Этот, казалось бы, красивый и поучительный эксперимент широко известен, и из него обычно делают глубокомысленные выводы; вот, полюбуйтесь на тысячи книжек по т.н. «менеджменту», в которых пересказывается эта история. Тем не менее такого эксперимента никогда не было, всё это выдумка и полная чушь.
Я проследил этот миф по Google Books, стремясь найти исходную ссылку, и был впечатлен. Кажется, впервые этот псевдо-эксперимент упоминается в книжке Hamel & Prahalad, Competing for Future, 1994. Никакой ссылки там нет, а изложение этого сюжета начинается так: «A friend of us once described an experiment with monkeys...». Какая элегантность! Дальше эту выдумку растиражировали в сотнях книг и тысячах статей. Наверное, Видные Специалисты по Менеджменту.
Возможно, эта история частично основана вот на этом полузабытом эксперименте, который мельком упоминается в обзоре (оригинальной статьи мне найти не удалось) B. Galef, Social Transmission of Acquired Behavior, 1976, но связь, если она и есть, минимальная.
Stephenson (1967) trained adult male and female rhesus monkeys to avoid manipulating an object and then placed individual naïve animals in a cage with a trained individual of the same age and sex and the object in question. In one case, a trained male actually pulled his naïve partner away from the previously punished manipulandum during their period of interaction, whereas the other two trained males exhibited what were described as «threat facial expressions while in a fear posture» when a naïve animal approached the manipulandum. When placed alone in the cage with the novel object, naïve males that had been paired with trained males showed greatly reduced manipulation of the training object in comparison with controls. Unfortunately, training and testing were not carried out using a discrimination procedure so the nature of the transmitted information cannot be determined, but the data are of considerable interest.
Заодно я бегло посмотрел публикации по культуре у животных (когда одни особи учатся у других какому-то навыку, которым не обладает вид в целом). Известно, что нечто подобное есть у некоторых певчих птиц: у разных популяций одного вида могут быть слегка отличающиеся песни («диалекты», см. вики), и птенцы учатся у родителей. Но я не знал, что (a) это доказано еще и для некоторых видов рыб и китов; (б) про обезьян, в том числе и шимпанзе, вот уже 60 лет продолжаются споры. Ниже — несколько статей с цитатами, в хронологическом порядке.
1. M. Kawai, Newly-acquired Pre-cultural Behavior of the Natural Troop of Japanese Monkeys on Koshima Islet, 1965
Sweet-potato washing is an example of pre-culture characteristic of the troop of monkeys in Koshima (a small islet in Miyazaki Prefecture, Kyushu). ... Kawamura and I observed the habit of sweet-potato washing occurred in the Koshima troop in 1953.
2. B. Galef, The Question of Animal Culture,1992
Review of the literature on problem solving by captive primates, and detailed consideration of two widely cited instances of purported learning by imitation and of culture in free-living primates (sweet-potato washing by Japanese macaques and termite fishing by chimpanzees), suggests that nonhuman primates do NOT learn to solve problems by imitation.
3. A. Whiten et al., Cultures in chimpanzee, Nature, 1999
Here we present a systematic synthesis of this information from the seven most long-term studies, which together have accumulated 151 years of chimpanzee observation. This comprehensive analysis reveals patterns of variation that are far more extensive than have previously been documented for any animal species except humans. We ﬁnd that 39 different behaviour patterns. including tool usage, grooming and courtship behaviours, are customary or habitual in some communities but are absent in others where ecological explanations have been discounted. Among mammalian and avian species, cultural variation has previously been identiﬁed only for single behaviour patterns, such as the local dialects of song-birds. The extensive, multiple variations now documented for chimpanzees are thus without parallel.
4. K. Laland & W. Hoppitt, Do Animals Have Culture?, 2003
...for which species do we have reliable scientiﬁc evidence of natural communities that share group-typical behavior patterns that are dependent on socially learned and transmitted information? The answer, which will surprise many, is humans plus a handful of species of birds, one or two whales, and two species of ﬁsh. No doubt many readers will ﬁnd this conclusion disturbing, while primatologists will probably be up in arms. How can we attribute culture status to ﬁsh and not chimpanzees? A full explanation will follow, but the short answer is that for chimpanzees, as for other nonhuman primates, the hard evidence that their «cultures» are socially learned is not yet there. ... Neither evidence of group-typical behavior patterns nor a demonstration that the species is capable of social learning is in itself strong evidence for culture.
If we were to say which animals we believe have culture, based on our knowledge of animal social learning, observations of natural behavior of animals, intuition, and the laws of probability, we would say that many hundreds of species of vertebrate have culture.
To our knowledge these experiments have not been carried out in a systematic and rigorous manner in any nonhuman primates. What is more, in many cases, including for chimpanzees, it is difﬁcult to envisage that they will. Not only would such experiments be extraordinarily expensive, and present enormous logistical challenges, but many people would regard such manipulations as unethical. Consequently, the claim that nonhuman primate populations exhibit culture rests exclusively on observations of natural populations in situ.
While primatologists are forced to resort to circumstantial evidence for culture... other researchers are free to employ more direct experimental methods. Helfman and Shultz translocated French grunts (Haemulon ﬂavolineatum) between populations and found that while those ﬁsh placed into established populations adopted the same schooling sites and migration routes as the residents, control ﬁsh introduced into regions from where the residents had been removed did not adopt the behavior of former residents.
The primate-centric brainist bias is well illustrated by a reconsideration of one of the most well-known cases of animal social learning, that of sweetpotato washing by Japanese macaques. ... There is no evidence that food washing spread through Imo’s troop by imitation, teaching, or any unusually sophisticated form of social learning. Indeed, there are grounds for concern that it may even have been an artifact of human provisioning.
5. A. Whiten, ..., Frans de Waal, Conformity to cultural norms of tool use in chimpanzees, Nature 2005
Here we show that experimentally introduced technologies will spread within different ape communities. Unobserved by group mates, we ﬁrst trained a high-ranking female from each of two groups of captive chimpanzees to adopt one of two different tool use techniques for obtaining food from the same ‘Pan-pipe’ apparatus, then re-introduced each female to her respective group. All but two of 32 chimpanzees mastered the new technique under the inﬂuence of their local expert, whereas none did so in a third population lacking an expert.
6. A. Whitten, ..., Frans de Waal, Transmission of Multiple Traditions within and between Chimpanzee Groups, 2007
Here, we provide robust experimental evidence that alternative foraging techniques seeded in different groups of chimpanzees spread differentially not only within groups but serially across two further groups with substantial ﬁdelity. Combining these results with those from recent social-diffusion studies in two larger groups offers the ﬁrst experimental evidence that a nonhuman species can sustain unique local cultures, each constituted by multiple traditions. The convergence of these results with those from the wild implies a richness in chimpanzees’ capacity for culture...