Primates: Feed individuals in social groups

Overall effectiveness category Trade-off between benefit and harms
Number of studies: 2
Share Tweet Email

View assessment score

How is the evidence assessed?

Effectiveness

60%
Certainty

50%
Harms

25%

Calculating overall effectiveness category

Background information and definitions

Many primate species feed in social groups in the wild but may be housed individually in captivity either routinely (e.g. in some laboratory contexts) or temporarily (e.g. for medical treatment). Time spent feeding and foraging as a group may be important for reinforcing social structures (Brennan & Anderson, 1998) and for the development of natural feeding behaviours in young animals (Lefebvre 1995). Captive primates can be fed in social groups or given visual access to animals in other enclosures, with the aim of allowing natural group dynamics and social learning of feeding behaviours.

Brennan, J & Anderson, J.R. (1998) Varying responses to feeding competition in a group of rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta). Primates, 29, 353-360.

Lefebvre, L. (1995) Culturally-transmitted feeding behaviour in primates: Evidence for accelerating learning rates. Primates, 36, 227-239.

Study locations

Key messages

One replicated, controlled study in the USA reported that an enrichment task took less time to complete when monkeys were in social groups than when feeding alone.
One before-and-after study in Italy found that in the presence of their groupmates monkeys ate more unfamiliar foods during the first encounter.

About key messages

Key messages provide a descriptive index to studies we have found that test this intervention.

Studies are not directly comparable or of equal value. When making decisions based on this evidence, you should consider factors such as study size, study design, reported metrics and relevance of the study to your situation, rather than simply counting the number of studies that support a particular interpretation.

Supporting evidence from individual studies

A before-and-after study in 1998 in Italy (Visalberghi et al. 1998) found that capuchins Cebus apella ate more unfamiliar foods when they first encountered them if they were in the presence of their groupmates than if they encountered them when alone. The average number of food samples the capuchins ate averaged six as individuals, but 15 in a social condition. After the first encounter, consumption of the unfamiliar foods became equivalent to when they encountered the food alone. Capuchins were presented with eight novel food types in one of two conditions: individual and social. Each animal received four food types individually and another four with groupmates. (CJ)
Study and other actions tested
Referenced paper
Visalberghi E., Valente M. & Fragaszy D. (1998) Social context and consumption of unfamiliar foods by capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella) over repeated encounters. American Journal of Primatology, 45, 367-380.
A replicated, controlled study in 2009 in the USA (Dindo et al. 2009) reported that completion of an enrichment food task by capuchin monkeys Cebus apella took less time in social situations than when feeding alone, although no statistical tests were carried out. Monkeys with another nearby completed the trial three times faster (100 seconds) than solo monkeys (373 seconds). In each of two groups, 12 of 24 monkeys were randomly assigned to the solo condition and 12 to the social condition. One monkey was in the left side of the test chamber, and either the right remained empty (solo condition), or contained a second monkey with a cup of cereal and peanut butter (social condition). Each left-hand monkey was given food in a clear 28cm square box with a protruding wheel to turn, aligning a hole with a chute that released food into a cup. Each test was measured as the number of seconds it took from presentation of the apparatus to completion of 20 attempts. (CJ)
Study and other actions tested
Referenced paper
Dindo M., Whiten A. & De Waal F. (2009) Social facilitation of exploratory foraging behavior in capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella). American Journal of Primatology, 71, 419-426.

Please cite as:

Jonas, C.S., Timbrell, L.L., Young, F., Petrovan, S.O., Bowkett, A.E. & Smith, R.K. (2020) Management of Captive Animals. Pages 527-553 in: W.J. Sutherland, L.V. Dicks, S.O. Petrovan & R.K. Smith (eds) What Works in Conservation 2020. Open Book Publishers, Cambridge, UK.

Where has this evidence come from?

List of journals searched by synopsis

All the journals searched for all synopses

This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:

Management of Captive Animals

Related Actions

Actions	Effectiveness	Studies	Category
Primates: Feed individuals separately Action Link	No evidence found (no assessment)	0	Synopsis Link
Primates: Feed individuals in social groups Action Link	Trade-off between benefit and harms	2	Synopsis Link
Primates: Feed individuals in subgroups Action Link	No evidence found (no assessment)	0	Synopsis Link