title: Differences in the cognitive skills of bonobos and chimpanzees.
abstract: While bonobos and chimpanzees are both genetically and behaviorally very similar, they also differ in significant ways. Bonobos are more cautious and socially tolerant while chimpanzees are more dependent on extractive foraging, which requires tools. The similarities suggest the two species should be cognitively similar while the behavioral differences predict where the two species should differ cognitively. We compared both species on a wide range of cognitive problems testing their understanding of the physical and social world. Bonobos were more skilled at solving tasks related to theory of mind or an understanding of social causality, while chimpanzees were more skilled at tasks requiring the use of tools and an understanding of physical causality. These species differences support the role of ecological and socio-ecological pressures in shaping cognitive skills over relatively short periods of evolutionary time.
authors.affiliation: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig, Germany. eherrman@eva.mpg.de
authors.forename: Esther
authors.initials: E
authors.lastname: Herrmann
authors.forename: Brian
authors.initials: B
authors.lastname: Hare
authors.forename: Josep
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Call
authors.forename: Michael
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Tomasello
mesh_terms: D000818:Animals; D003071:Cognition / Q000502:physiology*; D005260:Female; D008297:Male; D019974:Pan paniscus / Q000502:physiology*; D002679:Pan troglodytes / Q000502:physiology*; D012727:Sex Characteristics; D013694:Temperament / Q000502:physiology
references.citation: J Comp Psychol. 2005 May;119(2):145-54
references.pmid: 15982158
references.citation: J Comp Psychol. 1993 Dec;107(4):347-72
references.pmid: 8112048
references.citation: J Comp Psychol. 2007 Aug;121(3):241-9
references.pmid: 17696650
references.citation: Nature. 2004 Apr 15;428(6984):715-6
references.pmid: 15085121
references.citation: J Comp Psychol. 2004 Sep;118(3):265-79
references.pmid: 15482054
references.citation: Horm Behav. 2005 Mar;47(3):326-35
references.pmid: 15708762
references.citation: Anim Cogn. 2006 Oct;9(4):393-403
references.pmid: 16924458
references.citation: Anim Cogn. 2010 Mar;13(2):273-85
references.pmid: 19653018
references.citation: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010 Jul 13;107(28):12457-62
references.pmid: 20616027
references.citation: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007 May 8;104(19):8184-9
references.pmid: 17470779
references.citation: Biol Lett. 2008 Jun 23;4(3):246-9
references.pmid: 18364305
references.citation: Dev Sci. 2011 Nov;14(6):1393-405
references.pmid: 22010898
references.citation: Nature. 1999 Jun 17;399(6737):682-5
references.pmid: 10385119
references.citation: J Comp Psychol. 2008 May;122(2):220-30
references.pmid: 18489238
references.citation: Mol Biol Evol. 2005 Feb;22(2):297-307
references.pmid: 15483319
references.citation: Science. 2007 Sep 7;317(5843):1360-6
references.pmid: 17823346
references.citation: Anim Cogn. 2010 Mar;13(2):331-40
references.pmid: 19784852
references.citation: Dev Sci. 2011 Mar;14(2):319-26
references.pmid: 21499499
references.citation: Curr Biol. 2007 Apr 3;17(7):619-23
references.pmid: 17346970
references.citation: Curr Biol. 2010 Feb 9;20(3):226-30
references.pmid: 20116251