Michael Tomasello – 1950 Present

Biography

The scientific investigation of what distinguishes the human species from its closest phylogenetic relatives has occupied philosophy, evolutionary biology, and anthropology for centuries. Yet few researchers have transformed this inquiry as decisively as Michael Tomasello. Born in 1950, Tomasello has spent over four decades orchestrating a profound paradigm shift across developmental psychology, comparative primatology, evolutionary anthropology, and cognitive linguistics. His work systematically challenges the Cartesian premise of the isolated, individualistic cogito, replacing it with an empirically grounded, evolutionary, and sociocultural account of human nature. By placing human cooperation, communication, and culture at the center of cognition, Tomasello has redefined the scientific understanding of the human mind not as an insular computing machine pre-programmed with domain-specific modules, but as an intrinsically social, collaborative, and normative organ shaped by phylogenetic adaptations for cultural life.

Tomasello’s empirical project is distinguished by its twin investigative axes: the phylogenetic axis, which examines the cognitive and behavioral repertoires of nonhuman great apes (primarily chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas, and orangutans), and the ontogenetic axis, which charts the emergence of cognitive, communicative, and moral capacities in human infants and young children. Through an astonishing array of methodologically inventive experimental protocols, longitudinal observations, and cross-species testing batteries, Tomasello and his collaborators have demonstrated that while great apes possess sophisticated instrumental reasoning, causal intelligence, and an understanding of others as animate, goal-directed agents, they lack the specialized adaptations for what Tomasello terms shared intentionality. This uniquely human infrastructure consists of the psychological capacities and motivations to participate with others in collaborative activities characterized by joint goals, joint attention, mutual knowledge, and cooperative communication.

Across a landmark series of theoretical monographs—including The Cultural Origins of Human Cognition (1999), Constructing a Language (2003), Origins of Human Communication (2008), A Natural History of Human Thinking (2014), A Natural History of Human Morality (2016), and Becoming Human: A Theory of Ontogeny (2019)—Tomasello has synthesized these empirical discoveries into a comprehensive, Neo-Vygotskian evolutionary anthropology. His framework demonstrates how the ecological transition to obligate collaborative foraging in early hominins catalyzed a cascade of socio-cognitive adaptations. These evolutionary innovations transformed individual intentionality into joint and collective intentionality, gave rise to cumulative cultural evolution through the cultural ratchet effect, grounded language acquisition in domain-general socio-pragmatic mechanisms, and reconstituted human morality as an architecture of second-personal commitments and objective, group-minded normative systems. The following comprehensive survey traces the biographical, empirical, theoretical, and philosophical dimensions of Tomasello’s enduring scientific legacy.

1. Biographical Foundations and Academic Trajectory

1.1 Early Intellectual Influences and Education

Michael Tomasello was born on January 18, 1950, in Bartow, Florida. His early intellectual development unfolded during a transformative epoch in American psychology, characterized by the gradual dissolution of classical behaviorism and the vigorous ascent of the cognitive revolution. Tomasello pursued his undergraduate studies at Duke University, where he initially immersed himself in psychology and philosophy, earning his Bachelor of Arts in 1972. During these formative undergraduate years, Tomasello engaged deeply with both the rigorously empiricist behavioral traditions that still dominated experimental animal laboratories and the emerging cognitive alternatives that sought to map internal mental representations.

Seeking to ground these theoretical interests in developmental dynamics, Tomasello enrolled in the doctoral program in experimental psychology at the University of Georgia, completing his Ph.D. in 1980. His graduate training was heavily influenced by the genetic epistemology of Jean Piaget. Piaget’s constructivist vision of child development—predicated on the notion that children construct operational schemas through direct sensorimotor interactions with their physical environments—provided Tomasello with an enduring appreciation for developmental process and cognitive action. However, Tomasello simultaneously identified a profound limitation in the classical Piagetian framework: its solitary, individualistic characterization of the developing epistemic subject. Piaget had conceptualized the child essentially as a lone, heroic scientist experimenting upon inanimate objects, largely bracketing the uniquely sociocultural matrix within which human development inevitably unfolds.

To rectify this conceptual deficit, Tomasello executed a decisive theoretical pivot toward the sociocultural psychology of Lev Vygotsky and the broader cultural-historical school founded by Vygotsky, Alexander Luria, and Aleksei Leontiev. Vygotsky’s central insight—that distinctively human higher mental functions do not develop purely from the inside out, but are rather internalized from social, interpersonal interactions mediated by cultural tools and symbols—became the philosophical compass of Tomasello’s career. During his early postdoctoral and preliminary academic appointments, Tomasello initiated fine-grained field and laboratory observations of young children engaged in naturalistic social interactions with their caregivers. These early observational studies convinced him that infant cognitive competence could not be understood outside the relational, communicative dyads within which children first learn to direct the attention of others and coordinate their actions toward common ends.

1.2 Institutional Milestones: From Emory to Leipzig and Duke

In 1980, Tomasello joined the faculty of the Department of Psychology at Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia, an institutional home he would maintain until 1998. The Emory appointment proved structurally momentous for Tomasello’s intellectual trajectory due to its administrative and geographic proximity to the Yerkes National Primate Research Center (now the Emory National Primate Research Center). It was at Yerkes that Tomasello initiated his groundbreaking comparative investigations into nonhuman primate cognition, establishing long-term behavioral and experimental programs with captive chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). Working alongside primatologists and comparative psychologists, Tomasello began systematically testing how apes learn, communicate, and solve physical versus social problems, laying the empirical groundwork for what would become his comparative signature: directly evaluating great apes and human children using equivalent, ecologically sensitive testing paradigms.

The international recognition garnered by his research at Emory and Yerkes culminated in 1997 in an invitation to join the newly conceived Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology (MPI-EVA) in Leipzig, Germany. Founded by the Max Planck Society to investigate human origins through an unprecedentedly interdisciplinary convergence of genetics, primatology, linguistics, and cognitive development, the MPI-EVA appointed Tomasello as Co-Director of the Department of Developmental and Comparative Psychology in 1998, a post he shared with primatologist Josep Call. During his twenty-year tenure in Leipzig (1998–2018), Tomasello turned the institute into arguably the world’s preeminent research center for comparative cognitive science.

A crowning institutional achievement of Tomasello’s Leipzig period was the establishment in 2001 of the Wolfgang Köhler Primate Research Center (known colloquially as “Pongoland”) at the Leipzig Zoo. Operating under the scientific aegis of the MPI-EVA, this state-of-the-art facility was explicitly designed to afford all four nonhuman great ape species—chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas, and orangutans—spacious, semi-naturalistic indoor and outdoor habitats while accommodating rigorous non-invasive experimental testing. Simultaneously, Tomasello established the Child Development Lab at the MPI-EVA, enabling his international research team to conduct parallel experimental protocols with thousands of human infants, toddlers, and young children. Following his transition to Director Emeritus at Leipzig in 2018, Tomasello returned to his alma mater, Duke University, where he serves as Professor of Psychology and Neuroscience, continuing to supervise empirical research, mentor doctoral scholars, and synthesize evolutionary models of human ontogeny and social cognition.

1.3 Disciplinary Scope and Methodological Philosophy

Tomasello’s scholarship represents a rare, monumental synthesis of three historically distinct disciplines: comparative primatology, developmental psychology, and evolutionary anthropology. Rather than treating these domains as compartmentalized fields, his methodological philosophy insists that any coherent scientific explanation of the human mind must reconcile evolutionary history (phylogeny), historical cultural transmission (history), and individual ontogenetic maturation (ontogeny). This triadic architecture reflects what Tomasello terms an integrative evolutionary anthropology: one cannot explain why human adults think and behave as they do without understanding how their species-unique cognitive mechanisms evolved over deep time, how those mechanisms are culturally transmitted across generations, and how they unfold during the first years of human childhood.

At the center of this methodological philosophy is a fierce rejection of Cartesian dualism and the extreme forms of computational nativism that dominated early cognitive science and generative linguistics. Tomasello consistently disputes the proposition championed by scholars such as Noam Chomsky, Steven Pinker, and Jerry Fodor, who posited that the human mind is packed with thousands of innate, highly specialized, modular computational devices—such as a dedicated “Language Acquisition Device” or hard-wired, genetically encapsulated moral matrices. Instead, Tomasello advocates an evolutionary constructivist position: what natural selection provided modern humans was not a pre-packaged encyclopedia of innate linguistic rules or moral axioms, but a small, extraordinarily powerful cluster of domain-general and socio-cognitive adaptations designed for cultural life, collective learning, and collaborative interaction.

To substantiate this position empirically, Tomasello developed an epistemological framework anchored in ecologically valid experimental protocols. Recognizing that both captive nonhuman primates and preverbal human infants cannot be reliably assessed through traditional verbal instruction or artificial testing environments, his research group pioneered nonverbal behavioral tasks that evaluate spontaneous, unprompted problem-solving. Whether measuring gaze duration, anticipatory looking, spontaneous instrumental helping, or competitive food retrieval, Tomasello’s experimental paradigms are explicitly calibrated to capture cognition in action. His methodological ethos demands that comparative testing conditions be strictly equitable: testing an ape trapped in an isolated steel cage against an enculturated human child seated comfortably in a parent’s lap introduces crippling methodological confounds. Tomasello’s career-long commitment has been to create testing interfaces that respect the distinct evolutionary ecologies and social motivations of each species.

2. The Comparative Paradigm: Human Children versus Nonhuman Primates

2.1 Empirical Distinctions in Cognitive Skills

The cornerstone of Tomasello’s empirical legacy is the systematic, experimental contrast between the cognitive profiles of human children and nonhuman great apes. For decades, traditional cognitive science operated on the assumption of a general intelligence continuum: humans were simply quantitative upgrades over other primates, possessing larger brains, greater working memory, and superior processing speeds. Tomasello challenged this view through the formulation of the Cultural Intelligence Hypothesis. This hypothesis posits that the critical evolutionary departure of the human species was not an across-the-board quantitative inflation of general cognitive processing, but the emergence of a specialized, qualitative suite of socio-cognitive skills specifically dedicated to participating in cultural groups, exchanging communicative intentions, and learning from conspecifics.

The definitive empirical test of this hypothesis was realized in the administration of the Primate Cognition Test Battery (PCTB), an ambitious comparative enterprise led by Esther Herrmann, Josep Call, María Victoria Hernández-Lloreda, Brian Hare, and Michael Tomasello, published in 2007. The PCTB subjected approximately 100 chimpanzees, 30 orangutans, and over 100 2.5-year-old human children to an exhaustive battery of experimental tasks spanning two primary domains: physical cognition (involving space, quantities, and causal physical mechanisms) and social cognition (involving social learning, gaze following, communication, and theory of mind). The 2.5-year-old human toddlers were specifically selected because they were at an age where they were only beginning to acquire formal language and had not yet entered formal educational institutions.

The findings of the PCTB were unambiguous and conceptually transformative. In the domain of physical cognition—tracking the location of hidden objects across complex spatial displacements, discriminating quantities of food items, and selecting functionally appropriate tools to retrieve out-of-reach rewards based on causal properties—human toddlers and adult chimpanzees performed at nearly identical, statistically indistinguishable levels of competence. Orangutans similarly displayed robust instrumental causal intelligence. However, when evaluating the social cognition domain, the performance trajectories fractured dramatically. Human children demonstrated overwhelming superiority in tasks requiring them to imitate another’s novel actions, follow pointing gestures to locate hidden entities, read the communicative intentions of an experimenter, and infer what another individual could or could not see. These experimental metrics confirmed that human cognitive uniqueness is intrinsically social: human children do not possess a generalized, indiscriminate cognitive superiority over other apes; rather, they enter the world endowed with specialized, species-unique socio-cognitive adaptations for cultural learning and interaction.

2.2 Social Understanding and Mental State Attribution

The empirical divergence between humans and great apes prompted intense scrutiny regarding the precise scope and limits of primate social intelligence. In the late 1970s and 1980s, the foundational question raised by David Premack and Guy Woodruff—”Does the chimpanzee have a theory of mind?”—had sparked decades of often inconclusive research. Early experimental work, including some of Tomasello’s own early experiments at Yerkes, suggested that chimpanzees might be entirely blind to mental states, treating others merely as animate physical bodies that moved unpredictably.

However, during the late 1990s and early 2000s, Tomasello, alongside Josep Call and Brian Hare, revised this assessment by introducing a crucial ecological insight: great apes live in highly competitive dominance hierarchies where food and mating opportunities are contested. Standard laboratory tests had placed chimpanzees in cooperative interactions with human experimenters—contexts that were ecologically foreign and motivationally opaque to the apes. When Hare, Call, and Tomasello redesigned these experiments around competitive paradigms, a completely different cognitive picture emerged.

In a series of landmark studies utilizing competitive food retrieval paradigms, subordinate chimpanzees were placed in arenas where they competed against dominant conspecifics for two pieces of food: one positioned in the open where both could see it, and another positioned behind an opaque occluder visible only to the subordinate. Subordinates systematically targeted the food hidden behind the barrier, demonstrating an unambiguous capacity to determine what conspecifics could and could not see from their respective spatial vantage points. Subsequent experiments established that chimpanzees understand when another individual is acting with goal-directed intention: they differentiate between a human experimenter who is unwilling to give them food versus one who is unable to do so due to physical constraints (e.g., dropping the food accidentally or being obstructed by a locked barrier), displaying significantly more impatience and frustration in the former condition.

Yet, despite this genuine, sophisticated understanding of perception, attention, and goals, Tomasello’s research revealed a striking, non-trivial ceiling to great ape mental state attribution. Nonhuman primates do not understand mental states as subjective, representational entities. They do not attribute false beliefs to others in explicit behavioral choices, nor do they understand that an individual can possess an inaccurate epistemic construal of reality that diverges from objective fact. Most decisively, while great apes possess an individual intentionality geared toward anticipating what others will do in order to outmaneuver or exploit them, they do not spontaneously share mental states. They do not initiate joint attention, they do not point declaratively to inform others of interesting phenomena, and they do not comprehend that two minds can intentionally converge upon a shared, mutually known reality.

2.3 The Cooperative Breeding and Foraging Hypotheses

Why did this socio-cognitive divergence occur during hominin evolution? To anchor these cognitive discoveries in evolutionary ecology, Tomasello synthesized evolutionary biological theory, particularly the Cooperative Breeding Hypothesis advanced by Sarah Blaffer Hrdy and the ecological foraging constraints of the mid-Pleistocene epoch. Tomasello formulated the Obligate Collaborative Foraging Hypothesis, which traces the emergence of unique human cognition to severe ecological shifts that fundamentally altered hominin subsistence strategies.

During the early to middle Pleistocene, dramatic climatic fluctuations and the expansion of open savannah environments intensified ecological competition between ancestral hominins and other terrestrial carnivores and primates. In this resource-scarce environment, individual foraging—the default subsistence strategy of extant great apes—became unsustainable. Ancestral hominins could no longer survive as solitary gatherers or opportunistic individual scavengers. Instead, early Homo was subjected to intense selective pressures favoring obligate mutualistic collaboration: individuals who could not effectively coordinate their actions with a partner to harvest large game, track elusive prey, or extract protected underground tubers simply starved.

This ecological transition transformed the fitness landscape from one dominated by individual competition to one governed by absolute interdependence. In a regime of obligate collaborative foraging, an individual’s survival depended entirely on their ability to recruit, coordinate with, and retain competent collaborative partners. This created a powerful self-selection mechanism—what Tomasello characterizes as self-domestication and social selection. Aggressive, despotic, or non-cooperative individuals were systematically shunned, excluded from collaborative foraging ventures, or actively expelled by groups, while individuals with cooperative inclinations, communicative competence, and behavioral self-control were actively chosen as partners.

Tomasello explicitly contrasts this evolutionary trajectory with the social structures of our closest living relatives: common chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) and bonobos (Pan paniscus). Chimpanzee society is organized around male-dominated, fiercely competitive dominance hierarchies where food sharing is rare, highly constrained by harassment, and largely transactional. Bonobo society, while characterized by female coalitions, reduced physical aggression, and remarkable prosocial tolerance facilitated by socio-sexual behavior, nevertheless remains an individual foraging system: bonobos do not form cooperative hunting groups that require complex cognitive coordination, shared goals, or the division of labor. Only the hominin lineage experienced the ecological bottleneck that transformed cooperation from a facultative behavioral option into an absolute, obligate survival requirement.

3. The Architecture of Shared Intentionality

3.1 Dyadic Intentionality and Social Engagement

The foundational socio-cognitive adaptation identified by Tomasello as the engine of human uniqueness is shared intentionality: the ability and motivation to engage with others in collaborative activities characterized by joint goals, joint intentions, and mutual knowledge. In the ontogenetic domain, the architecture of shared intentionality does not emerge instantaneously; rather, it unfolds across a carefully timed developmental sequence, beginning with what Tomasello and his colleagues designate as dyadic intentionality during the first months of life.

Dyadic intentionality manifests in early human infancy as unmediated, face-to-face emotional and social engagement, famously described by Colwyn Trevarthen as primary intersubjectivity. From around two months of age, human infants participate in prolonged, reciprocal eye contact, emotional mirroring, and vocal “proto-conversations” with their adult caregivers. These interactions are not instrumentally motivated; infants and parents engage in them purely for the mutual joy of social connection. Infants demonstrate an acute, fine-grained sensitivity to contingent social responsiveness. In experimental paradigms such as the classic “still-face” protocol, when an adult abruptly freezes their facial expressions and ceases contingent interaction, human infants immediately show signs of distress, attempt to actively re-engage the adult through communicative vocalizations, and eventually withdraw in affective despair.

In striking contrast, nonhuman primate maternal-infant dyads rarely exhibit this form of reciprocal, face-to-face emotional synchrony. While chimpanzee mothers are protective, vigilant, and physically affectionate, their interactions with their infants are predominantly tactile, motoric, and protective rather than sustained through mutual gaze, reciprocal smile-exchanges, and vocal turn-taking. Tomasello emphasizes that this early human capacity for dyadic attunement serves as the essential psychological substrate for interpersonal trust. It establishes the initial experiential ground upon which the child recognizes the conspecific not merely as an interesting physical object or a biological provider, but as a reciprocal psychological subject with whom subjective states can be shared.

3.2 Triadic Intentionality and Joint Attention

Between 9 and 12 months of age, human ontogeny undergoes what Tomasello designates as the nine-month revolution. During this decisive developmental transition, the child moves beyond purely dyadic interactions (infant-caregiver) and purely individual interactions with objects (infant-object) to integrate both domains into a unified, three-dimensional interactive structure: triadic intentionality.

Triadic intentionality brings together the infant, the adult, and an external entity into a shared attentional space. The hallmark of this transition is the emergence of joint attention, wherein the infant and adult do not merely attend to the same object simultaneously, but do so with mutual awareness: both individuals know that they are both attending to that object, creating what Tomasello terms a joint attentional frame. Within this shared frame, the infant begins to utilize an array of sophisticated socio-communicative behaviors:

• Gaze Following: Infants follow the gaze of adults not merely to proximate points, but flexibly around physical obstacles and occluding barriers to locate the specific target of the adult’s attention.
• Social Referencing: When encountering an ambiguous, novel, or potentially frightening object, the infant looks toward the caregiver’s facial expression to read their emotional evaluation and uses that evaluation to regulate their own behavior.
• Intentional Deictic Pointing: Infants begin pointing toward external entities, not only imperatively to demand objects, but declaratively to share attention and excitement about interesting phenomena.
• Imitative Learning: Infants begin reproducing the instrumental actions of adults upon objects, paying attention not just to the physical movement of the tool, but to the intentional goal of the actor.

Tomasello’s critical theoretical formulation here is that joint attention is not merely perceptual coordination; it generates a psychological clearing—a sphere of common ground. When a 12-month-old infant and her father interact around a novel toy, the toy is not merely perceived; it is comprehended by both as an element of their shared attentional reality. This shared perceptual and conceptual ground provides the indispensable inferential foundation for all subsequent cooperative activities and is the precise evolutionary and developmental launching pad for human linguistic communication.

3.3 Collective Intentionality and Cultural Institutions

While dyadic and triadic intentionality operate at the level of face-to-face interactions between concrete, known individuals (“you and I” forming a temporary “we”), the ultimate expression of human socio-cognitive evolution is the capacity for collective intentionality. Around three years of age, human children make a profound cognitive leap: they scale up from joint intentionality with specific collaborative partners to collective intentionality oriented toward an entire cultural community (“we as a group”).

Drawing on the social philosophy of John Searle and the institutional ontology of Margaret Gilbert, Tomasello argues that collective intentionality enables human societies to construct institutional reality. Unlike other primates, whose social organization is governed entirely by behavioral regularities and individual physical dominance, human groups create social norms, cultural conventions, and institutional facts. Through collective intentionality, humans assign status functions to physical entities—functions that exist solely because the community collectively agrees and believes that they exist (exemplified by modern currency, where a piece of paper or a digital token possesses economic value exclusively by virtue of collective social agreement).

In Tomasello’s framework, collective intentionality transforms the child’s epistemic and normative architecture. The child begins to understand that certain rules are not just arbitrary commands issued by an adult in a second-personal dyad; they are impersonal, trans-individual norms that apply universally to all members of the community (“One does not bite others”; “We play this game this way”). Children begin to enforce these norms as objective standards, intervening against third-party rule violators even when the transgression has no direct impact on the child’s own personal interests. Collective intentionality provides humans with an objective perspective: a conceptualization of the world that transcends individual subjective viewpoints, generating trans-individual knowledge representations, conventional cultural institutions, and the distinctively human sense of shared cultural identity and in-group belonging.

4. The Cultural Ratchet Effect and Cumulative Evolution

4.1 Mechanisms of Cultural Transmission

Culture is not unique to the human species if culture is defined simply as the social transmission of behavioral traditions. Field studies of wild chimpanzees have documented distinct cultural repertoires across populations—such as nut-cracking with stone hammers in West Africa, or termite-fishing with modified twigs in East Africa. However, Tomasello has fundamentally altered the comparative debate by demonstrating that the cognitive mechanisms underlying cultural transmission in humans are radically different from those operating in nonhuman primates.

Through pioneering empirical experiments conducted with Josep Call and other colleagues, Tomasello distinguished between three primary forms of social learning: stimulus enhancement, emulation, and true cultural imitation:

• Stimulus Enhancement: An animal’s attention is drawn to a specific location or object as a consequence of another individual’s actions, after which the observing animal learns entirely through individual trial-and-error discovery.
• Emulation: An observer attends to the physical transformations and environmental effects produced by another’s behavior (e.g., seeing that a rake pulls an object closer), but then utilizes their own idiosyncratic, individual motor strategies to achieve that physical goal, largely ignoring the specific behavioral technique demonstrated by the model.
• Cultural Imitation: An observer attends to and reproduces both the intentional goal of the model and the precise, culturally specific motor actions and procedural means employed to attain that goal.

Tomasello’s experimental work demonstrates that chimpanzee social transmission is overwhelmingly driven by emulation. Chimpanzees are keen observers of physical results, but they rarely replicate the precise motor techniques of their conspecifics. In contrast, human children are uniquely attuned to the intentional structure and procedural form of actions. This is vividly illustrated by the phenomenon of overimitation, discovered by Victoria Horner and Andrew Whiten and extensively analyzed by Tomasello’s research group. When an adult demonstrates a causally redundant, inefficient action (such as tapping a wooden block against the side of a transparent box before using a stick to open a latch), human children faithfully replicate the irrelevant step, inferring that it must serve an intentional, conventional, or normative purpose. Chimpanzees, by contrast, immediately bypass the useless step and open the box directly. Overimitation, while seemingly irrational from a narrow instrumental perspective, is an extraordinarily powerful adaptation for high-fidelity cultural transmission, enabling human children to acquire complex, opaque technological and symbolic traditions whose underlying causal mechanisms they do not yet fully understand.

4.2 The Ratchet Mechanism in Technology and Symbolic Systems

The profound consequence of high-fidelity imitative learning is what Tomasello famously coined the cultural ratchet effect. In nonhuman primate societies, behavioral traditions are continually vulnerable to slippage and extinction. If an inventive chimpanzee discovers a more efficient technique for cracking nuts, that innovation often dies with the individual, or is only partially emulated by proximate offspring; other individuals revert to baseline trial-and-error behaviors. There is no cumulative progression. As Tomasello observed, wild chimpanzees have been using stone and wooden tools for thousands—if not millions—of years without demonstrably increasing the technical complexity, efficiency, or composite nature of those tools over historical time.

In human cultures, the ratchet mechanism operates as a cumulative one-way valve: an innovation is learned and faithfully reproduced by conspecifics with such high fidelity that it remains stable across historical generations (the ratchet catches and holds), preventing backward slippage. Once stabilized, subsequent creative individuals can modify or improve upon the initial invention, and that modification is in turn transmitted with high fidelity. Through this continuous, multi-generational ratcheting process, simple wooden digging sticks evolve historically into complex composite spears, then bows and arrows, and ultimately mechanical harvesters. The ratchet effect applies identically to symbolic tools: rudimentary tally marks on animal bones are ratcheted over historical time into base-ten numerical notation, positional arithmetic, algebra, and the computational algorithms of modernity.

The cultural ratchet effect resolves the evolutionary puzzle of human brain size and cognitive achievement. Tomasello insists that modern humans are not born with brains possessing biological blueprints for building airplanes or writing epic poetry; rather, individual humans inherit the accumulated cognitive and material capital of thousands of generations of human history. The human child’s biological inheritance is the specialized social-cognitive capacity to enter into shared intentionality and engage the cultural ratchet, thereby internalizing the externalized cognitive riches of the cultural collective.

4.3 Pedagogy and Social Norm Transmission

The stabilization of the cultural ratchet is dramatically enhanced by two uniquely human social practices: active pedagogy and the normative enforcement of conventions. In nonhuman great apes, explicit teaching is virtually non-existent. A chimpanzee mother may tolerate her infant observing her nut-cracking behaviors, and she may occasionally leave a nut or hammer on an anvil, but she never intervenes to correct an infant’s improper grip, demonstrated technique, or inaccurate angle of strike. Nonhuman primate learning is passive and observational.

Human cultural learning, by contrast, is deeply pedagogical. Drawing on the Natural Pedagogy framework formulated by Gergely Csibra and György Gergely, Tomasello integrates pedagogical transmission into the architecture of shared intentionality. Human adults communicate with infants using ostensive cues—such as direct eye contact, infant-directed speech (“motherese”), and generic pointing—which signal to the child that the forthcoming action is not an idiosyncratic, accidental movement, but a culturally shared, generalizable piece of knowledge. When an adult uses ostensive cues to show a toddler how an apparatus works, the child does not merely learn how this specific adult behaves; the child assumes that this is how we, as a cultural group, operate this object.

Furthermore, this pedagogical transmission is intrinsically normative. In experimental work led by Hannes Rakoczy, Felix Warneken, and Michael Tomasello, young children were shown how to play a novel game using a specific rule. When a hand-puppet subsequently entered the scene and performed the action incorrectly, three-year-old children spontaneously intervened. They protested using normative language (“No, you can’t do that!”; “That’s not how it works!”), demonstrating that children perceive cultural conventions not as optional behavioral descriptions, but as socially binding, prescriptive norms. The transmission of culture is thus actively defended and preserved through social pressure, moralized convention, and conformity, guaranteeing that behavioral innovations, once caught in the ratchet, are sustained against individual deviation.

5. Usage-Based Language Acquisition Theory

5.1 Critique of Chomskyan Universal Grammar

Parallel to his work in comparative primatology, Tomasello revolutionized developmental linguistics by mounting one of the most sustained, empirically devastating critiques of the Chomskyan paradigm in the history of cognitive science. For decades, generative linguistics, spearheaded by Noam Chomsky, operated on the foundational premise that human language acquisition is impossible without an innate, genetically determined Universal Grammar (UG). Generativists argued that natural language exhibits an abstract, recursive syntactic structure that cannot be derived from the messy, finite linguistic input children hear—a premise formalised as the Poverty of the Stimulus argument. Consequently, Chomsky posited a specialized, domain-specific, biologically encapsulated “Language Acquisition Device” (LAD) comprising highly abstract, pre-existing grammatical principles and parameters.

Tomasello directly attacked this theoretical edifice across multiple empirical and philosophical fronts, synthesizing his critique in books such as Constructing a Language: A Usage-Based Theory of Language Acquisition (2003). Tomasello demonstrated that the Poverty of the Stimulus argument is an empirical fallacy. When linguists actually transcribe dense, naturalistic audio-video corpora of child-directed speech, the input is revealed to be neither impoverished nor chaotic. Instead, it is intensely repetitive, highly structured, and rich in distributional regularities that are fully sufficient for statistical and pattern-finding mechanisms to extract grammatical form.

Furthermore, Tomasello marshaled extensive cross-linguistic evidence to demonstrate that the supposed universals of generative grammar simply do not exist. Natural human languages vary radically in their phonological, morphological, and syntactic architectures. Some languages lack distinct syntactic categories like adjectives; others lack formal noun-verb distinctions in their basic lexicon; others possess no formal evidence of recursive syntactic embedding (such as the indigenous Amazonian Pirahã language documented by Daniel Everett). Tomasello argued that generative linguists had committed the classical fallacy of projecting the peculiar grammatical structures of Indo-European languages onto the human genome as innate biological blueprints. Language is not an innate, modular organ; it is a complex, historically developed cultural artifact.

5.2 Intention-Reading and Pattern-Finding Mechanisms

If children are not born with a pre-wired Universal Grammar, how do they acquire the staggering complexity of their native languages with such apparent ease? Tomasello’s answer is the Usage-Based Theory of Language Acquisition, which posits that language acquisition is accomplished via two general-purpose cognitive capacities that evolved for social living, entirely independent of language itself:

1. Intention-Reading: The socio-cognitive capacity to infer the communicative goals of others within a joint attentional frame. Intention-reading is the cultural-pragmatic engine of language acquisition. A child does not map arbitrary acoustic labels onto pre-existing abstract concepts in a vacuum; rather, words are understood as social acts designed by a communicative partner to direct the child’s attention toward a specific aspect of reality. Language acquisition is therefore fundamentally a sub-branch of developmental pragmatics.
2. Pattern-Finding: The domain-general cognitive capacity for perceptual categorization, statistical distribution tracking, analogy, and structural abstraction. As children hear thousands of linguistic utterances embedded within everyday communicative routines, their pattern-finding systems extract structural regularities across exemplars, grouping similar acoustic and functional tokens into abstract schemas.

Tomasello emphasizes that intention-reading and pattern-finding operate in dynamic, continuous synthesis. Intention-reading provides the functional, meaningful basis of the utterance—ensuring that the child knows what the speaker is trying to communicate—while pattern-finding identifies the formal distributional properties of the linguistic strings. By replacing autonomous, domain-specific syntactic modules with general socio-cognitive and statistical learning mechanisms, Tomasello integrated linguistics back into mainstream developmental and cognitive psychology.

5.3 Construction Grammar and the Item-Based Phase

To provide a formal grammatical framework compatible with this usage-based perspective, Tomasello adopted and extended the principles of Construction Grammar, pioneered by linguists such as Adele Goldberg, Charles Fillmore, and Ronald Langacker. In construction grammar, the traditional, rigid dichotomy between “lexicon” (words stored in memory) and “syntax” (abstract, algebraic computational rules) is completely abandoned. Instead, language consists entirely of constructions: learned, conventional pairings of form (phonological/syntactic patterns) and meaning (semantic/pragmatic functions), ranging from simple morphemes and single words to complex, abstract idioms and grammatical patterns (such as the English ditransitive construction, X gives Y to Z).

Tomasello’s decisive developmental discovery was that early child language is radically concrete, conservative, and item-based. For decades, generative linguists had assumed that once a child learned a single verb, they immediately possessed an abstract syntactic schema allowing them to manipulate that verb across any grammatical structure. Tomasello disproved this through his celebrated Verb-Island Hypothesis. Through rigorous observational diary studies and experimental elicitation tasks using novel, nonce verbs (e.g., teaching toddlers an artificial verb like to tam), Tomasello demonstrated that children under the age of three do not possess abstract syntactic categories like “Subject” or “Verb.” Instead, a child’s early grammatical competence is organized into isolated, verb-specific islands:

• A child might master the transitive frame exclusively for the verb hit (“Mommy hit ball”), but completely fail to produce or comprehend a transitive frame with the newly learned verb push.
• Early utterances begin as unanalyzed, holistic communicative packages—holophrases (e.g., “Down!”, “Wannadat!”).
• These evolve into pivot schemas organized around a single operative word with a variable slot (e.g., “More [milk]”, “More [juice]”, “More [car]”).
• Pivot schemas gradually expand into item-based constructions anchored to specific lexical verbs, each possessing its own idiosyncratic slot constraints.

Only gradually, between three and five years of age, do children deploy structure-mapping, analogical reasoning, and pattern-finding across these disparate verb-islands to abstract genuine, adult-like syntactic schemas. To explain how children avoid producing wild, over-generalized grammatical errors (e.g., “She fall-ed him down the stairs”), Tomasello established the twin processes of entrenchment (frequent exposure to a specific verb in a specific construction solidifies its acceptable usage) and preemption (hearing a verb consistently used in an alternative construction actively blocks its extension to an incompatible frame). Syntax is thus shown to be the developmental and historical product of communicative usage.

6. The Evolution of Human Communication

6.1 Primate Gestural Communication versus Vocal Displays

In his 2008 monograph Origins of Human Communication, Tomasello tackled the longstanding evolutionary conundrum of how human language could have originated within an ape lineage whose living representatives possess vocal systems that bear almost no structural resemblance to human speech. The traditional, intuitive assumption—that spoken language evolved directly out of ancestral primate vocal calls—was subjected by Tomasello to rigorous comparative refutation.

Tomasello demonstrated that nonhuman primate vocalizations are overwhelmingly involuntary, emotionally driven, and genetically fixed. When a chimpanzee emits an alarm call or a food grunt, the acoustic structure of the vocalization is largely determined by subcortical, limbic neural pathways associated with affective arousal. Cross-fostering and maternal isolation experiments conducted by other researchers have consistently confirmed that chimpanzees raised in isolation emit essentially the same vocal repertoire as wild-reared conspecifics; they cannot flexibly learn new vocal calls, modify their acoustic properties, or suppress them at will in the absence of emotional arousal.

Conversely, nonhuman primate gestural communication exhibits an astonishing degree of behavioral flexibility, intentionality, and contextual sensitivity. Working with captive chimpanzees at Yerkes and Leipzig, Tomasello, Josep Call, and their students documented dozens of distinct manual and bodily gestures used for communicative ends—such as reaching with an open palm to solicit food, slapping the ground to initiate play, or poking a partner to recruit attention. Great apes display clear intentional control over their gestures:

• They use gestures exclusively when a conspecific is physically present.
• Crucially, they exhibit attentional state awareness: an ape will only emit a purely visual gesture if the recipient is already looking at them; if the recipient’s back is turned, the ape will first walk around into their visual field, or alternatively employ an auditory or tactile gesture (such as an arm-wave accompanied by a ground-slap) to capture attention.
• If a gesture fails to achieve its intended response, the ape persists and flexibly substitutes a different gesture from its repertoire.

This striking asymmetry led Tomasello to formulate a clear evolutionary thesis: human language did not originate in vocal calls, but in the flexible, intentional, cortical motor systems that govern primate manual gestures. Gesture was the evolutionary bridge spanning the chasm between involuntary emotional displays and voluntary, symbolic communication.

6.2 The Evolutionary Bridge: Pointing and Pantomime

Within the gestural domain, Tomasello identified two fundamental communicative forms that serve as the direct evolutionary predecessors of conventional linguistic symbols: pointing (deictic gestures) and pantomime (iconic gestures). While both appear deceptively simple, Tomasello’s comparative analysis revealed that they require an immensely complex socio-cognitive infrastructure.

In wild chimpanzee populations, pointing does not occur. Captive chimpanzees living in close proximity to humans sometimes learn to point toward food, but their pointing is strictly imperative: it is an instrumental demand (“Give me that!”). Great apes never point declaratively to share attention or informatively to help another individual. In stark contrast, human infants begin pointing spontaneously around 11 to 12 months of age, long before they produce complex sentences. Remarkably, infant pointing is overwhelmingly informative and declarative. In experimental designs developed by Ulf Liszkowski, Malinda Carpenter, and Michael Tomasello, when an adult accidentally dropped an object or misplaced a critical tool without noticing where it landed, 12-month-old human infants spontaneously pointed to the lost object to inform the searching adult of its location, receiving no reward whatsoever for their assistance.

Tomasello emphasizes that a pointing gesture contains zero semantic content in its physical form. A extended index finger is merely an empty vector directing another’s visual gaze. The recipient can only understand why the pointer is indicating that specific empty spot if both individuals share an extensive background of common ground. If an infant points to a door, the parent interprets the gesture as “Dad is home!” or “The dog wants to go out!” purely by inferring the infant’s communicative intent within their mutually understood situational frame. Pantomime expands this semiotic repertoire into iconic representation: by physically acting out an action or mimicking the physical shape of an absent entity, the communicator uses embodied simulation to convey meaning. Pointing and pantomime constitute the foundational communicative bedrock of human language, relying entirely on the socio-cognitive infrastructure of shared intentionality.

6.3 Conventionalization and the Emergence of Grammar

The transition from natural, idiosyncratic gestures (pointing and pantomiming) to fully conventionalized, grammatical human language represents the final stage of Tomasello’s evolutionary sequence. How did flexible manual gestures evolve into the rigid, arbitrary grammatical structures of modern languages? Tomasello answers this by integrating the evolutionary model of shared intentionality with historical linguistics and the well-documented historical mechanisms of grammaticization.

As ancestral human groups engaged in increasingly complex collaborative activities, the need to communicate about absent, abstract, or displaced events grew acute. Pantomimic gestures, while expressive, are inherently ambiguous and cognitively taxing to produce and decode. Over generations of repeated communicative interactions within stable cultural groups, pantomimes became stylized, shortened, and progressively conventionalized. Once a communicative sign becomes conventional, its physical form no longer needs to be iconic; it can be transformed into an arbitrary, shared symbolic token—initially signed, and subsequently shifted to the vocal-auditory tract once fine-grained voluntary neural control over the vocal cords, tongue, and larynx evolved.

Once conventionalized symbolic vocabularies emerged, communicative efficiency exerted relentless functional pressure toward structural organization. Grammar was not invented by a single genius, nor was it inserted by a macromutation into the human genome; grammar is the historical, cultural consequence of human communication. Tomasello shows how syntactic markers, case systems, and morphological inflections emerge through predictable, multi-generational grammaticization paths:

• Content words that are used with extreme communicative frequency gradually erode phonetically and morph into function words and grammatical markers (e.g., the verb go evolving into the future-tense marker gonna).
• Loose, pragmatic discourse sequences (“I saw the man; he ran away”) coalesce historically into tight, compound syntactic constructions (“I saw the man who ran away”).
• Pragmatic conversational routines are compressed into automated syntactic patterns to reduce processing burdens on both the speaker’s vocal tract and the listener’s working memory.

Grammar is thus revealed to be an evolved cultural tool—a collective instrument for structuring and disambiguating complex communicative intentions, forged dynamically at the intersection of biological cognitive constraints, social communicative needs, and historical cultural evolution.

7. A Natural History of Human Thinking

7.1 Individual Thinking in Great Apes

In his 2014 magnum opus, A Natural History of Human Thinking, Tomasello consolidated his comparative and evolutionary findings into a grand unified philosophical theory detailing the evolutionary emergence of human thought. Central to this project is the rejection of the classical assumption that thought is fundamentally linguistic. Thinking, Tomasello argues, precedes language. Nonhuman great apes engage in genuine, complex thinking, but their cognitive representations are circumscribed by an evolutionary architecture of individual intentionality.

Chimpanzees possess what Tomasello terms cognitive representations anchored in individual goals and sensorimotor knowledge. They are capable of making sophisticated, instrumental inferences about causal and physical relationships in the world:

• An ape can infer the location of hidden food based on the sound produced by a rolling ball inside a shaken tube.
• They can mentally simulate the physical trajectory of tools, evaluate the structural stability of branches, and anticipate the behavior of physical objects in space.
• Chimpanzees possess robust executive control systems: they inhibit prepotent impulses, suppress immediate desires to secure larger delayed rewards, and strategically monitor their own knowledge states, exhibiting rudimentary metacognition (e.g., seeking additional information before making a choice when they are uncertain).

However, great ape thinking is radically solitary. Because the social ecology of wild chimpanzees is fiercely competitive, their thinking operates exclusively to serve individual, instrumental ends: how I can manipulate the physical environment, how I can avoid dominant conspecifics, and how I can outwit competitors to obtain food or reproductive opportunities. The mental representations of an ape are egocentrically oriented: they represent reality from their own individual perceptual perspective. Great apes cannot mentally simulate a situation from multiple, simultaneous, contrasting viewpoints. They lack recursive mental operations (“I know that you know that I see the food”), and their instrumental cognitive apparatus is fundamentally incapable of perspectival flexibility.

7.2 Joint Thinking and Second-Personal Engagement

The intermediate evolutionary phase in Tomasello’s natural history of thinking is joint thinking, which emerged during the middle Pleistocene alongside the evolutionary advent of obligate collaborative foraging in early Homo (represented by hominins such as Homo heidelbergensis). In this evolutionary context, thinking was radically reconstructed: individual intentionality was transformed into joint intentionality through the psychological demands of coordinating with a collaborative partner.

Joint thinking is intrinsically second-personal: it is organized around the immediate, interpersonal interaction between two individuals (“you” and “I”) operating within a joint attentional frame toward a shared goal. To coordinate effectively in hunting or tool-making, collaborative partners had to formulate dual-level mental representations. A hunter had to hold in mind the overarching shared goal of the dyad (e.g., capturing an animal) while simultaneously tracking their own individual role and the complementary, separate role of their partner (e.g., one partner flushes the game while the other ambushes it).

This dual-level representational architecture gave rise to perspective-laden thinking. Because both partners attended to the same shared reality from different physical and functional standpoints, the mind had to represent the world not merely as objective physical space, but as an array of subjective perspectives. The same physical object could be represented simultaneously under different functional descriptions: to me, the rock is a heavy hammer; to you, it is a supportive wedge. Joint thinking required recursive mind-reading: each partner had to self-monitor their own actions from the simulated perspective of the other, ensuring that their behavior remained mutually intelligible and cooperative. Thought was no longer merely instrumental manipulation; it had become an interactive, perspective-shifting, second-personal process of coordinated cognitive simulation.

7.3 Collective Thinking and Objective Reality

The final phase of Tomasello’s evolutionary sequence—the emergence of collective thinking—coincided with the rise of modern humans (Homo sapiens) approximately 150,000 to 200,000 years ago. As human population densities increased and ancestral hominins aggregated into larger, interconnected cultural groups, competition between groups escalated dramatically. Survival no longer depended merely on coordinating with a concrete, known individual partner; it required collective coordination, mutual defense, and shared identity across an entire community of individuals, most of whom could not be known personally.

This ecological transition catalyzed the emergence of collective intentionality and transformed thinking from second-personal perspective-taking into objective, group-minded rationality:

• Conventional Symbols: Instead of relying on natural gestures anchored in immediate common ground, modern humans created culturally shared, conventional linguistic symbols. These symbols are intrinsically perspective-neutral: a conventional word like water or danger is understood by all members of the linguistic community as expressing a universal, trans-individual concept.
• Internalization of Normative Standards: Thinking became an internalized, normative dialogue. Modern humans began to regulate their thoughts according to the collective standards of rationality and truth established by their cultural group. Reasoning became an explicitly cooperative practice of giving and demanding reasons—what philosophers term the “space of reasons.”
• The Concept of Objective Truth: By synthesizing thousands of distinct, competing subjective perspectives, collective thinking gave birth to the philosophical concept of an objective reality: a world that exists independently of any single individual’s subjective perception or belief.

Logical thinking, Tomasello concludes, is not the solitary computational processing of an individual brain; it is the internalized, normative institutionalization of collective cultural discourse. We think logically because our evolutionary ancestors learned to argue, collaborate, and justify their actions to their cultural communities.

8. The Natural History of Human Morality

8.1 The Evolutionary Roots of Sympathy and Altruism

Following his evolutionary account of thinking, Tomasello formulated a comprehensive evolutionary and developmental theory of ethics in A Natural History of Human Morality (2016). In complete opposition to social Darwinist and raw sociobiological accounts that view human morality merely as a paper-thin cultural veneer masking unadulterated selfishness, Tomasello anchors human morality in genuine, deeply evolved prosocial psychology. His empirical exploration begins by evaluating the earliest evolutionary and developmental manifestations of sympathy and altruism.

In a groundbreaking series of experiments designed by Felix Warneken and Michael Tomasello, the researchers evaluated spontaneous, instrumental helping behaviors in human toddlers and captive chimpanzees. Human infants as young as 14 to 18 months of age exhibited spontaneous, robust altruistic helping: when an unfamiliar adult struggled with an out-of-reach object (e.g., accidentally dropping a clothespin while hanging towels), toddlers immediately rushed forward, picked up the dropped object, and returned it to the adult. Toddlers performed this helping behavior spontaneously, across diverse physical scenarios, without being asked, without receiving any verbal praise, and without any material reward. In fact, subsequent studies conducted by Felix Warneken and Tomasello showed that introducing external material rewards (such as giving children toys or food treats for helping) actually undermined their spontaneous helping, producing a classic psychological overjustification effect that proved the underlying motivation was intrinsically altruistic.

Fascinatingly, chimpanzees also displayed rudimentary forms of instrumental helping in these experiments: they too would retrieve out-of-reach objects for a human experimenter or assist a conspecific in unlocking a door to access food. However, Tomasello demonstrated that great ape prosociality is strictly limited to this basic level of sympathetic helping. When it comes to sharing resources, the comparative divergence is categorical. In experimental food-sharing paradigms, chimpanzees are almost entirely selfish: if food is placed in a central location, dominant chimpanzees monopolize it, and subordinates only obtain scraps through persistent begging or harassment. Human toddlers, by contrast, exhibit a spontaneous, egalitarian impulse to share resources, particularly when those resources were acquired through collaborative effort.

8.2 Second-Personal Morality and Joint Commitments

While sympathy and altruistic helping represent the evolutionary baseline of mammalian prosociality, Tomasello insists that they do not yet constitute genuine morality. True morality does not merely consist of feeling sorry for someone or giving them a gift; morality is fundamentally about obligation, fairness, desert, and mutual accountability. Tomasello conceptualizes the first genuine stage of human moral evolution as second-personal morality, forged during the mid-Pleistocene transition to obligate collaborative foraging.

When two early humans entered into a collaborative foraging venture, they formed a joint commitment: a mutual, implicit agreement that “we” will hunt together and coordinate our actions toward a shared goal. Within this joint commitment, both partners recognized each other as having equal status and intrinsic dignity as collaborative agents. If one partner abruptly abandoned the collaboration to pursue an individual interest, they violated this joint commitment, triggering what P. F. Strawson famously designated as second-personal moral reactive attitudes: resentment and indignation on the part of the victim, and guilt on the part of the transgressor.

This second-personal dynamic is the evolutionary birthplace of distributive justice. In extensive experimental paradigms led by Katharina Hamann, Felix Warneken, and Michael Tomasello, when 3-year-old human children worked collaboratively to retrieve a reward board containing marbles or treats, they spontaneously divided the spoils equally between themselves, even when the apparatus was rigged so that one child received three treats while the other received only one. The child who received more immediately handed over the surplus to restore an equal, 50-50 distribution. However, when the children were given the exact same unequal rewards without having engaged in prior collaboration, the lucky child kept the surplus! Chimpanzees subjected to identical collaborative reward apparatuses showed no such equitable sharing: the dominant individual seized all the food regardless of whether it had been obtained collaboratively or individually. Fairness and desert are thus shown to be the direct psychological descendants of collaborative interdependence: we share fairly with others because we recognize them as our equal, interdependent partners.

8.3 Objective Morality, Social Norms, and Justice

Just as joint thinking expanded into collective thinking with the rise of modern humans, second-personal morality scaled up into objective, community-wide morality. In larger human groups, moral obligations could no longer be negotiated solely face-to-face between two temporary collaborative partners; they had to be codified into universalized, community-wide social norms.

In this final stage of moral evolution, moral rules become detached from specific individuals and situational contexts. They are experienced as objective, self-evident moral truths (“Killing is wrong”; “One must share with the needy”). These objective moral norms are sustained by third-party enforcement. In experiments led by Amrisha Vaish, Hannes Rakoczy, and Michael Tomasello, 3- and 4-year-old children who merely witnessed a puppet destroy another puppet’s drawing or steal another puppet’s toy immediately intervened with moral indignation, reprimanding the perpetrator, comforting the victim, and taking actions to restore the stolen object, despite having no personal stake in the encounter. Children enforce moral norms as impartial, objective judges representing the collective conscience of the cultural group.

Ultimately, Tomasello’s natural history of morality explains the construction of individual moral identity. Human individuals do not conform to moral norms merely out of a cynical fear of external punishment or reputation management. Through the internalization of collective intentionality, the individual incorporates the community’s moral standards into their own self-concept. We internalize the normative gaze of the cultural “we,” holding ourselves accountable to our own consciences. To act immorally is to violate one’s own identity as an equal, cooperative member of the human community.

9. Ontogeny, Phylogeny, and the Neo-Vygotskian Model

9.1 The Shared Intentionality Hypothesis of Ontogeny

In his 2019 comprehensive synthesis, Becoming Human: A Theory of Ontogeny, Tomasello brought together his four decades of research into a definitive, Neo-Vygotskian developmental framework. Central to this theoretical culmination is the Shared Intentionality Hypothesis of Ontogeny, which provides an epigenetic resolution to the ancient nature-versus-nurture debate. Tomasello demonstrates that human cognitive and social development is neither the passive unfolding of pre-formed genetic instructions (extreme nativism) nor the blank-slate inscription of external environmental input (radical empiricism).

Rather, human biology provides a genetically canalized adaptation for cultural living. Natural selection has endowed the human infant with species-unique psychological adaptations that are exquisitely tuned to mature at specific ontogenetic junctures. However, these biological adaptations are completely incomplete on their own: they are designed precisely to interact with, absorb, and be actualized by the rich cultural scaffolding of human social environments. A human child deprived of cultural interaction does not develop a normal, functioning mind; the social environment is the necessary ontogenetic medium within which human biological potential is realized.

This canalized ontogenetic trajectory unfolds across a distinct, predictable developmental chronology:

• At 9 to 12 months: Biological readiness for joint attention and triadic engagement emerges, initiating the infant into common ground and deictic communication.
• At 18 months: Robust self-other differentiation and spontaneous sympathetic helping appear.
• At 3 years: Collective intentionality, the understanding of social norms, third-party normative enforcement, and conventional linguistic constructions crystallize.
• At 5 to 7 years: Objective normative reasoning, logical justification, moral self-regulation, and internal metacognitive reflection reach cognitive maturity.

This chronological precision across diverse human societies reveals the deep phylogenetic architecture structuring human ontogeny.

9.2 Internalization and Cultural Transmission

The Neo-Vygotskian core of Tomasello’s ontogenetic theory resides in the concept of internalization: the process whereby social, communicative interactions between individuals are progressively transformed into internal, cognitive operations within the individual mind. Drawing directly upon Vygotsky’s famous “General Genetic Law of Cultural Development”—which states that every higher mental function appears twice, first on the interpsychological (social) plane, and later on the intrapsychological (individual) plane—Tomasello provides the modern empirical validation that Vygotsky lacked in the 1930s.

This internalization trajectory is most apparent in the development of human thought and self-regulation:

• Language begins as an overt, second-personal communicative tool between child and adult.
• Around age three or four, children begin utilizing private speech (talking out loud to themselves while solving complex problems), using the linguistic structures modeled by adults to regulate their own attention, plan their actions, and inhibit impulsive errors.
• By age six or seven, this private speech is internalized into silent, covert verbal thought.

The same developmental law governs human reasoning and metacognition. Metacognition does not evolve as an insular, private monitoring device; it is the internalization of social discourse. When children participate in collaborative problem-solving, their peers challenge their assertions, demanding: “Why do you think that?” or “That doesn’t make sense!” In response to these external, interpersonal demands for justification, children learn to evaluate their own claims, identify logical contradictions, and provide coherent reasons. Internalized reasoning is nothing other than an internal, simulated dialogue with a generalized collaborative partner. The cognitive toolkit of individual human thought is thus an internalized, cultural inheritance.

9.3 Comparative Developmental Trajectories

To establish that this developmental trajectory is uniquely human, Tomasello and his research teams executed parallel longitudinal studies tracking cognitive milestones in human infants alongside their great ape counterparts (primarily chimpanzees). These comparative developmental trajectories revealed that while great apes and human children share rapid, parallel developmental progress across early sensorimotor intelligence, spatial orientation, and physical tool use during the first year of life, their developmental paths diverge radically thereafter.

Nonhuman great apes follow an evolutionary trajectory geared entirely toward physical autonomy, ecological independence, and individual competition. An ape infant rapidly acquires advanced locomotor independence, adult-level spatial navigation, and sophisticated instrumental foraging skills. However, their social-cognitive development plateaus early. A two-year-old chimpanzee can track moving objects and manipulate physical tools with remarkable competence, but their socio-cognitive development never crosses into joint attention, declarative communication, or the comprehension of shared intentionality.

Human development, by contrast, decouples general physical intelligence from social-cultural intelligence. Human infants remain physically helpless, altricial, and profoundly dependent upon their caregivers for an extraordinarily prolonged period. This extended, neotenous childhood is an evolutionary adaptation: it maximizes developmental plasticity, keeping the brain exceptionally open to social learning, linguistic immersion, and cultural enculturation during its period of most rapid synaptogenesis. Furthermore, Tomasello’s work demonstrates that the development of human executive functions—working memory, inhibitory control, and cognitive flexibility—is inextricably bound up with social contexts. While an ape’s executive control functions exclusively within individual foraging and competitive encounters, a human child’s executive functions are systematically harnessed to the social challenges of turn-taking, conforming to normative rules, and maintaining cooperative commitments.

10. Methodological Paradigms and Experimental Innovations

10.1 Nonverbal Experimental Paradigms for Infants

The monumental theoretical edifice constructed by Tomasello rests upon a foundation of audacious methodological and experimental innovation. Investigating the cognitive architecture of preverbal infants poses immense empirical challenges: one cannot ask a 10-month-old infant to explain why they followed an adult’s gaze, nor can one verbally inquire whether a toddler recognizes that an actor holds an inaccurate belief. To overcome these constraints, Tomasello, alongside brilliant developmental methodologists such as Malinda Carpenter, Henrike Moll, Felix Warneken, and Ulf Liszkowski, pioneered a suite of nonverbal experimental paradigms that have become gold standards in developmental psychology.

Chief among these innovations are interactive, behavioral paradigms designed to measure spontaneous action rather than passive looking:

• Interactive Helping Tasks: Developing paradigms where an experimenter encounters naturalistic, everyday problems (e.g., trying to place books in a cabinet with closed doors, or dropping an object across a barrier) to observe whether infants spontaneously diagnose the adult’s goal and provide instrumental assistance.
• Occluder and Displaced Entity Paradigms: Methodologies where an adult leaves a room and an object is moved in their absence; upon their return, the experimenter searches searchingly, and researchers evaluate whether the infant points to the displaced object specifically to update the adult’s false belief or ignorance.
• Joint Engagement Metrics: Developing highly precise coding schemas that track not merely simultaneous looking times, but the micro-dynamics of mutual gaze alternation, shared smiles, and physiological indicators of pupil dilation to quantify genuine shared intentionality.

Furthermore, Tomasello’s laboratories embraced modern eye-tracking technologies to measure anticipatory looking patterns. By recording precisely where an infant’s visual gaze lands fractions of a second before an event occurs on a screen, researchers demonstrated that infants can mentally anticipate an actor’s behavior based on the actor’s visual perspectives and informational access, bypassing the need for verbal responses and demonstrating early socio-cognitive competence with unparalleled ecological validity.

10.2 Comparative Experimental Design for Nonhuman Primates

Testing nonhuman great apes presents equally formidable methodological hurdles. Historically, comparative psychology was plagued by two opposing methodological traps: anthropomorphic projection (assuming animals possess human-like thoughts without rigorous evidence) and anthropocentric testing bias (evaluating animal cognition using apparatuses that unfairly penalize nonhuman anatomy, sensory modalities, or social motivations).

Tomasello and Josep Call revolutionized comparative primatology by inventing non-invasive experimental setups that systematically neutralized these biases. Recognizing that apes lack fine-grained manual pointing morphology (such as an elongated, isolated index finger), they developed specialized apparatuses that allowed apes to indicate choices through naturalistic arm extensions, whole-hand pointing, or physical tool selection. In the famous occluder-based perspective tasks designed by Brian Hare, Call, and Tomasello, the testing arena was constructed to mimic natural foraging environments, featuring wooden tunnels, opaque barriers, and transparent screens that allowed researchers to systematically manipulate visual lines of sight between competing animals.

To eliminate experimenter bias, Tomasello’s teams implemented double-blind testing procedures where human experimenters wore dark, opaque glasses or looked down at the floor to avoid inadvertently cueing subjects through subtle micro-expressions or gaze cues. Every testing session at the Wolfgang Köhler Primate Research Center was recorded by multi-angle, high-definition video camera systems, and all behavioral data was subjected to rigorous inter-rater reliability coding by independent observers who were blind to the theoretical hypotheses of the study. Through these rigorous methodological standards, Tomasello elevated comparative primatology from anecdotal naturalistic reporting to a hard, replicable, and empirically unassailable experimental science.

10.3 Corpus Linguistics and Naturalistic Observation

In the linguistic arena, Tomasello countered generative linguistics’ reliance on introspective, decontextualized “grammaticality judgments” by championing dense, naturalistic corpus linguistics and micro-developmental observational tracking. Recognizing that a child’s linguistic system cannot be understood through isolated snapshots, Tomasello and his team at the Max Planck Institute recorded, transcribed, and analyzed immense, dense corpora of spontaneous parent-child linguistic interactions.

These corpora involved recording children for multiple hours every week across several years, capturing the exact communicative, gestural, and contextual situations within which every novel word, holophrase, and grammatical construction emerged. Utilizing these dense corpora, Tomasello and Elena Lieven tracked the emergence of grammatical constructions at an unprecedented micro-developmental resolution. They demonstrated through rigorous quantitative analyses that over 90% of a young child’s spontaneous utterances are direct, verbatim repetitions or minor, single-slot modifications of linguistic patterns that the child had heard their primary caregivers use in the preceding days and weeks.

Moreover, Tomasello’s methodological innovation was to combine these naturalistic observational corpora with controlled, experimental language elicitation paradigms. By presenting children with completely novel, artificial nonce verbs and nouns paired with imaginative, novel mechanical actions, researchers could directly test whether a child had truly mastered an abstract syntactic rule, or was merely repeating memorized lexical patterns. This combination of naturalistic corpus analysis and experimental manipulation provided the empirical bedrock that successfully dismantled the empirical claims of Chomskyan nativism.

11. Theoretical Debates, Critiques, and Alternative Perspectives

11.1 The Great Ape Mind-Reading Controversy

No intellectual career of this magnitude unfolds without intense theoretical debate, and Tomasello’s assertions have been subjected to continuous, vigorous critique from diverse scientific camps. One of the most contentious controversies revolves around the precise nature of great ape social cognition—a debate often characterized as the “mind-reading versus behavior-reading” controversy.

Scholars such as Daniel Povinelli, Derek Penn, and Keith Holyoak have forcefully challenged Tomasello’s conclusion that chimpanzees possess an authentic, mentalistic understanding of others’ perceptions and goals. Povinelli and colleagues argue that all of the empirical findings produced by Tomasello, Call, and Hare can be explained more parsimoniously through sophisticated, low-level behavior-reading. According to this alternative perspective, a subordinate chimpanzee does not calculate what a dominant conspecific “sees” or “knows”; rather, the chimpanzee has simply learned through lifetime conditioning a set of statistical behavioral rules: “When a dominant animal’s head is oriented toward a piece of food, the dominant will attack if I approach it; when their body is blocked by a physical barrier, they do not attack.” Povinelli contends that Tomasello commits an anthropomorphic error by attributing mentalistic concepts to nonhuman primates who are merely executing complex associative behavioral calculations.

In response, Tomasello and Call demonstrated that chimpanzees generalize their perceptual understanding to completely novel, unfamiliar experimental setups featuring artificial barriers they have never encountered before, rendering simple lifetime associative conditioning explanations empirically inadequate. However, the debate has reignited in recent years around the attribution of false beliefs. In 2016, Christopher Krupenye, Fumihiro Kano, Satoshi Hirata, Josep Call, and Michael Tomasello published an influential study in Science demonstrating that chimpanzees, bonobos, and orangutans exhibited anticipatory looking toward a location where a human actor falsely believed an object was hidden, suggesting that apes might possess an implicit theory of mind. Critics continue to debate whether this nonverbal anticipatory gaze represents genuine mental state attribution or highly automated spatial-cue tracking, keeping the great ape mind-reading controversy at the forefront of contemporary comparative science.

11.2 Nativist and Generativist Counterarguments

In the linguistic arena, Tomasello’s relentless assault on Universal Grammar provoked fierce counter-attacks from generative linguists and cognitive nativists, including Steven Pinker, Ray Jackendoff, and followers of Noam Chomsky. Generativists argue that Tomasello’s usage-based, constructivist model fundamentally fails to resolve the computational learnability problems inherent in natural language.

Critics maintain that statistical learning, intention-reading, and pattern-finding are computationally insufficient to account for the formal, recursive, and abstract properties of natural language syntax. Generativists argue that:

• Natural language exhibits intricate structural constraints—such as island constraints, binding principles, and long-distance syntactic dependencies—that appear cross-linguistically without children ever receiving explicit instruction or sufficient negative evidence to learn them via general-purpose statistical induction.
• While an item-based, verb-island phase may describe early child speech production, it does not explain how children suddenly leap from concrete lexical frames to fully productive, infinitely creative, recursive syntactic operations.
• The extreme modularity hypothesis of mind, championed by evolutionary psychologists such as Leda Cosmides and John Tooby, maintains that the human brain must possess specialized, domain-specific computational modules for syntax, arguing that Tomasello’s reliance on domain-general cognitive capacities demands an impossible amount of computational power from a developing toddler’s brain.

Tomasello and his functionalist linguistics colleagues have robustly defended their paradigm against these critiques, replying that formal linguistic constraints are emergent properties of processing limits, communicative efficiency, and historical grammaticization, rather than innate computational parameters. This battle between generative nativism and usage-based constructivism remains one of the defining schisms of contemporary cognitive science.

11.3 Critiques of Evolutionary Scenarios

Tomasello’s evolutionary narratives—particularly the Obligate Collaborative Foraging Hypothesis and the sequence of hominin moral evolution—have also faced significant critique from paleoanthropologists, behavioral ecologists, and cultural anthropologists. These scholars question whether Tomasello’s evolutionary scenarios are overly neat, harmonious, and cognitively idealistic.

Some evolutionary anthropologists argue that Tomasello underestimates the pervasive role of internal group aggression, inter-individual competition, and lethal intergroup warfare in the evolution of human cooperation. Scholars like Richard Wrangham suggest that human cooperative capacities were not forged primarily through gentle collaborative foraging, but through coalitionary lethal violence—the collective execution of aggressive alpha males within the group (which fostered human self-domestication) and organized, violent warfare between competing tribes. In this alternative view, group-mindedness and shared intentionality were selected as psychological weapons for tribal warfare, rather than solely for harvesting tubers and hunting game.

Furthermore, cultural anthropologists, such as those studying non-Western, small-scale foraging societies, have critiqued Tomasello’s developmental timelines for exhibiting Western cultural bias (the “WEIRD” problem: Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, Democratic). They point out that experimental practices such as face-to-face proto-conversations, declarative pointing, and constant parent-child joint attentional play are intensely cultivated in Western middle-class families, but are far less prominent in traditional societies where infants are carried continuously on the mother’s back, rarely addressed directly, and learn almost exclusively through silent observation. While Tomasello has acknowledged these cultural variations, his cross-cultural studies in small-scale societies in Africa, South America, and Oceania confirm that the underlying core socio-cognitive milestones—joint attention, collaborative coordination, and norm understanding—emerge reliably across all human cultures, confirming their deep phylogenetic canalization.

12. Intellectual Legacy and Continuing Influence in Cognitive Science

12.1 Impact on Contemporary Evolutionary Anthropology and Psychology

The intellectual legacy of Michael Tomasello across contemporary evolutionary anthropology and comparative psychology is difficult to overstate. He has fundamentally redrawn the boundary line separating animal intelligence from human uniqueness. Prior to his work, the scientific consensus oscillated between two equally flawed extremes: an arrogant human exceptionalism that denied any significant mental life to animals, or an uncritical animal mentalism that assumed chimpanzees were essentially furry humans with slightly smaller vocabularies.

Tomasello replaced these extremes with an empirically precise taxonomy of mental architecture. He granted nonhuman primates full recognition as intelligent, animate, causal-reasoning beings possessed of genuine individual intentionality, perception, and instrumental foresight. Simultaneously, he identified the exact socio-cognitive nexus where the human branch departed: the shared intentionality that makes cultural life possible. In doing so, Tomasello provided the evolutionary sciences with their most rigorous theoretical model for understanding how human cooperation evolved.

His work has exerted a transformative influence on dual-inheritance theory and gene-culture coevolution, frameworks pioneered by Robert Boyd, Peter Richerson, and Joseph Henrich. While Boyd and Richerson developed the mathematical population-genetic models showing how culture could drive genetic evolution, Tomasello provided the micro-level psychological mechanisms—the cognitive nuts and bolts of joint attention, high-fidelity imitation, and normative pedagogy—that explain precisely how cultural transmission operates inside the human mind. His research demonstrated that the human mind is biologically designed to be culturally completed.

12.2 Impact on Linguistics and Cognitive Semiotics

In linguistics, Tomasello stands as one of the primary architects of the cognitive-functional paradigm that has largely displaced the hegemony of generative grammar across major sectors of psycholinguistics and child language acquisition research. By grounding syntax in communicative pragmatics, intention-reading, and domain-general pattern-finding, Tomasello demonstrated that language does not need to be insulated within an autonomous biological module. His usage-based theory transformed language from an abstract algebraic puzzle into a living, dynamic, cultural artifact.

His research has fundamentally advanced the field of evolutionary semiotics and gesture studies. Through his demonstration that manual pointing and iconic pantomime constitute the evolutionary and ontogenetic foundation of symbolic communication, Tomasello unified the study of bodily gesture and spoken language. Researchers in gesture studies, such as Susan Goldin-Meadow and Adam Kendon, have built directly upon his theoretical framework, showing that human communication is fundamentally multimodal: children point before they speak, and adults continue to weave complex manual gestures into the very fabric of their spoken syntactic output.

Moreover, Tomasello’s insights have deeply informed computational linguistics, natural language processing, and evolutionary simulations of language. Rather than attempting to program machines with static Chomskyan parameter sets, modern computational modelers increasingly utilize usage-based, statistical, and pragmatic frameworks that mirror Tomasello’s pattern-finding and intention-reading paradigms, demonstrating that grammatical complexity can emerge dynamically from deep distributional analysis of communicative input.

12.3 Future Directions and Unresolved Inquiries

As cognitive science advances into the twenty-first century, Tomasello’s theoretical framework continues to inspire cutting-edge research across several unresolved frontiers:

• The Neurobiological Substrates of Shared Intentionality: While Tomasello focused primarily on behavioral, cognitive, and developmental metrics, cognitive neuroscientists are now striving to map the specific neural circuits that support shared intentionality. Researchers are utilizing hyperscanning—recording brain activity simultaneously across two interacting individuals via functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) or electroencephalography (EEG)—to investigate whether neural synchrony and inter-brain coupling correspond directly to Tomasello’s joint attentional frames and shared commitments.
• Artificial Intelligence and Cooperative Robotics: Contemporary AI systems possess staggering computational processing power, pattern-finding capabilities, and mastery over linguistic surface forms (as seen in large language models), yet they remain fundamentally devoid of true shared intentionality. AI researchers are actively looking to Tomasello’s work to construct cooperative robots that can genuinely understand human goals, engage in true common ground, and collaborate alongside human partners not as mindless tools, but as interdependent, morally accountable teammates.
• Paleogenomics and the Evolutionary Timeline: The rapid sequencing of ancient hominin genomes (such as Neanderthals and Denisovans) by Svante Pääbo and colleagues—work that unfolded in the very same institute where Tomasello directed his psychology department in Leipzig—presents exciting opportunities to cross-reference Tomasello’s evolutionary timelines. Did Neanderthals possess shared intentionality? Did they point declaratively, create institutional realities, and enforce third-party social norms? Integrating ancient DNA, cognitive archaeology, and Tomasello’s socio-cognitive models will be the decisive challenge for the next generation of evolutionary anthropologists.

Ultimately, Michael Tomasello’s profound legacy reminds us of a fundamental truth regarding the human condition: to be human is not to be an isolated intellect trapped inside an individual cranium, computing physical utilities. To be human is to be born into a cultural community, to look into the eyes of another person and see a partner, to share our thoughts, our intentions, and our commitments, and to build an objective, meaningful, and moral world together.

Conclusion

The scientific contributions of Michael Tomasello constitute one of the most comprehensive, theoretically cohesive, and empirically supported re-evaluations of the human mind in modern intellectual history. Over four decades of research across three continents, Tomasello dismantled the long-standing divides that separated animal cognition from human psychology, and biological evolution from historical cultural transmission. His foundational insight—that the decisive departure of the hominin lineage was the emergence of the psychological infrastructure for shared intentionality—has unified the developmental, comparative, communicative, and normative sciences under a single, coherent evolutionary paradigm.

By tracing the natural history of communication, thinking, and morality from their phylogenetic roots in great ape sociality, through the mid-Pleistocene ecological pressures of collaborative foraging, to their miraculous ontogenetic realization in the first years of human childhood, Tomasello demonstrated that the human mind is essentially, inextricably social. We are not solitary thinkers who happen to congregate in groups; we are collaborative creatures whose very cognitive, linguistic, and moral faculties are the internalized products of our collective life. In an era often dominated by fragmented reductionism, Michael Tomasello has given cognitive science a grand, humanistic, and rigorous evolutionary portrait of what it truly means to become human.

References

• Csibra, G., & Gergely, G. (2009). Natural pedagogy. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13(4), 148–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2009.01.005
• Goldberg, A. E. (2006). Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford University Press.
• Hamann, K., Warneken, F., Greenberg, J. R., & Tomasello, M. (2011). Collaboration encourages equal sharing in children but not in chimpanzees. Nature, 476(7360), 328–331. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature10278
• Hare, B., Call, J., Agnetta, B., & Tomasello, M. (2000). Chimpanzees know what conspecifics do and cannot see. Animal Behaviour, 59(4), 771–785. https://doi.org/10.1006/anbe.1999.1377
• Hare, B., Call, J., & Tomasello, M. (2001). Do chimpanzees know what conspecifics know? Animal Behaviour, 61(1), 139–151. https://doi.org/10.1006/anbe.2000.1518
• Herrmann, E., Call, J., Hernández-Lloreda, M. V., Hare, B., & Tomasello, M. (2007). Humans have evolved specialized skills of social cognition: The cultural intelligence hypothesis. Science, 317(5843), 1360–1366. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1146282
• Horner, V., & Whiten, A. (2005). Causal knowledge and imitation/emulation switching in chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) and children (Homo sapiens). Animal Cognition, 8(3), 164–181. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-004-0239-6
• Krupenye, C., Kano, F., Hirata, S., Call, J., & Tomasello, M. (2016). Great apes anticipate that other individuals will act on false beliefs. Science, 354(6308), 110–114. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaf8110
• Liszkowski, U., Carpenter, M., Henning, A., Striano, T., & Tomasello, M. (2004). Twelve-month-olds point to share attention and interest. Developmental Science, 7(3), 297–307. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2004.00349.x
• Moll, H., & Tomasello, M. (2007). Cooperation and human cognition: The Vygotskian intelligence hypothesis. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 362(1480), 639–648. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2006.1998
• Rakoczy, H., Warneken, F., & Tomasello, M. (2008). The sources of normativity: Young children’s awareness of the normative structure of games. Developmental Psychology, 44(3), 875–881. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.44.3.875
• Tomasello, M. (1999). The Cultural Origins of Human Cognition. Harvard University Press.
• Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a Language: A Usage-Based Theory of Language Acquisition. Harvard University Press.
• Tomasello, M. (2008). Origins of Human Communication. MIT Press.
• Tomasello, M. (2014). A Natural History of Human Thinking. Harvard University Press.
• Tomasello, M. (2016). A Natural History of Human Morality. Harvard University Press.
• Tomasello, M. (2019). Becoming Human: A Theory of Ontogeny. Harvard University Press.
• Tomasello, M., & Call, J. (1997). Primate Cognition. Oxford University Press.
• Tomasello, M., Carpenter, M., Call, J., Behne, T., & Moll, H. (2005). Understanding and sharing intentions: The origins of cultural cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28(5), 675–691. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X05000129
• Vaish, A., Missana, M., & Tomasello, M. (2011). Three-year-old children intervene in third-party moral transgressions. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 29(1), 124–130. https://doi.org/10.1348/026151010X532888
• Warneken, F., & Tomasello, M. (2006). Altruistic helping in human infants and young chimpanzees. Science, 311(5765), 1301–1303. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1121448
• Warneken, F., & Tomasello, M. (2008). Extrinsic rewards undermine altruistic tendencies in 20-month-olds. Developmental Psychology, 44(6), 1785–1788. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013860