Innovation in chimpanzees

Abstract

The study of innovation in non‐human animals (henceforth: animals) has recently gained momentum across fields including primatology, animal behaviour and cultural evolution. Examining the rate of innovations, and the cognitive mechanisms driving these innovations across species, can provide insights into the evolution of human culture. Especially relevant to the study of human culture is one of our closest living relatives, the chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes). Both wild and captive chimpanzees demonstrate an impressive ability to innovate solutions to novel problems, but also a striking level of conservatism in some contexts, creating a unique and at times puzzling, picture of animal innovation. Whilst the animal innovation field is rife with potential for expanding our knowledge of human and non‐human cognition and problem‐solving, it is undermined by a lack of consistency across studies. The field is yet to settle on a definition of the term ‘innovation’, leading to studies being incomparable across and even within the same species. Here, we fill two gaps in the literature. First, we discuss some of the most prevalent definitions of ‘innovation’ from different fields, highlighting similarities and differences between them. Secondly, we provide an up‐to‐date review of accounts of innovations in both wild and captive chimpanzees. We hope this review will provide a resource for researchers interested in the study of innovation in chimpanzees and other animals, as well as emphasising the need for consistency in the way in which innovations are reported.

Exploring the role of individual learning in animal tool-use

“…This observation raises the question of whether the acquisition of so-called proto-cultural habits does not rely as much, at least, on independent reinvention as on transmission through imitation learning'. The interpretation of the results of many of the studies included in Table 2 agree with those proposed by the ZLS 3 and provide mounting evidence for the view that simple stick tool-use is, most likely, within the individual learning capabilities of both wild and captive chimpanzees (Bandini & Harrison, 2020; see also Gruber et al (2009Gruber et al ( , 2011 for reports of wild chimpanzees not acquiring stick tool-use, although see the section on behavioural flexibility below for further discussion of these studies).…”

“…The interpretation of the results of many of the studies included in Table 2 agree with those proposed by the ZLS 3 3 For example see Anderson (1985) , Auersperg et al (2012) , Auersperg et al (2011) , Bandini & Tennie (2019 , 2017) , Beck (1966) , Breuer, Ndoundou-Hockemba & Fishlock (2005) , Epstein (1985) , Foerder et al (2011) , Fontaine, Moisson & Wickings (1995) , Kenward et al (2005) , Kitahara-Frisch & Norikoshi (1982) , Köhler (1925) , Laumer et al (2017) , Mendes, Hanus & Call (2007) , Morgan & Abwe (2006) , Morimura (2003) , Neadle, Allritz & Tennie (2017) , Pouydebat et al (2005) , Rutz et al (2016) , Tokida et al (1994) , Visalberghi, Fragaszy & Savage-Rumbaugh (1995) , Visalberghi & Trinca (1989) , Weir (2002) , Westergaard & Suomi (1994b) , Yamamoto et al (2008) . and provide mounting evidence for the view that simple stick tool-use is, most likely, within the individual learning capabilities of both wild and captive chimpanzees ( Bandini & Harrison, 2020 ; see also Gruber et al (2009 , 2011) for reports of wild chimpanzees not acquiring stick tool-use, although see the section on behavioural flexibility below for further discussion of these studies).…”

“…In fact, some of the studies in Table 2 describe the emergence of a behaviour in only some of the subjects within their samples, whilst other members of the group never express the behaviour despite ample exposure to the behavioural models. Similarly, evidence from wild chimpanzees also suggests that few innovations 'catch-on', despite opportunities for social learning (Nishida, Matsusaka & McGrew, 2009;Bandini & Harrison, 2020). Tebbich et al (2001) directly examined this phenomenon by measuring the rates of acquisition of a novel tool-use behaviour in naïve finches when exposed to a model and in a control group.…”

“…Thus, although capable of using sticks, the Sonso chimpanzees may have not switched to stick-use simply because they already had a pre-existing, efficient, technique to reach the same end goal (Tennie et al, 2011). Indeed, chimpanzees often seem hesitant to switch to a new technique if it is not considerably more efficient than their previous method (Davis et al, 2016;Harrison & Whiten, 2018;Hrubesch, Preuschoft & Van Schaik, 2009;Bandini & Harrison, 2020). The existence of an already efficient technique may hinder the exploration of new methods if the end result is the same, and the new method is not vastly more efficient (no data exists on differences in efficiency between the leaf and stick methods, but it is likely that if differences do exist, they are minimal and thus hard to observe for this behaviour; Tennie et al, 2011).…”

Leveraging Social Learning to Enhance Captive Animal Care and Welfare

“…Here, Wilde insinuates that copying others is not as noteworthy as original creativity. Of course, it is through innovation that novel ideas, customs, and technologies are born [25][26][27][28]. However, innovation can be time consuming and risky, so watching others can allow individuals to save time and to avoid potentially fatal missteps, such as eating a poisonous food.…”