Page 247 - Zoo Animal Learning and Training

Box B7 Species‐specioic onsiderations: Primate Learning 219

VetBooks.ir strengths and increase the likelihood of suc- select for willingness to participate in research
cessful learning.
sessions (Herrelko et al. 2012; Morton et al.
2013), and it would be reasonable to assume
that those who have positive experiences par-
Life Experiences
ticipating in cognitive activities would be
Primatologists are often asked who are the more likely to continue participation in the
smartest amongst the non‐human great ape future and vice versa. There is also a differ-
species, but it is an apples‐to‐oranges compar- ence in those with atypical life histories.
ison. Scientifically, we know more about chim- Enculturated apes (e.g. those reared in an
panzees than any other non‐human great ape environment rich with social and communi-
species largely because we have a long history cation opportunities with humans) appear to
of working with them both in the field and in exhibit better cognitive skills compared to
captivity. Additionally, the natural history of their non‐enculturated counterparts (Call
their social structures may impact willingness and Tomasello 1996), though the reasoning
or motivation to participate in learning‐based behind it is debated (Bering 2004; Tomasello
activities. Chimpanzees (Kummer 1971), bon- and Call 2004).
obos (Nishida and Hiraiwa‐Hasegawa 1987),
and orangutans (Schaik 1999) live in fission– Conclusion
fusion societies where individuals come
together (fusion) and break apart in different Learning is something that happens every
groups (fission). All three species are familiar day and can be shaped to improve animals’
with movement in group structure (see lives (e.g. captive management) and teach us
Figure B7.1). Gorillas, on the other hand, live about their cognitive abilities. Adapting
in fairly stable groups, predominantly with a training and research methodologies used in
single adult male, the silverback (Robbins et al. learning activities should be appropriate for
2004). This aspect of great ape natural history, the species as well as the individual. The
i.e. sociality, may explain the motivation information provided in this textbox focuses
behind the willingness (or lack thereof) to par- on overarching categories and only
ticipate in individually‐based cognitive activi- scratches at the surface of primate unique-
ties and it might be that these individuals may ness. Learning concepts are stable, but can
be more likely to participate in activities if become meaningful with additional informa-
alone or away from their group. tion. All we need to do to catch a glimpse of
Individual history also plays a role; we know how they view their world is to pay attention
that certain personality characteristics self‐ to how they experience life.

References

Beck, B. (1967). A study of problem solving by Call, J. and Tomasello, M. (1996). The effect
gibbons. Behaviour 28 (1/2): 95–109. of humans on the cognitive development
Bergman, T.J., Ho, L., and Beehner, J.C. (2009). of apes. In: Reaching into Thought (eds.
Chest color and social status in male geladas A.E. Russon, K.A. Bard and S.T. Parker),
(Theropithecus gelada). International 371–403. New York: Cambridge University
Journal of Primatology 30: 791–806. Press.
Bering, J.M. (2004). A critical review of the Cheney, D.L. and Seyfarth, R.M. (1982). How
“enculturation hypothesis”: the effects of Vervet monkeys perceive their grunts: field
human rearing on great ape social cognition. playback experiments. Animal Behaviour 30
Animal Cognition 7: 201–212. (2): 739–751.