Back

When to learn from elders or peers: accessibility-knowledge trade-offs explain diversity in age-biased social learning

Maisonneuve, L.; Lehmann, L.

2026-06-17 evolutionary biology
10.64898/2026.06.16.732531 bioRxiv
Show abstract

In many animal species, individuals acquire knowledge from others that enhances their survival and reproduction. However, among the many available cultural exemplars, not all provide reliable information. Consequently, individuals tend to choose their exemplars selectively. One widespread pattern is a preference for older individuals, who may have accumulated valuable knowledge through life. Yet empirical studies also show that individuals frequently learn from age peers, suggesting that copying elders is not universally optimal. The ecological and social conditions that favor learning from elders rather than peers, therefore, remain unclear. Here, we investigate the evolutionary drivers of age-biased exemplar choice in age-structured populations where individuals accumulate knowledge over their lifespan. We develop a model that captures the coevolution of exemplar age choice and age-specific investments in social learning, individual learning, and the use of acquired knowledge for energy extraction. We show that selection promotes a progressive shift from social to individual learning and from learning to energy extraction with age. Exemplar age choice, in turn, evolves through a trade-off between targeting knowledgeable individuals and accessible ones. This trade-off leads young learners to learn preferentially from relatively young exemplars, who are common and still able to provide substantial amounts of novel knowledge, given learners limited knowledge at early ages. As individuals age, encountering exemplars with substantially novel knowledge becomes increasingly difficult. Consequently, as they age, individuals are expected to shift toward learning from older individuals, who possess more knowledge. Population, environment, and knowledge characteristics can shift this balance, generating a wide range of strategies from learning primarily from peers to consistently targeting the oldest individuals. In particular, learning from age peers is favored in populations with strong within-cohort interaction structure, high mortality, or high encounter rates, in unstable environments with rapid knowledge loss, and when knowledge is easily acquired or transmitted.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
The American Naturalist
125 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
29.9%
2
eLife
5828 papers in training set
Top 8%
11.5%
3
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
2444 papers in training set
Top 3%
10.2%
50% of probability mass above
4
Evolution
225 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
5.3%
5
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
393 papers in training set
Top 1%
5.3%
6
Evolution Letters
85 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
4.7%
7
PLOS Computational Biology
1863 papers in training set
Top 12%
2.3%
8
BMC Evolutionary Biology
18 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.0%
9
Science Advances
1243 papers in training set
Top 17%
2.0%
10
Ecology Letters
135 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
2.0%
11
Journal of Evolutionary Biology
110 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
2.0%
12
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
72 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.8%
13
Nature Communications
5641 papers in training set
Top 46%
1.7%
14
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B
51 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.7%
15
Evolution, Medicine, and Public Health
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.1%
16
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 59%
1.0%
17
Oikos
84 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.0%
18
Journal of Theoretical Biology
162 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
19
Current Biology
665 papers in training set
Top 10%
0.8%
20
Ecology
85 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
21
Ecology and Evolution
267 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.8%
22
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 76%
0.8%
23
Biological Reviews
11 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.6%
24
PLOS Biology
486 papers in training set
Top 15%
0.6%