Table 2 Models testing the use of peering with respect to peerer’s age and success, and the food processing context

From: Social tolerance and role model diversity increase tool use learning opportunities across chimpanzee ontogeny

Prediction	Response	Term	Estimate	SE	95% CI	95% CI	89% CI	89% CI
Model 2a) The frequency of peering events in foraging contexts will peak during development and persist after weaning	Number of peering events	Intercept	−0.05	0.44	−0.92	0.83	−0.75	0.66
		Sex (Male)	0.33	0.40	−0.44	1.12	−0.30	0.97
		Age	−0.09	0.27	−0.66	0.42	−0.53	0.31
		Age²	−0.41	0.21	−0.87	−0.03	−0.75	−0.09
		Party size	0.19	0.09	0.01	0.37	0.05	0.34
		Group North^a	−0.11	0.49	−1.07	0.84	−0.89	0.66
		Group South^a	0.69	0.37	−0.06	1.43	0.07	1.28
		Maternal rank	0.13	0.16	−0.17	0.46	−0.12	0.39
		Sex (Male): Age	0.12	0.35	−0.57	0.83	−0.43	0.68
		Sex (Male): Age²	−0.48	0.29	−1.06	0.11	−0.95	−0.02
Model 2b) Increasing food processing complexity will elicit a higher frequency of peering events	Number of peering events when at least one adult (the mother) is foraging	Intercept	0.39	0.45	−0.50	1.29	−0.33	1.11
		Age	−0.37	0.24	−0.88	0.08	−0.77	0.00
		Non extractive^b	−0.56	0.21	−0.95	−0.12	−0.88	−0.20
		Extractive with tools^b	0.61	0.37	−0.13	1.30	0.02	1.18
		Sex (Male)	0.12	0.33	−0.53	0.78	−0.40	0.64
		Age²	−0.35	0.21	−0.81	0.02	−0.70	−0.04
		Monopolizability (High)	0.85	0.23	0.37	1.30	0.46	1.21
		Group North^a	−0.31	0.52	−1.34	0.74	−1.12	0.52
		Group South^a	0.48	0.38	−0.26	1.26	−0.12	1.09
		Maternal rank	−0.18	0.18	−0.54	0.20	−0.47	0.12
		Party size	0.10	0.10	−0.10	0.30	−0.06	0.26
		Non extractive^b:Age	0.20	0.17	−0.12	0.54	−0.06	0.47
		Extractive with tool^b:Age	−0.12	0.31	−0.71	0.52	−0.59	0.39
		Non extractive^b: Age²	0.08	0.14	−0.19	0.34	−0.14	0.30
		Extractive with tool^b: Age²	−0.03	0.22	−0.47	0.39	−0.39	0.31
Model 2c) Failure in feeding attempt will subsequently increase the probability of peering	Latency before a peering event following a feeding attempt	Intercept	−1.76	0.75	−3.22	−0.25	−2.95	−0.54
		Success (Yes)	1.17	0.27	0.64	1.73	0.74	1.61
		Food type (Pod opening)	0.42	0.28	−0.14	0.99	−0.04	0.89
		Age	0.51	0.33	−0.11	1.18	0.00	1.05
		Sex (Male)	−0.11	0.57	−1.22	1.04	−0.99	0.80
		Age²	0.31	0.25	−0.14	0.84	−0.07	0.74
		Party size	0.28	0.18	−0.06	0.65	0.01	0.57
		Group North^a	0.29	0.79	−1.29	1.85	−0.95	1.59
		Group South^a	0.14	0.61	−1.09	1.32	−0.86	1.09
		Maternal rank	−0.09	0.36	−0.82	0.63	−0.67	0.48

Results of our statistical models 1a, 1b, and 1c, testing for the effect of contexts on peering, including the dependent variables, the effects with associated estimated error and credible interval at 95 and 89% (respectively in bold or italic if they did not cross 0).
^aGroup East.
^bExtractive foraging without tools as reference categories, other contrasts are shown on (Table S3).

Back to article page

Table 2 Models testing the use of peering with respect to peerer’s age and success, and the food processing context

Search

Quick links