title: Responses of chimpanzees to cues of conspecific observation.
abstract: Recent evidence has shown that humans are remarkably sensitive to artificial cues of conspecific observation when making decisions with potential social consequences. Whether similar effects are found in other great apes has not yet been investigated. We carried out two experiments in which individual chimpanzees,Pan troglodytes, took items of food from an array in the presence of either an image of a large conspecific face or a scrambled control image. In experiment 1 we compared three versions of the face image varying in size and the amount of the face displayed. In experiment 2 we compared a fourth variant of the image with more prominent coloured eyes displayed closer to the focal chimpanzee. The chimpanzees did not look at the face images significantly more than at the control images in either experiment. Although there were trends for some individuals in each experiment to be slower to take high-value food items in the face conditions, these were not consistent or robust. We suggest that the extreme human sensitivity to cues of potential conspecific observation may not be shared with chimpanzees.
authors.affiliation: Centre for Behaviour and Evolution & Institute of Neuroscience, Newcastle University, Newcastle, U.K.
authors.forename: Daniel
authors.initials: D
authors.lastname: Nettle
authors.forename: Katherine A
authors.initials: KA
authors.lastname: Cronin
authors.forename: Melissa
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Bateson
keywords: Pan troglodytes; chimpanzee; cooperation; reputation; social intelligence; watching eyes
references.citation: Biol Lett. 2006 Sep 22;2(3):412-4
references.pmid: 17148417
references.citation: Am J Phys Anthropol. 2008 Jan;135(1):34-41
references.pmid: 17786999
references.citation: Can J Psychol. 1957 Dec;11(4):219-26
references.pmid: 13489559
references.citation: PLoS One. 2012;7(5):e37397
references.pmid: 22624026
references.citation: PLoS One. 2012;7(3):e32494
references.pmid: 22412879
references.citation: Proc Biol Sci. 2010 May 7;277(1686):1315-23
references.pmid: 20031986
references.citation: Behav Res Methods. 2007 May;39(2):175-91
references.pmid: 17695343
references.citation: PLoS One. 2012;7(10):e48433
references.pmid: 23119015
references.citation: Hum Nat. 2007 Jun;18(2):88-108
references.pmid: 26181843
references.citation: Q Rev Biol. 1986 Dec;61(4):459-79
references.pmid: 3543991
references.citation: J Cogn Neurosci. 1998 Sep;10(5):615-22
references.pmid: 9802994
references.citation: Proc Biol Sci. 2009 Jun 7;276(1664):1949-55
references.pmid: 19324790
references.citation: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012 Sep 11;109(37):14824-9
references.pmid: 22927412
references.citation: PLoS One. 2012;7(12):e51738
references.pmid: 23251615
references.citation: Anim Behav. 2000 Apr;59(4):771-785
references.pmid: 10792932
references.citation: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007 Aug 7;104(32):13046-50
references.pmid: 17644612
references.citation: Cogn Neurosci. 2012;3(1):21-8
references.pmid: 22737182
references.citation: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007 Oct 23;104(43):17228-33
references.pmid: 17942683