Is human conversation more efficient than chimpanzee grooming?

Nakamura, Michio

doi:10.1007/s12110-000-1014-2

Cited by 27 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…less time-consuming, way of investing in social relationships, as originally postulated by Dunbar (1993). In line with this, Nakamura (2000) found that grooming cliques among chimpanzees were similar in size to human conversation cliques, i.e. in principle providing the same bonding efficiency.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 70%

Human grooming in comparative perspective: People in six small‐scale societies groom less but socialize just as much as expected for a typical primate

Jaeggi

Kramer

Hames

et al. 2017

American J Phys Anthropol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives Grooming has important utilitarian and social functions in primates but little is known about grooming and its functional analogues in traditional human societies. We compare human grooming to typical primate patterns to test its hygienic and social functions. Materials and Methods Bayesian phylogenetic analyses were used to derive expected human grooming time given the potential associations between grooming, group size, body size, terrestriality, and several climatic variables across 69 primate species. This was compared against observed times dedicated to grooming, other hygienic behavior and conversation among the Maya, Pumé, Sanöma, Tsimane’, Yanomamö, and Ye’kwana (mean number of behavioral scans = 23,514). Results Expected grooming time for humans was 4% (95% Credible Interval = 0.07%–14%), similar to values observed in primates, based largely on terrestriality and phylogenetic signal (mean λ = 0.56). No other covariates strongly associated with grooming across primates. Observed grooming time across societies was 0.8%, lower than 89% of the expected values. However, the observed times dedicated to any hygienic behavior (3.0%) or ‘vocal grooming’, i.e. conversation (7.3%), fell within the expected range. Conclusions We found (i) that human grooming may be a (recent) phylogenetic outlier when defined narrowly as parasite removal but not defined broadly as personal hygiene, (ii) there was no support for thermoregulatory functions of grooming, and (iii) no support for the ‘vocal grooming’ hypothesis of language having evolved as a less time-consuming means of bonding. Thus, human grooming reflects decreased hygienic needs, but similar social needs compared to primate grooming.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 70%

Human grooming in comparative perspective: People in six small‐scale societies groom less but socialize just as much as expected for a typical primate

Jaeggi

Kramer

Hames

et al. 2017

American J Phys Anthropol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Both authors are well accustomed to the behavior patterns of Mahale chimpanzees, as M.N. has studied Mahale chimpanzees, focusing mostly on social behavior (Nakamura 2000(Nakamura , 2003b, for an accumulated total of more than 2 years and T.N. has studied them for 11 years.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Subtle behavioral variation in wild chimpanzees, with special reference to Imanishi’s concept of kaluchua

Nakamura

Nishida

2005

Primates

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Here we consider the concept of kaluchua (a word adopted from the English "culture") in group-living animals developed by Imanishi in the 1950s. He distinguished it from bunka (the Japanese equivalent to the English "culture") because he thought that bunka had strong connotations of noble and intellectual human-like activities. Although he did not rigidly define kaluchua, his original concept of kaluchua was much broader than bunka and represented non-hereditary, acquired behavior that was acknowledged socially. However, instead of social life, complex feeding skills have often formed the central topic in the current studies of animal culture. In order to provide evidence that more subtle behavioral variations exist among wild chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) populations, we directly compared the behaviors of two well-habituated chimpanzee groups, at Bossou and Mahale. During a 2-month stay at Bossou, M.N. (the first author) saw several behavioral patterns that were absent or rare at Mahale. Two of them, "mutual genital touch" and "heel tap" were probably customary for mature females and for mature males, respectively. "Index to palm" and "sputter" are still open to question. These subtle patterns occurred more often than tool use during the study period, suggesting that rarity is not the main reason for their being ignored. Unlike tool use, some cultural behavioral patterns do not seem to require complex skills or intellectual processes, and sometimes it is hard to explain the existence of such behaviors only in terms of function.

show abstract

“…Such an interpretation might be extended to bi‐directional grooming in those species where bi‐directional grooming is common (e.g. chimpanzees and, to a lesser extent, gelada baboons: Nakamura 2000; R. Dunbar, pers. obs.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

What Does Mutual Grooming Tell Us About Why Chimpanzees Groom?

Fedurek

Dunbar

2009

Ethology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Grooming might be a resource that is offered in exchange for some benefit (e.g. access to a feeding site or coalitionary support) or it might be a mechanism for building and servicing social relationships, whose function, in turn, is to facilitate the exchange of resources and services. Bi‐directional (or simultaneous mutual) grooming is unusually common among chimpanzees (though rare in other primates) and we suggest that this might be because it is an especially strong indicator of social bonding. Because the bonding role of bi‐directional grooming offers substantially different predictions from the interpretation offered by the models based on reciprocal altruism (RA), we use a critical tests methodology (i.e. tests that unequivocally support one hypothesis at the expense of the other) to differentiate between the bonding and RA hypotheses. We use data on the dynamics of grooming interactions from a captive group of chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) to show that dominant individuals tolerated the individuals with whom they performed bi‐directional grooming more than they did those who typically provided them unidirectional grooming. Dominants rejected and terminated grooming sessions more often with the individuals who provided them with mostly unidirectional grooming than with those with whom they groomed bi‐directionally. In addition, animals engaged in bi‐directional grooming more often with both relatives and those with whom they were often in proximity. These results support the bonding model of mutually reciprocated grooming at the expense of the RA model, and suggest that, at least in chimpanzees, simultaneous mutual grooming may play a particularly important role in social bonding.

show abstract

Is human conversation more efficient than chimpanzee grooming?

Cited by 27 publications

References 25 publications

Human grooming in comparative perspective: People in six small‐scale societies groom less but socialize just as much as expected for a typical primate

Human grooming in comparative perspective: People in six small‐scale societies groom less but socialize just as much as expected for a typical primate

Subtle behavioral variation in wild chimpanzees, with special reference to Imanishi’s concept of kaluchua

What Does Mutual Grooming Tell Us About Why Chimpanzees Groom?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About