ArticlePloS one2025
Potential evidence of reengagement attempts following interruptions of a triadic social game in bonobos and chimpanzees.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
When humans engage in joint action, they seem to so with an underlying sense of joint commitment, a feeling of mutual obligation towards their partner and a shared goal. Whether our closest living relatives, bonobos and chimpanzees, experience and understand joint commitment in the same way is subject to debate. Crucial evidence concerns how participants respond to interruptions of joint actions, particularly if they protest or attempt to reengage their reluctant or distracted partners. During dyadic interactions, bonobos and chimpanzees exhibit evidence of reengagement following interruptions of naturalistic joint activities with conspecifics, according to recent studies. Yet, data are still inconsistent for triadic games, where two social partners engage with each other socially by focusing on a common object. We addressed this issue by engaging N = 23 apes (5 adult chimpanzees, 5 infant bonobos, 13 adult bonobos) in a "tug-of-war" game with a human experimenter who abruptly stopped playing. Following interruptions, adult apes readily produced communicative signals towards the experimenter (>60% of subjects on first trial), which we interpreted as reengagement attempts of their passive social partner, with no group differences in this respect. Infant bonobos, by contrast, communicated rarely with the experimenters compared to adult bonobos, and never during their first trial. Crucially, when infant bonobos signaled to passive partners, they predominantly used tactile signals, but rarely exhibited behaviors related to the game, which were instead commonly seen in adults. It is thus possible that bonobos and chimpanzees share some of the basic motivational foundations for joint commitment, yet that this capacity is subject to developmental effects.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.