Human grooming in comparative perspective

People in six small‐scale societies groom less but socialize just as much as expected for a typical primate

Bibliographic Data

ID8313769
AuthorsA V Jaeggi (0000-0003-1695-0388, Department of Anthropology Emory University Atlanta Georgia 30322, corresponding author), K L Kramer (0000-0002-9157-7758, University of Utah), R Hames (0000-0002-6931-3342, University of Nebraska–Lincoln), Evan J Kiely (Department of Anthropology Emory University Atlanta Georgia 30322), Evan Kiely (0000-0002-6025-8519, Emory University), Cristina Gomes (0000-0001-5217-9426, Department of Psychology University of Miami Coral Gables Florida 33124), H Kaplan (0000-0002-7398-7358, University of New Mexico), M Gurven (0000-0002-5661-527X, University of California, Santa Barbara)
Year2017
Volume162
Issue4
Pages810-816
Publication date2017-04-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueAmerican Journal of Physical Anthropology (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0002-9483 • E-ISSN: 1096-8644
PublisherWiley (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1002/ajpa.23164
PMID28164267
OpenAlexW2587377091
LanguageEN
Citations received5
References cited28

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

Biology · Conversation · Primate · Social grooming · Animal Vocal Communication and Behavior · Communication · Ecology · Language and cultural evolution · Primate Behavior and Ecology · Psychology · Social Psychology

Tools

Open DOISci-HubOpen Access