Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41234801›Full record

ArticleRoyal Society open science2025

The perception of prosocial agents by chimpanzees and humans.

Sarah Brocard, Chloé Berton, Vanessa Wilson, Balthasar Bickel, Klaus Zuberbühler

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Royal Society open science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Sarah BrocardDepartment of Comparative Cognition, University of Neuchâtel Faculty of Sciences, Neuchatel, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0000-8641-7357
Chloé BertonDepartment of Comparative Cognition, University of Neuchâtel Faculty of Sciences, Neuchatel, Switzerland.
Vanessa WilsonDepartment of Comparative Cognition, University of Neuchâtel Faculty of Sciences, Neuchatel, Switzerland.
Balthasar BickelInstitute for the Interdisciplinary Study of Language Evolution (ISLE), University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Klaus ZuberbühlerDepartment of Comparative Cognition, University of Neuchâtel Faculty of Sciences, Neuchatel, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The human propensity for prosocial behaviour has no equal, not even in our closest living relatives, the chimpanzees. However, it remains unclear whether this difference is grounded in the sheer perception and cognitive evaluation of prosociality. We investigated how two hominid species, chimpanzees and humans, perceive third-party social interactions with prosocial, neutral and antisocial agents. Using a touchscreen paradigm, human and chimpanzee participants freely selected between two actors after viewing their interactions, ranging from pro- to antisocial. Contrary to current thinking, we found no evidence for species differences in their choices for agents, regardless of whether interactions were between conspecifics or not. Both humans and chimpanzees demonstrated comparable sensitivity to prosociality, challenging existing views of a profound chimpanzee-human difference in prosociality. Instead, our results indicate that the perception of social interactions is similar across hominids, but that humans have evolutionarily diverged in how they act upon such perceptions.

Indexed as

affective perceptionagent preferenceevent cognitionprosocialitysocial perception

Identifiers

PMID41234801
PMCPMC12606208

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.