Adrian V Jaeggi1, Karen L Kramer2, Raymond Hames3, Evan J Kiely1, Cristina Gomes4, Hillard Kaplan5, Michael Gurven6. 1. Department of Anthropology, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, 30322. 2. Department of Anthropology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, 84112. 3. Department of Anthropology, University of Nebraska Lincoln, Lincoln, Nebraska, 68588. 4. Department of Psychology, University of Miami, Coral Gables, Florida, 33124. 5. Department of Anthropology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico, 87131. 6. Department of Anthropology, University of California Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, California, 93106.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Grooming has important utilitarian and social functions in primates but little is known about grooming and its functional analogues in traditional human societies. We compare human grooming to typical primate patterns to test its hygienic and social functions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Bayesian phylogenetic analyses were used to derive expected human grooming time given the potential associations between grooming, group size, body size, terrestriality, and several climatic variables across 69 primate species. This was compared against observed times dedicated to grooming, other hygienic behavior, and conversation among the Maya, Pumé, Sanöma, Tsimane', Yanomamö, and Ye'kwana (mean number of behavioral scans = 23,514). RESULTS: Expected grooming time for humans was 4% (95% Credible Interval = 0.07%-14%), similar to values observed in primates, based largely on terrestriality and phylogenetic signal (mean λ = 0.56). No other covariates strongly associated with grooming across primates. Observed grooming time across societies was 0.8%, lower than 89% of the expected values. However, the observed times dedicated to any hygienic behavior (3.0%) or "vocal grooming," that is conversation (7.3%), fell within the expected range. CONCLUSIONS: We found (i) that human grooming may be a (recent) phylogenetic outlier when defined narrowly as parasite removal but not defined broadly as personal hygiene, (ii) there was no support for thermoregulatory functions of grooming, and (iii) no support for the "vocal grooming" hypothesis of language having evolved as a less time-consuming means of bonding. Thus, human grooming reflects decreased hygienic needs, but similar social needs compared to primate grooming.
OBJECTIVES: Grooming has important utilitarian and social functions in primates but little is known about grooming and its functional analogues in traditional human societies. We compare human grooming to typical primate patterns to test its hygienic and social functions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Bayesian phylogenetic analyses were used to derive expected human grooming time given the potential associations between grooming, group size, body size, terrestriality, and several climatic variables across 69 primate species. This was compared against observed times dedicated to grooming, other hygienic behavior, and conversation among the Maya, Pumé, Sanöma, Tsimane', Yanomamö, and Ye'kwana (mean number of behavioral scans = 23,514). RESULTS: Expected grooming time for humans was 4% (95% Credible Interval = 0.07%-14%), similar to values observed in primates, based largely on terrestriality and phylogenetic signal (mean λ = 0.56). No other covariates strongly associated with grooming across primates. Observed grooming time across societies was 0.8%, lower than 89% of the expected values. However, the observed times dedicated to any hygienic behavior (3.0%) or "vocal grooming," that is conversation (7.3%), fell within the expected range. CONCLUSIONS: We found (i) that human grooming may be a (recent) phylogenetic outlier when defined narrowly as parasite removal but not defined broadly as personal hygiene, (ii) there was no support for thermoregulatory functions of grooming, and (iii) no support for the "vocal grooming" hypothesis of language having evolved as a less time-consuming means of bonding. Thus, human grooming reflects decreased hygienic needs, but similar social needs compared to primate grooming.
Authors: Richard McFarland; S Peter Henzi; Louise Barrett; Anuradha Wanigaratne; Elsie Coetzee; Andrea Fuller; Robyn S Hetem; Duncan Mitchell; Shane K Maloney Journal: Am J Primatol Date: 2015-12-20 Impact factor: 2.371
Authors: Mercy Y Akinyi; Jenny Tung; Maamun Jeneby; Nilesh B Patel; Jeanne Altmann; Susan C Alberts Journal: Anim Behav Date: 2013-03-01 Impact factor: 2.844