Letter | Published:

Experimentally induced innovations lead to persistent culture via conformity in wild birds

Nature volume 518, pages 538541 (26 February 2015) | Download Citation

Abstract

In human societies, cultural norms arise when behaviours are transmitted through social networks via high-fidelity social learning1. However, a paucity of experimental studies has meant that there is no comparable understanding of the process by which socially transmitted behaviours might spread and persist in animal populations2,3. Here we show experimental evidence of the establishment of foraging traditions in a wild bird population. We introduced alternative novel foraging techniques into replicated wild sub-populations of great tits (Parus major) and used automated tracking to map the diffusion, establishment and long-term persistence of the seeded innovations. Furthermore, we used social network analysis to examine the social factors that influenced diffusion dynamics. From only two trained birds in each sub-population, the information spread rapidly through social network ties, to reach an average of 75% of individuals, with a total of 414 knowledgeable individuals performing 57,909 solutions over all replicates. The sub-populations were heavily biased towards using the technique that was originally introduced, resulting in established local traditions that were stable over two generations, despite a high population turnover. Finally, we demonstrate a strong effect of social conformity, with individuals disproportionately adopting the most frequent local variant when first acquiring an innovation, and continuing to favour social information over personal information. Cultural conformity is thought to be a key factor in the evolution of complex culture in humans4,5,6,7. In providing the first experimental demonstration of conformity in a wild non-primate, and of cultural norms in foraging techniques in any wild animal, our results suggest a much broader taxonomic occurrence of such an apparently complex cultural behaviour.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

References

  1. 1.

    Diffusion of Innovations 4th edn (Free Press, 1995)

  2. 2.

    , , & Diffusion dynamics of socially learned foraging techniques in squirrel monkeys. Curr. Biol. 23, 1251–1255 (2013)

  3. 3.

    & The interplay between social networks and culture: theoretically and among whales and dolphins. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 368, 20120340 (2013)

  4. 4.

    et al. Cognitive culture: theoretical and empirical insights into social learning strategies. Trends Cogn. Sci. 15, 68–76 (2011)

  5. 5.

    , & Potent social learning and conformity shape a wild primate’s foraging decisions. Science 340, 483–485 (2013)

  6. 6.

    , , & Culture evolves. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 366, 938–948 (2011)

  7. 7.

    , & Conformity to cultural norms of tool use in chimpanzees. Nature 437, 737–740 (2005)

  8. 8.

    & The animal cultures debate. Trends Ecol. Evol. 21, 542–547 (2006)

  9. 9.

    Traditionality of mating-site preferences in a coral reef fish. Nature 335, 719–721 (1988)

  10. 10.

    & On the relation between social dynamics and social learning. Anim. Behav. 50, 1441–1453 (1995)

  11. 11.

    , , , & Identification of the social and cognitive processes underlying human cumulative culture. Science 335, 1114–1118 (2012)

  12. 12.

    Social learning strategies. Learn. Behav. 32, 4–14 (2004)

  13. 13.

    & Social learning in animals: empirical studies and theoretical models. Bioscience 55, 489–499 (2005)

  14. 14.

    & Establishing an experimental science of culture: animal social diffusion experiments. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 363, 3477–3488 (2008)

  15. 15.

    in Oxford Handbook of Comparative Cognition (eds & ) Ch. 40, 803–818 (Oxford Univ. Press, 2012)

  16. 16.

    & The opening of milk bottles by birds. Br. Birds 42, 347–357 (1949)

  17. 17.

    & Cultural transmission without imitation: milk bottle opening by birds. Anim. Behav. 32, 937–938 (1984)

  18. 18.

    , & Milk-bottles revisited: social learning and individual variation in the blue tit (Cyanistes caeruleus). Anim. Behav. 85, 1225–1232 (2013)

  19. 19.

    , , & Who are the innovators? A field experiment with 2 passerine species. Behav. Ecol. 22, 1241–1248 (2011)

  20. 20.

    & Social learning in birds and its role in shaping a foraging niche. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 366, 969–977 (2011)

  21. 21.

    et al. Individual personalities predict social behaviour in wild networks of great tits (Parus major). Ecol. Lett. 16, 1365–1372 (2013)

  22. 22.

    , , & Inferring social network structure in ecological systems from spatio-temporal data streams. J. R. Soc. Interface 9, 3055–3066 (2012)

  23. 23.

    , , & Network-based diffusion analysis reveals cultural transmission of lobtail feeding in humpback whales. Science 340, 485–488 (2013)

  24. 24.

    & The rise and fall of an arbitrary tradition: an experiment with wild meerkats. Proc. R. Soc. B 276, 1269–1276 (2009)

  25. 25.

    & The biological bases of conformity. Front. Neurosci. 6, 87 (2012)

  26. 26.

    & Conformity in nonhuman primates: fad or fact? Evol. Hum. Behav. 34, 1–7 (2013)

  27. 27.

    , , & The forms and fitness cost of senescence: age-specific recapture, survival, reproduction, and reproductive value in a wild bird population. Am. Nat. 179, E15–E27 (2012)

  28. 28.

    , & Majority-biased transmission in chimpanzees and human children, but not orangutans. Curr. Biol. 22, 727–731 (2012)

  29. 29.

    Animal conformists. Science 340, 437–438 (2013)

  30. 30.

    Animal culture: chimpanzee conformity? Curr. Biol. 22, R402–R404 (2012)

  31. 31.

    , , & Social networks predict patch discovery in a wild population of songbirds. Proc. R. Soc. B 279, 4199–4205 (2012)

  32. 32.

    & Model Selection and Multimodel Inference: A Practical Information-Theoretic Approach 2nd edn (Springer, 2002)

  33. 33.

    Animal social network inference and permutations for ecologist in R using asnipe. Methods Ecol. Evol. 4, 1187–1194 (2013)

  34. 34.

    , & Sampling animal association networks with the gambit of the group. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 64, 493–503 (2010)

  35. 35.

    Analyzing Animal Societies: Quantitative Methods for Vertebrate Social Analysis (Univ. Chicago Press, 2008)

  36. 36.

    , & A method for testing association patterns of social animals. Anim. Behav. 56, 719–725 (1998)

  37. 37.

    & Network-based diffusion analysis: a new method for detecting social learning. Proc. R. Soc. B 276, 1829–1836 (2009)

  38. 38.

    , & Detecting social transmission in networks. J. Theor. Biol. 263, 544–555 (2010)

Download references

Acknowledgements

This project was supported by grants from the BBSRC (BB/L006081/1) and the ERC (AdG 250164) to B.C.S., who was also supported by a visiting professorship at Uppsala University. L.M.A. was also supported by an Australian Postgraduate Award; and A.T., by a BBSRC David Phillips Fellowship (BB/H021817/1). The EGI social networks group, S. Lang and K. McMahon provided assistance in the field, and M. Whitaker produced electronic components for the puzzle boxes.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Edward Grey Institute, Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 3PS, UK

    • Lucy M. Aplin
    • , Damien R. Farine
    •  & Ben C. Sheldon
  2. Department of Evolution, Ecology and Genetics, Research School of Biology, Australian National University, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory 2600, Australia

    • Lucy M. Aplin
    •  & Andrew Cockburn
  3. Department of Anthropology, University of California, Davis, California 95616, USA

    • Damien R. Farine
  4. Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, Ancon 9100, Panama

    • Damien R. Farine
  5. Department of Biology, University of Ottawa, Ottawa K1N 9B2, Canada

    • Julie Morand-Ferron
  6. Department of Biosciences, Centre for Ecology and Conservation, University of Exeter, Penryn Campus, Penryn TR10 9EZ, UK

    • Alex Thornton
  7. Department of Ecology and Genetics, Uppsala University, 752 36 Uppsala, Sweden

    • Ben C. Sheldon

Authors

  1. Search for Lucy M. Aplin in:

  2. Search for Damien R. Farine in:

  3. Search for Julie Morand-Ferron in:

  4. Search for Andrew Cockburn in:

  5. Search for Alex Thornton in:

  6. Search for Ben C. Sheldon in:

Contributions

The study was initially conceived by L.M.A., J.M.-F. and B.C.S., with input from D.R.F., A.C. and A.T. in designing the experiments. Infrastructure to support the work was conceived and developed by B.C.S. The experimental work was led by L.M.A.; and the analysis, by L.M.A. and D.R.F. The manuscript was drafted by L.M.A. and B.C.S., and important contributions were made by all of the other authors.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lucy M. Aplin.

Extended data

Supplementary information

PDF files

  1. 1.

    Supplementary Information

    This file contains Supplementary Text and Supplementary Table 1.

Videos

  1. 1.

    Two ways of solving the puzzle-box

    First shows great tit using option A, pushing the door to the left from the blue side. The bird extracts a reward and the puzzle-box automatically resets 1sec after its departure. Second shows great tit using option B, pushing the door to the right from the red side. Again the bird gains access to the feeder, and the puzzle-box resets back to the middle 1 sec after its departure.

  2. 2.

    Birds solving the task in a sequence of solves and scrounges

    Footage shows great tits interacting at the puzzle-box over a 1 min period at a busy site, with multiple birds either solving the puzzle-box, scrounging from others, or visually observing the solves of others. Up to two scrounges in the 1 sec after a solve are permitted, and are registered as such at the puzzle-box before it shuts.

  3. 3.

    : Diffusion of experimentally introduced behaviour through the social network

    Foraging social network for T3 replicate as an example. Nodes represent individuals; lines are edges indicating the strength of connection between individuals. Yellow nodes are trained demonstrators, and nodes turn red in the order in which they first performed the new behavior (whether option A/B).

About this article

Publication history

Received

Accepted

Published

DOI

https://doi.org/10.1038/nature13998

Further reading

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.