Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2025 Jun;21(6):20240669.
doi: 10.1098/rsbl.2024.0669. Epub 2025 Jun 18.

Why is mutual grooming rare despite its function? A hypothesis for cognitive constraints

Affiliations

Why is mutual grooming rare despite its function? A hypothesis for cognitive constraints

Ayumi Ogawa et al. Biol Lett. 2025 Jun.

Abstract

Mutual grooming, where both participants groom each other simultaneously, is a type of allogrooming and probably also plays an important role as a social and hygienic function; however, it has attracted little attention, probably due to its rarity compared to prevailing unidirectional grooming in many social animals, such as primate species. While previous studies have shown that mutual grooming has functional significance, such as promoting social bonds and maximizing short-term benefits, we do not know why mutual grooming is much rarer than unidirectional grooming, and its restrictive factors have been mostly uninvestigated. In this article, we propose a hypothesis of cognitive constraints in which cognitive complexity is assumed as an underpinning mechanism for mutual grooming, thereby restricting its prevalence across animal species. To achieve joint action and its symmetric nature, mutual grooming is considered to require behavioural coordination between participants, which could be facilitated by active communication and, furthermore, by joint commitment based on a mutual understanding of intention between the two. The fact that joint commitment has been proved only in a limited number of animals may support this cognitive demand hypothesis, although it definitely calls for further in-depth investigation and comparative studies across primate and non-primate species.

Keywords: behavioural coordination; bidirectional allogrooming; cognitive demand hypothesis; joint action; joint commitment; mutual grooming.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

We declare we have no competing interests.

References

    1. Nakamura M. 2000. Is human conversation more efficient than chimpanzee grooming? Hum. Nat. 11, 281–297. ( 10.1007/s12110-000-1014-2) - DOI - PubMed
    1. Shutt K, MacLarnon A, Heistermann M, Semple S. 2007. Grooming in Barbary macaques: better to give than to receive? Biol. Lett. 3, 231–233. ( 10.1098/rsbl.2007.0052) - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Fedurek P, Dunbar RIM, for the British Academy Centenary Research Project . 2009. What does mutual grooming tell us about why chimpanzees groom? Ethology 115, 566–575. ( 10.1111/j.1439-0310.2009.01637.x) - DOI
    1. Nakamura M. 2003. ‘Gatherings’ of social grooming among wild chimpanzees: implications for evolution of sociality. J. Hum. Evol. 44, 59–71. ( 10.1016/s0047-2484(02)00194-x) - DOI - PubMed
    1. Machanda ZP, Gilby IC, Wrangham RW. 2014. Mutual grooming among adult male chimpanzees: the immediate investment hypothesis. Anim. Behav. 87, 165–174. ( 10.1016/j.anbehav.2013.10.028) - DOI

LinkOut - more resources