A conceptual framework for nonkin food sharing: timing and currency of benefits

Stevens, Jeffrey R.; Gilby, Ian C.

doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2003.04.012

Cited by 150 publications

(164 citation statements)

References 142 publications

(143 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

156

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although chimpanzees sometimes share food with other adults in the wild (and the chimpanzees in both of our study populations also share food with one another), some researchers have argued that food exchanges may be better described as 'tolerated theft' (Blurton Jones 1987) than voluntary sharing (Stevens & Gilby 2004;Gilby 2006). Others have emphasized the role that meat plays in political manoeuvring among adult males (Boesch & Boesch-Achermann 2002), or demonstrated that males are most likely to share meat with those who are more likely to share with them or provide them with other types of benefits (Mitani 2005).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Chimpanzees do not take advantage of very low cost opportunities to deliver food to unrelated group members

et al. 2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We conducted experiments on two populations of chimpanzees, Pan troglodytes, to determine whether they would take advantage of opportunities to provide food rewards to familiar group members at little cost to themselves. In both of the experiments described here, chimpanzees were able to deliver identical rewards to themselves and to other members of their social groups. We compared the chimpanzees' behaviour when they were paired with another chimpanzee and when they were alone. If chimpanzees are motivated to provide benefits to others, they are expected to consistently deliver rewards to others and to distinguish between the partner-present and partnerabsent conditions. Results from both experiments indicate that our subjects were largely indifferent to the benefits they could provide to others. They were less likely to provide rewards to potential recipients as the experiment progressed, and all but one of the 18 subjects were as likely to deliver rewards to an empty enclosure as to an enclosure housing another chimpanzee. These results, in conjunction with similar results obtained in previous experiments, suggest that chimpanzees are not motivated by prosocial sentiments to provide food rewards to other group members. HHS Public Access Author Manuscript Author ManuscriptAuthor Manuscript Author ManuscriptHumans participate in a range of activities that benefit others. These behaviours range from simple acts of courtesy (holding the door for shoppers laden with packages) to modest forms of charity (sending money to victims of hurricane Katrina) and extraordinary feats of heroism (firefighters taking great risks to rescue victims of the 9/11 bombings). These activities are all prosocial because they benefit others, and some are altruistic because donors incur costs and receive no direct benefit themselves when they provide benefits to others. In many cases, the actors are unknown to the beneficiaries, thus eliminating the possibility of future reciprocity. In this paper, we consider whether chimpanzees take advantage of very low cost opportunities to behave prosocially towards conspecifics.In an effort to gain insight about the origin and evolution of other-regarding preferences in humans, we conducted a series of experiments on chimpanzees. We focus on chimpanzees for a number of reasons. First, chimpanzees are our closest living relatives (Glazko & Nei 2003). The absence of other-regarding preferences in chimpanzees would suggest that these preferences (and possibly reputational concerns) are derived properties of humans that evolved after Homo and Pan diverged. Conversely, the presence of other-regarding preferences in chimpanzees would indicate that the foundation for prosocial behaviour existed before the human and ape lineages diverged and was elaborated within the human lineage.Second, chimpanzees may share some of the cognitive capacities and moral sentiments that underlie prosocial behaviour in humans. Chimpanzees sometimes console victims of aggression (de Waal & van Roosmalen 1979), which...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Chimpanzees do not take advantage of very low cost opportunities to deliver food to unrelated group members

et al. 2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Clutton-Brock and Parker contend that punishment is a common technique used by animals to enforce cooperation [7]. Although little new evidence has emerged to support this contention, a related explanation-harassment-may explain some instances of enforced cooperation in animals [8,47]. In humans, however, there is a rich literature describing the use of punishment in cooperative situations [48][49][50].…”

Section: Punishmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Why be nice? Psychological constraints on the evolution of cooperation

Stevens

Hauser

2004

Trends in Cognitive Sciences

508

365

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…First, the crows ing has been suggested to play an important role in the development of social bonds in corvids, such as jackdaws (Corvus monedula) (von Bayern, de Kort, and rooks (Emery, Seed, von Bayern, & Clayton, 2007). Similarly, many primate species generally share food only with individuals with whom they have established social relationships (de Waal, 1989;Stevens & Gilby, 2004). A conspecific tolerated on a table would be expected to be individually "known" to a target animal.…”

Section: The Social Structure Of Nc Crowsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Social learning in New Caledonian crows

Holzhaider

Hunt

Gray

2010

Learning & Behavior

109

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

New Caledonian (NC) crows are the most sophisticated tool manufacturers other than humans. The diversification and geographical distribution of their three Pandanus tool designs that differ in complexity, as well as the lack of ecological correlates, suggest that cumulative technological change has taken place. To investigate the p possibility that high-fidelity social transmission mediated this putative ratchet-like process, we studied the ontogeny of Pandanus tool manufacture and social organization in free-living NC crows. We found that juvenile crows took more than 1 year to reach adult proficiency in their Pandanus tool skills. Although trial-and-error learning is clearly important, juveniles have ample opportunity to learn about Pandanus tool manufacture by both observing their parents and interacting with artifactual material. The crows' social system seems likely to promote the faithful social transmission of local tool designs by both favoring the vertical transmission of tool information and minimizing horizontal transmission. We suggest that NC crows develop their Pandanus tool skills in a highly scaffolded learning environment that facilitates the cumulative technological evolution of tool designs.

show abstract

A conceptual framework for nonkin food sharing: timing and currency of benefits

Cited by 150 publications

References 142 publications

Chimpanzees do not take advantage of very low cost opportunities to deliver food to unrelated group members

Chimpanzees do not take advantage of very low cost opportunities to deliver food to unrelated group members

Why be nice? Psychological constraints on the evolution of cooperation

Social learning in New Caledonian crows

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About