 20 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 20 · 2014: 14 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 9
FWCI
14.87
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • St Andrews Research Repository (St Andrews Research Repository) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • Emory University
  • Leverhulme Trust
  • National Institutes of Health (RR‐00165)
  • Yerkes National Primate Research Center, Emory University (-00165, RR 00165)
  • National Center for Research Resources (RR-00 165, P51RR000165)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Primate Behavior and Ecology
  • Social Sciences › Cultural Studies › Language and cultural evolution
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Child and Animal Learning Development
Keywords
prestige bias, cultural learning, chimpanzees, social learning, cultural transmission, foraging behavior, social status, imitation, animal cognition
MeSH terms
Animals, Pan troglodytes, Culture, Humans, Learning, Models, Psychological, Social Dominance

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.

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