Hierarchy is Detrimental for Human Cooperation

Abstract

Studies of animal behavior consistently demonstrate that the social environment impacts cooperation, yet the effect of social dynamics has been largely excluded from studies of human cooperation. Here, we introduce a novel approach inspired by nonhuman primate research to address how social hierarchies impact human cooperation. Participants competed to earn hierarchy positions and then could cooperate with another individual in the hierarchy by investing in a common effort. Cooperation was achieved if the combined investments exceeded a threshold, and the higher ranked individual distributed the spoils unless control was contested by the partner. Compared to a condition lacking hierarchy, cooperation declined in the presence of a hierarchy due to a decrease in investment by lower ranked individuals. Furthermore, hierarchy was detrimental to cooperation regardless of whether it was earned or arbitrary. These findings mirror results from nonhuman primates and demonstrate that hierarchies are detrimental to cooperation. However, these results deviate from nonhuman primate findings by demonstrating that human behavior is responsive to changing hierarchical structures and suggests partnership dynamics that may improve cooperation. This work introduces a controlled way to investigate the social influences on human behavior, and demonstrates the evolutionary continuity of human behavior with other primate species.

Sharing of science is most likely among male scientists

“…For example, in humans most of these tests are computerized cooperation tasks or public goods games performed in peer groups of college students who anonymously make decisions about an interaction partner they do not know and will never need to interact with in the future. However, that is not the social environment on which selection acted during the evolution of humans’ so-called “hyper-cooperation” 6 , and recent studies showed that when for example some sort of competition 7 or hierarchy 8 is added to the original cooperation or public goods games, human prosociality/cooperation breaks down easily. Moreover, these economic games are relatively artificial and their ecological relevance is rather unclear 9 .…”

The dual evolutionary foundations of political ideology

“…Chimpanzees, for example, are less likely to distribute benefits throughout their group equitably if they live in unequal social networks120 . Similarly, humans are less likely to cooperate in Public Goods Games with unequal endowments121 or hierarchical arrangements122 and are less likely to give in Dictator Games if they live in neighbourhoods with high antisocial behaviour (e.g.…”

The dual evolutionary foundations of political ideology

“…Humans also use these norms to discern 120 group membership, attending to cultural markers like religion 83 , language 84 , and accent 85 . 121 The human social drives for cooperation and group conformity are the result of two key 122 shifts in sociality that occurred after the divergence of the hominin lineage from great 123 apes 79,[86][87][88] , and are thought to have allowed early humans to overcome several important 124 challenges of group living. First, cooperation is argued to have solved problems related to 125 obtaining food and defending territory.…”

“…Chimpanzees, for 195 example, are less likely to distribute benefits throughout their group equitably if they live in 196 unequal social networks 120 . Similarly, humans are less likely to cooperate in Public Goods 197Games with unequal endowments 121 or hierarchical arrangements122 and are less likely to198 give in Dictator Games if they live in neighbourhoods with high antisocial behaviour (e.g. 199 littering)123 .…”