| Home | << 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >> |
|
de Waal, F. B. M. (2008). Putting the Altruism Back into Altruism: The Evolution of Empathy. Annu Rev Psychol, 59(1), 279–300.
Abstract: Evolutionary theory postulates that altruistic behavior evolved for the return-benefits it bears the performer. For return-benefits to play a motivational role, however, they need to be experienced by the organism. Motivational analyses should restrict themselves, therefore, to the altruistic impulse and its knowable consequences. Empathy is an ideal candidate mechanism to underlie so-called directed altruism, i.e., altruism in response to anothers's pain, need, or distress. Evidence is accumulating that this mechanism is phylogenetically ancient, probably as old as mammals and birds. Perception of the emotional state of another automatically activates shared representations causing a matching emotional state in the observer. With increasing cognition, state-matching evolved into more complex forms, including concern for the other and perspective-taking. Empathy-induced altruism derives its strength from the emotional stake it offers the self in the other's welfare. The dynamics of the empathy mechanism agree with predictions from kin selection and reciprocal altruism theory.
|
|
Plotnik, J., Nelson, P. A., & de Waal, F. B. M. (2003). Visual field information in the face perception of chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). Ann N Y Acad Sci, 1000, 94–98.
Abstract: Evidence for a visual field advantage (VFA) in the face perception of chimpanzees was investigated using a modification of a free-vision task. Four of six chimpanzee subjects previously trained on a computer joystick match-to-sample paradigm were able to distinguish between images of neutral face chimeras consisting of two left sides (LL) or right sides (RR) of the face. While an individual's ability to make this distinction would be unlikely to determine their suitability for the VFA tests, it was important to establish that distinctive information was available in test images. Data were then recorded on their choice of the LL vs. RR chimera as a match to the true, neutral image; a bias for one of these options would indicate an hemispatial visual field advantage. Results suggest that chimpanzees, unlike humans, do not exhibit a left visual field advantage. These results have important implications for studies on laterality and asymmetry in facial signals and their perception in primates.
|
|
de Waal, F. B. M. (2003). Animal communication: panel discussion. Ann N Y Acad Sci, 1000, 79–87.
|
|
de Waal, F. B. M. (2003). Darwin's legacy and the study of primate visual communication. Ann N Y Acad Sci, 1000, 7–31.
Abstract: After Charles Darwin's The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals, published in 1872, we had to wait 60 years before the theme of animal expressions was picked up by another astute observer. In 1935, Nadezhda Ladygina-Kohts published a detailed comparison of the expressive behavior of a juvenile chimpanzee and of her own child. After Kohts, we had to wait until the 1960s for modern ethological analyses of primate facial and gestural communication. Again, the focus was on the chimpanzee, but ethograms on other primates appeared as well. Our understanding of the range of expressions in other primates is at present far more advanced than that in Darwin's time. A strong social component has been added: instead of focusing on the expressions per se, they are now often classified according to the social situations in which they typically occur. Initially, quantitative analyses were sequential (i.e., concerned with temporal associations between behavior patterns), and they avoided the language of emotions. I will discuss some of this early work, including my own on the communicative repertoire of the bonobo, a close relative of the chimpanzee (and ourselves). I will provide concrete examples to make the point that there is a much richer matrix of contexts possible than the common behavioral categories of aggression, sex, fear, play, and so on. Primate signaling is a form of negotiation, and previous classifications have ignored the specifics of what animals try to achieve with their exchanges. There is also increasing evidence for signal conventionalization in primates, especially the apes, in both captivity and the field. This process results in group-specific or “cultural” communication patterns.
|
|
Parish, A. R., & De Waal, F. B. (2000). The other “closest living relative”. How bonobos (Pan paniscus) challenge traditional assumptions about females, dominance, intra- and intersexual interactions, and hominid evolution. Ann N Y Acad Sci, 907, 97–113.
Abstract: Chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) societies are typically characterized as physically aggressive, male-bonded and male-dominated. Their close relatives, the bonobos (Pan paniscus), differ in startling and significant ways. For instance, female bonobos bond with one another, form coalitions, and dominate males. A pattern of reluctance to consider, let alone acknowledge, female dominance in bonobos exists, however. Because both species are equally “man's” closest relative, the bonobo social system complicates models of human evolution that have historically been based upon referents that are male and chimpanzee-like. The bonobo evidence suggests that models of human evolution must be reformulated such that they also accommodate: real and meaningful female bonds; the possibility of systematic female dominance over males; female mating strategies which encompass extra-group paternities; hunting and meat distribution by females; the importance of the sharing of plant foods; affinitive inter-community interactions; males that do not stalk and attack and are not territorial; and flexible social relationships in which philopatry does not necessarily predict bonding pattern.
|
|
Preston, S. D., & de Waal, F. B. M. (2002). Empathy: Its ultimate and proximate bases. Behav Brain Sci, 25(1), 1–20; discussion 20–71.
Abstract: There is disagreement in the literature about the exact nature of the phenomenon of empathy. There are emotional, cognitive, and conditioning views, applying in varying degrees across species. An adequate description of the ultimate and proximate mechanism can integrate these views. Proximately, the perception of an object's state activates the subject's corresponding representations, which in turn activate somatic and autonomic responses. This mechanism supports basic behaviors (e.g., alarm, social facilitation, vicariousness of emotions, mother-infant responsiveness, and the modeling of competitors and predators) that are crucial for the reproductive success of animals living in groups. The Perception-Action Model (PAM), together with an understanding of how representations change with experience, can explain the major empirical effects in the literature (similarity, familiarity, past experience, explicit teaching, and salience). It can also predict a variety of empathy disorders. The interaction between the PAM and prefrontal functioning can also explain different levels of empathy across species and age groups. This view can advance our evolutionary understanding of empathy beyond inclusive fitness and reciprocal altruism and can explain different levels of empathy across individuals, species, stages of development, and situations.
|
|
de Waal, F. B. M., & Luttrell, L. M. (1988). Mechanisms of social reciprocity in three primate species: Symmetrical relationship characteristics or cognition? Ethology and Sociobiology, 9(2–4), 101–118.
Abstract: Agonistic intervention behavior was observed in captive groups of chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes), rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta), and stumptail monkeys (M. arctoides). Reciprocity correlations of interventions were determined while removing from the data the effects of several symmetrical relationship characteristics, that is, matrillineal kinship, proximity relations, and same-sex combination. It was considered likely that if significant reciprocity persisted after controlling for these characteristics, the reciprocity was based on cognitive mechanisms. Statistical significance was tested by means of recently developed matrix permutation procedures. All three species exhibited significant reciprocity with regard to beneficial interventions, even after controlling for symmetrical traits. Harmful interventions were, however, reciprocal among chimpanzees only. This species showed a “revenge system”, that is, if A often intervened against B, B did the same to A. In contrast, both macaque species showed significantly inversed reciprocity in their harmful interventions: if A often intervened against B, B rarely intervened against A. Further analysis indicates that the strict hierarchy of macaques prevents them from achieving complete reciprocity. Compared to chimpanzees, macaques rarely intervene against higher ranking group members. The observed contrast can be partially explained on the basis of differences in available space, as indicated by a comparison of indoor and outdoor living conditions for the chimpanzee colony. Yet, even when such spatial factors are taken into account, substantial behavior differences between chimpanzees and macaques remain.
Keywords: Reciprocity; Agonistic intervention; Cognition; Chimpanzees; Macaques
|
|
Dindo, M., & De Waal, F. B. M. (2007). Partner effects on food consumption in brown capuchin monkeys. Am. J. Primatol., 69(4), 448–456.
Abstract: It has been claimed that capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella) show inequity aversion in relation to food rewards for a simple exchange task. However, other factors may affect the willingness of a monkey to consume foods of high or low value in the presence of a conspecific. In this study, pairs of monkeys were presented with unequally valued foods, but without any task-performance: they simply received the food under four experimental conditions. By looking at the rate of collection and consumption of low-valued cucumber slices we expected to see variation dependent on whether the partner either had 1) cucumber (equity), 2) grape (inequity), 3) inaccessible cucumber or 4) inaccessible grape. Testing 12 adult capuchin monkeys, our findings differed from those of other authors in that the monkeys failed to show negative reactions to inequity, but rather responded with scramble competition (i.e., fast food collection) in the presence of a conspecific without access to food. They also showed facilitated consumption in the presence of a conspecific consuming high-valued food. Possibly, (in)equity plays a different role if food serves as a reward for a task rather than if it is simply made available for consumption. Am. J. Primatol. 69:1-9, 2007. (c) 2006 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
|
|
Brosnan, S. F., Freeman, C., & De Waal, F. B. M. (2006). Partner's behavior, not reward distribution, determines success in an unequal cooperative task in capuchin monkeys. Am. J. Primatol., 68(7), 713–724.
Abstract: It was recently demonstrated that capuchin monkeys notice and respond to distributional inequity, a trait that has been proposed to support the evolution of cooperation in the human species. However, it is unknown how capuchins react to inequitable rewards in an unrestricted cooperative paradigm in which they may freely choose both whether to participate and, within the bounds of their partner's behavior, which reward they will receive for their participation. We tested capuchin monkeys with such a design, using a cooperative barpull, which has been used with great success in the past. Contrary to our expectations, the equity of the reward distribution did not affect success or pulling behavior. However, the behavior of the partner in an unequal situation did affect overall success rates: pairs that had a tendency to alternate which individual received the higher-value food in unequal reward situations were more than twice as successful in obtaining rewards than pairs in which one individual dominated the higher-value food. This ability to equitably distribute rewards in inherently biased cooperative situations has profound implications for activities such as group hunts, in which multiple individuals work together for a single, monopolizable reward.
|
|
Baker, K. C., Seres, E., Aureli, F., & De Waal, F. B. (2000). Injury risks among chimpanzees in three housing conditions. Am. J. Primatol., 51(3), 161–175.
Abstract: Meeting the psychological needs of chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) can be a challenge given their aggressiveness on the one hand and the complexity of their social lives on the other. It is unclear how to balance the need to provide opportunities for species-appropriate behavior against potential risks of injury chimpanzees may inflict on each other. This study evaluates the suggestion that simpler social environments protect chimpanzees from wounding. Over a two-year period all visible injuries to 46 adult males, 64 adult females, and 25 immature chimpanzees were recorded at the Yerkes Regional Primate Research Center. Approximately half of the subjects were mother-reared, and the rest were nursery-reared. Housing included compounds containing about 20 chimpanzees, interconnected indoor-outdoor runs for groups of up to 12 individuals, and smaller indoor-outdoor runs for pairs and trios. Annual wounding rates were calculated for serious wounds (extensive injuries and all those requiring veterinary intervention) as well as for minor wounds. Compound-housed chimpanzees incurred the highest level of minor wounding, but serious wounding levels were not affected by housing condition. Even with a period of dominance instability and elevated levels of wounding in one compound, compound chimpanzees were not injured more than those in smaller social groups over the long term. Nursery-reared females in moderate-sized groups were wounded more than mother-reared females. Also, nursery-reared males and females were wounded less often when paired with mother-reared companions. Overall, this study indicates that maintaining chimpanzees in pairs and trios would not be an effective means for reducing injuries. The management of wounding in chimpanzee colonies is influenced more by the sex and rearing composition of a colony.
|