|
|
Crowley, P. H., Provencher, L., Sloane, S., Dugatkin, L. A., Spohn, B., Rogers, L., et al. (1996). Evolving cooperation: the role of individual recognition. Biosystems, 37(1-2), 49–66.
Abstract: To evaluate the role of individual recognition in the evolution of cooperation, we formulated and analyzed a genetic algorithm model (EvCo) for playing the Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma (IPD) game. Strategies compete against each other during each generation, and successful strategies contribute more of their attributes to the next generation. Each strategy is encoded on a `chromosome' that plays the IPD, responding to the sequences of most recent responses by the interacting individuals (chromosomes). The analysis reported in this paper considered different memory capabilities (one to five previous interactions), pairing continuities (pairs of individuals remain together for about one, two, five, or 1000 consecutive interactions), and types of individual recognition (recognition capability was maximal, nil, or allowed to evolve between these limits). Analysis of the results focused on the frequency of mutual cooperation in pairwise interactions (a good indicator of overall success in the IPD) and on the extent to which previous responses by the focal individual and its partner were associated with the partner's identity (individual recognition). Results indicated that a fixed, substantial amount of individual recognition could maintain high levels of mutual cooperation even at low pairing continuities, and a significant but limited capability for individual recognition evolved under selection. Recognition generally increased mutual cooperation more when the recent responses of individuals other than the current partner were ignored. Titrating recognition memory under selection using a fitness cost suggested that memory of the partner's previous responses was more valuable than memory of the focal's previous responses. The dynamics produced to date by EvCo are a step toward understanding the evolution of social networks, for which additional benefits associated with group interactions must be incorporated.
|
|
|
|
Dugatkin, L. A., & Mesterton-Gibbons, M. (1996). Cooperation among unrelated individuals: reciprocal altruism, by-product mutualism and group selection in fishes. Biosystems, 37(1-2), 19–30.
Abstract: Cooperation among unrelated individuals can evolve not only via reciprocal altruism but also via trait-group selection or by-product mutualism (or some combination of all three categories). Therefore the (iterated) prisoner's dilemma is an insufficient paradigm for studying the evolution of cooperation. We replace this game by the cooperator's dilemma, which is more versatile because it enables all three categories of cooperative behavior to be examined within the framework of a single theory. Controlled studies of cooperation among fish provide examples of each category of cooperation. Specifically, we describe reciprocal altruism among simultaneous hermaphrodites that swap egg parcels, group-selected cooperation among fish that inspect dangerous predators and by-product mutualism in the cooperative foraging of coral-reef fish.
|
|
|
|
Herbert Gintis, Samuel Bowles, Robert Boyd, & Ernst Fehr. (2003). Explaining altruistic behavior in humans. Evolution and Human Behaviour, 24(3), 153–172.
Abstract: Recent experimental research has revealed forms of human behavior involving interaction among unrelated individuals that have proven difficult to explain in terms of kin or reciprocal altruism. One such trait, strong reciprocity is a predisposition to cooperate with others and to punish those who violate the norms of cooperation, at personal cost, even when it is implausible to expect that these costs will be repaid. We present evidence supporting strong reciprocity as a schema for predicting and understanding altruism in humans. We show that under conditions plausibly characteristic of the early stages of human evolution, a small number of strong reciprocators could invade a population of self-regarding types, and strong reciprocity is an evolutionary stable strategy. Although most of the evidence we report is based on behavioral experiments, the same behaviors are regularly described in everyday life, for example, in wage setting by firms, tax compliance, and cooperation in the protection of local environmental public goods.
|
|
|
|
Johnson, D. D. P., Stopka, P., & Knights, S. (2003). Sociology: The puzzle of human cooperation. Nature, 421(6926), 911–2; discussion 912.
|
|
|
|
Lingle, S., Rendall, D., & Pellis, S. M. (2007). Altruism and recognition in the antipredator defence of deer: 1. Species and individual variation in fawn distress calls. Anim. Behav., 73(5), 897–905.
Abstract: Mule deer, Odocoileus hemionus, females actively defend fawns against predators, including nonoffspring conspecific fawns and heterospecific white-tailed deer, O. virginianus, fawns. We hypothesized that the defence of nonoffspring fawns was due to a recognition error. During a predator attack, females may have to decide whether to defend a fawn with imperfect information on its identity obtained from hearing only a few distress calls. We examined fawn distress calls to determine whether calls made by the two species and by different individuals within each species were acoustically distinctive. The mean and maximum fundamental frequencies of mule deer fawns were nearly double those of white-tailed deer fawns, with no overlap, enabling us to classify 100% of calls to the correct species using a single trait. A large proportion of calls was also assigned to the correct individual using a multivariate analysis (66% and 70% of mule deer and white-tailed deer fawns, respectively, chance = 6% and 10%); however, there was considerable statistical uncertainty in the probability of correct classification. We observed fawns approach conspecific females in an attempt to nurse; females probed most offspring fawns with their noses before accepting them, and always probed nonoffspring fawns before rejecting them, suggesting that close contact and olfactory information were needed to unequivocally distinguish nonoffspring from offspring fawns. Taken together, these results suggest that acoustic variation alone would probably be sufficient to permit rapid and reliable species discrimination, but it may not be sufficient for mothers to unequivocally distinguish their own fawn from conspecific fawns.
|
|
|
|
Lingle, S., Rendall, D., Wilson, W. F., DeYoung, R. W., & Pellis, S. M. (2007). Altruism and recognition in the antipredator defence of deer: 2. Why mule deer help nonoffspring fawns. Anim. Behav., 73(5), 907–916.
Abstract: Both white-tailed deer, Odocoileus virginianus, and mule deer, O. hemionus, females defend fawns against coyotes, Canis latrans, but only mule deer defend nonoffspring conspecific and heterospecific fawns. During a predator attack, females may have to decide whether to defend a fawn while having imperfect information on its identity obtained from hearing a few distress calls. Although imperfect recognition can influence altruistic behaviour, few empirical studies have considered this point when testing functional explanations for altruism. We designed a series of playback experiments with fawn distress calls to test alternative hypotheses (by-product of parental care, kin selection, reciprocal altruism) for the mule deer's defence of nonoffspring, specifically allowing for the possibility that females mistake these fawns for their own. White-tailed deer females approached the speaker only when distress calls of white-tailed deer fawns were played and when their own fawn was hidden, suggesting that fawn defence was strictly a matter of parental care in this species. In contrast, mule deer females responded similarly and strongly, regardless of the caller's identity, the female's reproductive state (mother or nonmother) or the presence of their own offspring. The failure of mule deer females to adjust their responses to these conditions suggests that they do not defend nonoffspring because they mistake them for their own fawns. The lack of behavioural discrimination also suggests that kin selection, reciprocal altruism and defence of the offspring's area are unlikely to explain the mule deer's defence of nonoffspring. We identify causal and functional questions that still need to be addressed to understand why mule deer defend fawns so indiscriminately.
|
|
|
|
Miller, G. (2006). Animal behavior. Signs of empathy seen in mice. Science, 312(5782), 1860–1861.
|
|
|
|
Newton-Fisher, N. E., & Lee, P. C. (2011). Grooming reciprocity in wild male chimpanzees. Anim. Behav., 81(2), 439–446.
Abstract: Understanding cooperation between unrelated individuals remains a central problem in animal behaviour; evolutionary mechanisms are debated, and the importance of reciprocity has been questioned. Biological market theory makes specific predictions about the occurrence of reciprocity in social groups; applied to the social grooming of mammals, it predicts reciprocity in the absence of other benefits for which grooming can be exchanged. Considerable effort has been made to test this grooming trade model in nonhuman primates; such studies show mixed results, but may be confounded by kin effects. We examined patterns of reciprocity within and across bouts, and tested predictions of the grooming trade model, among wild male chimpanzees, Pan troglodytes: a system with negligible kin effects. In accord with the model's expectations, we found that some grooming was directed by lower- to higher-ranked individuals, and that, on average, higher-ranked individuals groomed more reciprocally. We found no support, however, for a prediction that more reciprocity should occur between individuals close in rank. For most dyads, reciprocity of effort occurred through unbalanced participation in grooming bouts, but reciprocity varied considerably between dyads and only a small proportion showed strongly reciprocal grooming. Despite this, each male had at least one reciprocal grooming relationship. In bouts where both individuals groomed, effort was matched through mutual grooming, not alternating roles. Our results provide mixed support for the current grooming trade, biological market model, and suggest that it needs to incorporate risks of currency inflation and cheating for species where reciprocity can be achieved through repeated dyadic interactions.
|
|
|
|
Schino, G., di Sorrentino, E. P., & Tiddi, B. (2007). Grooming and coalitions in Japanese macaques (<em>Macaca fuscata</em>): Partner choice and the time frame reciprocation. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 121(2), 181–188.
Abstract: Evidence of a reciprocal exchange of grooming and agonistic support in primates is mixed. In this study, the authors analyzed a large database of grooming and coalitions in captive female Japanese macaques (Macaca fuscata) to investigate their within-group distribution and temporal relations. Macaques groomed preferentially those individuals that groomed them most and supported preferentially those individuals that supported them most. They also supported preferentially those individuals that groomed them most and groomed preferentially those individuals that supported them most. These results were not explained by covariation of grooming and support with third variables such as kinship, rank, or time spent in proximity. However, receiving grooming did not increase the short-term probability of supporting a partner, and being supported did not increase the short-term probability of grooming a partner. The proximate mechanisms underlying the exchange of services were discussed in relation to the time frame of the behavioral choices made by the monkeys. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
|
|
|
|
Seyfarth, R. M., & Cheney, D. L. (1984). Grooming, alliances and reciprocal altruism in vervet monkeys. Nature, 308(5959), 541–543.
Abstract: Reciprocal altruism refers to the exchange of beneficial acts between individuals, in which the benefits to the recipient exceed the cost to the altruist. Theory predicts that cooperation among unrelated animals can occur whenever individuals encounter each other regularly and are capable of adjusting their cooperative behaviour according to experience. Although the potential for reciprocal altruism exists in many animal societies, most interactions occur between closely related individuals, and examples of reciprocity among non-kin are rare. The field experiments on vervet monkeys which we present here demonstrate that grooming between unrelated individuals increases the probability that they will subsequently attend to each others' solicitations for aid. Vervets appear to be more willing to aid unrelated individuals if those individuals have behaved affinitively toward them in the recent past. In contrast, recent grooming between close genetic relatives appears to have no effect on their willingness to respond to each other's solicitations for aid.
|
|
