The study of human and primate altruism faces an evolutionary anomaly: There is ample evidence for altruistic preferences in our own species and growing evidence in monkeys, but one of our closest relatives, the chimpanzee ( Pan troglodytes ), is viewed as a reluctant altruist, acting only in response to pressure and solicitation. Although chimpanzee prosocial behavior has been reported both in observational captive studies and in the wild, thus far Prosocial Choice Tests have failed to produce evidence. However, methodologies of previous Prosocial Choice Tests may have handicapped the apes unintentionally. Here we present findings of a paradigm in which chimpanzees chose between two differently colored tokens: one “selfish” token resulting in a reward for the actor only (1/0), and the other “prosocial” token rewarding both the actor and a partner (1/1). Seven female chimpanzees, each tested with three different partners, showed a significant bias for the prosocial option. Prosocial choices occurred both in response to solicitation by the partner and spontaneously without solicitation. However, directed requests and pressure by the partner reduced the actor's prosocial tendency. These results draw into question previous conclusions indicating that chimpanzees have a limited sensitivity to the needs of others and behave prosocially only in response to significant prompting.

Non-human primates are marked by well-developed prosocial and cooperative tendencies as reflected in the way they support each other in fights, hunt together, share food and console victims of aggression. The proximate motivation behind such behaviour is not to be confused with the ultimate reasons for its evolution. Even if a behaviour is ultimately self-serving, the motivation behind it may be genuinely unselfish. A sharp distinction needs to be drawn, therefore, between (i) altruistic and cooperative behaviour with knowable benefits to the actor, which may lead actors aware of these benefits to seek them by acting cooperatively or altruistically and (ii) altruistic behaviour that offers the actor no knowable rewards. The latter is the case if return benefits occur too unpredictably, too distantly in time or are of an indirect nature, such as increased inclusive fitness. The second category of behaviour can be explained only by assuming an altruistic impulse, which-as in humans-may be born from empathy with the recipient's need, pain or distress. Empathy, a proximate mechanism for prosocial behaviour that makes one individual share another's emotional state, is biased the way one would predict from evolutionary theories of cooperation (i.e. by kinship, social closeness and reciprocation). There is increasing evidence in non-human primates (and other mammals) for this proximate mechanism as well as for the unselfish, spontaneous nature of the resulting prosocial tendencies. This paper further reviews observational and experimental evidence for the reciprocity mechanisms that underlie cooperation among non-relatives, for inequity aversion as a constraint on cooperation and on the way defection is dealt with.

The purpose of the present study was to push the boundaries of cooperation among captive chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). There has been doubt about the level of cooperation that chimpanzees are able to spontaneously achieve or understand. Would they, without any pre-training or restrictions in partner choice, be able to develop successful joint action? And would they be able to extend cooperation to more than two partners, as they do in nature? Chimpanzees were given a chance to cooperate with multiple partners of their own choosing. All members of the group (N = 11) had simultaneous access to an apparatus that required two (dyadic condition) or three (triadic condition) individuals to pull in a tray baited with food. Without any training, the chimpanzees spontaneously solved the task a total of 3,565 times in both dyadic and triadic combinations. Their success rate and efficiency increased over time, whereas the amount of pulling in the absence of a partner decreased, demonstrating that they had learned the task contingencies. They preferentially approached the apparatus when kin or nonkin of similar rank were present, showing a preference for socially tolerant partners. The forced partner combinations typical of cooperation experiments cannot reveal these abilities, which demonstrate that in the midst of a complex social environment, chimpanzees spontaneously initiate and maintain a high level of cooperative behavior.

Our species is routinely depicted as unique in its ability to achieve cooperation, whereas our closest relative, the chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes), is often characterized as overly competitive. Human cooperation is assisted by the cost attached to competitive tendencies through enforcement mechanisms, such as punishment and partner choice. To examine if chimpanzees possess the same ability to mitigate competition, we set up a cooperative task in the presence of the entire group of 11 adults, which required two or three individuals to pull jointly to receive rewards. This opengroup set-up provided ample opportunity for competition (e.g., freeloading, displacements) and aggression. Despite this unique set-up and initial competitiveness, cooperation prevailed in the end, being at least five times as common as competition. The chimpanzees performed 3,565 cooperative acts while using a variety of enforcement mechanisms to overcome competition and freeloading, as measured by (attempted) thefts of rewards. These mechanisms included direct protest by the target, third-party punishment in which dominant individuals intervened against freeloaders, and partner choice. There was a marked difference between freeloading and displacement; freeloading tended to elicit withdrawal and third-party interventions, whereas displacements were met with a higher rate of direct retaliation. Humans have shown similar responses in controlled experiments, suggesting shared mechanisms across the primates to mitigate competition for the sake of cooperation.Pan troglodytes | freeloading | enforcement | punishment | partner choice

The debate about the origins of human prosociality has focused on the presence or absence of similar tendencies in other species, and, recently, attention has turned to the underlying mechanisms. We investigated whether direct reciprocity could promote prosocial behavior in brown capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella). Twelve capuchins tested in pairs could choose between two tokens, with one being "prosocial" in that it rewarded both individuals (i.e., 1/1), and the other being "selfish" in that it rewarded the chooser only (i.e., 1/0). Each monkey's choices with a familiar partner from their own group was compared with choices when paired with a partner from a different group. Capuchins were spontaneously prosocial, selecting the prosocial option at the same rate regardless of whether they were paired with an in-group or out-group partner. This indicates that interaction outside of the experimental setting played no role. When the paradigm was changed, such that both partners alternated making choices, prosocial preference significantly increased, leading to mutualistic payoffs. As no contingency could be detected between an individual's choice and their partner's previous choice, and choices occurred in rapid succession, reciprocity seemed of a relatively vague nature akin to mutualism. Having the partner receive a better reward than the chooser (i.e., 1/2) during the alternating condition increased the payoffs of mutual prosociality, and prosocial choice increased accordingly. The outcome of several controls made it hard to explain these results on the basis of reward distribution or learned preferences, and rather suggested that joint action promotes prosociality, resulting in so-called attitudinal reciprocity.cooperation | tit-for-tat | inequity | mirroring

Chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) have been frequently observed to share food with one another, with numerous hypotheses proposed to explain why. These often focus on reciprocity exchanges for social benefits (e.g., food for grooming, food for sex, affiliation, kinship, and dominance rank) as well as sharing based on begging and deterring harassment. Although previous studies have shown that each of these hypotheses has a viable basis, they have only examined situations in which males have preferential access to food whereby females are required to obtain the food from males. For example, studies on male chimpanzee food sharing take advantage of successful crop-raids and/or acquisitions of meat from hunting, situations that only leave females access to food controlled by male food possessors. This begs the question how and with whom might a female chimpanzee in sole possession of a high-quality food item choose to share? In two large captive groups of chimpanzees, we examined each of the hypotheses with female food possessors of a high-quality food item and compared these data to a previous study examining food transfers from male chimpanzees. Our results show that alpha females shared significantly more with closely affiliated females displaying perseverance, while kinship and dominance rank had no effect. This positive interaction between long-term affiliation and perseverance shows that individuals with whom the female possessor was significantly affiliated received more food while persevering more than those with neutral or avoidant relationships towards her. Furthermore, females with avoidant relationships persevered far less than others, suggesting that this strategy is not equally available to all individuals. In comparison to the mixed-sex trials, females chose to co-feed with other females more than was observed when the alpha male was sharing food. This research indicates that male and female chimpanzees (as possessors of a desired food item) share food in ways influenced by different factors and strategies.

Both wild and captive chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) share food with non-relatives. Researchers have proposed several hypotheses to explain this behavior, including ‘food for sex’, ‘food for grooming or agonistic support’, and ‘sharing under pressure’. We examined food sharing in two captive groups of socially-housed chimpanzees. In contrast to previous captive studies, which only examined transfers of low-quality foods, we conducted seven trials with high-quality food and seven with low-quality food for each group to directly compare transfers of different food qualities. We recorded how male chimpanzees shared food, including active transfers, passive transfers, and co-feeding. We also noted all instances of copulations, female estrous states, benign attempts to access food (termed ‘perseverance’), and aggressive attempts (termed ‘harassment’) to examine whether any of these factors influenced food sharing. Male food possessors shared at the same rate in both food quality conditions, but seemingly for different reasons, indicating that food quality may affect the exchange of social benefits in chimpanzees. In the low-quality condition, there was an interaction with rank and perseverance: while low- and middle-ranking females received more food the more they persevered, high-ranking females received more food without perseverance and gained relatively little benefit from persevering. In the high-quality condition, there was an interaction between copulations and perseverance: females who copulated with the male food possessor received more food during that trial with less perseverance. Non-copulating females received more transfers the more they persevered. This result was only observed in the short-term — copulations over the previous year were not correlated with food transfers. Further, the copulations observed here were unusual for these chimpanzees in that they were not confined to peak fertility, suggesting a non-conceptive function for copulations in chimpanzees. Copulations in this study may have functioned to reduce tension and increase short-term tolerance, allowing females better access to food.

Despite many observations of cooperation in nature, laboratory studies often fail to find careful coordination between individuals who are solving a cooperative task. Further, individuals tested are often naïve to cooperative tasks and there has been little exploration of partnerships with mixed expertise. In the current study, we examined acquisition of a cooperative pulling task in a group with both expert (N = 4) and novice (N = 11) chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). We used five measures of competence and understanding: (1) success at the task, (2) latency to succeed, (3) efficiency, (4) uncoordinated pulling, and (5) pulling when a partner was present versus absent. We found that novices showed evidence of trial and error learning and developed competence over time, whereas the behavior of experts did not change throughout the course of the study. In addition to looking at patterns over time, we compared the performance of novices in this mixed-expertise group to an earlier study of novices in a group of all-novices. Novices in the mixed-expertise group pulled the same overall amount but for shorter periods of time, leading to higher pulling rates than individuals in the all-novice group. Taken together, these results suggest that learning in the presence of experts led to rapid and frequent success, although not necessarily careful coordination.