↓ Skip to main content

Chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) and orangutan (Pongo abelii) forethought: self-control and pre-experience in the face of future tool use

Overview of attention for article published in Animal Cognition, June 2008
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
7 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
policy
1 policy source
twitter
2 X users
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
272 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
348 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) and orangutan (Pongo abelii) forethought: self-control and pre-experience in the face of future tool use
Published in
Animal Cognition, June 2008
DOI 10.1007/s10071-008-0157-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mathias Osvath, Helena Osvath

Abstract

Planning for future needs has traditionally been considered to be restricted to human cognition. Although recent studies on great ape and corvid cognition challenge this belief, the phylogenesis of human planning remains largely unknown. The complex skill for future planning has not yet been satisfactorily established in any other extant primate species than our own. In humans, planning for future needs rely heavily on two overarching capacities, both of which lie at the heart of our cognition: self-control, often defined as the suppression of immediate drives in favor of delayed rewards, and mental time travel, which could be described as a detached mental experience of a past or future event. Future planning is linked to additional high complexity cognition such as metacognition and a consciousness usually not attributed to animals. In a series of four experiments based on tool use, we demonstrate that chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) and orangutans (Pongo abelii) override immediate drives in favor of future needs, and they do not merely rely on associative learning or semantic prospection when confronted with a planning task. These results suggest that great apes engage in planning for the future by out competing current drives and mentally pre-experiencing an upcoming event. This suggests that the advanced mental capacities utilized in human future planning are shared by phylogenetically more ancient species than previously believed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 348 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 7 2%
United Kingdom 3 <1%
Poland 2 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Slovenia 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Other 2 <1%
Unknown 328 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 71 20%
Student > Bachelor 65 19%
Student > Master 58 17%
Researcher 49 14%
Other 17 5%
Other 55 16%
Unknown 33 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 105 30%
Psychology 104 30%
Neuroscience 16 5%
Environmental Science 13 4%
Arts and Humanities 12 3%
Other 53 15%
Unknown 45 13%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 86. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 March 2024.
All research outputs
#429,716
of 23,292,144 outputs
Outputs from Animal Cognition
#115
of 1,475 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#705
of 82,871 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Animal Cognition
#3
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,292,144 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,475 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 33.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 82,871 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 7 of them.