Mechanisms of social reciprocity in three primate species: Symmetrical relationship characteristics or cognition?

Waal, Frans B. M. de; Luttrell, Lesleigh M.

doi:10.1016/0162-3095(88)90016-7

Cited by 293 publications

(205 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

195

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Monkeys, apes and dolphins either form temporary coalitions or occasionally more long-term alliances (Connor 2007); however it is not clear whether these relationships are more complex than in other animals, or only different (Harcourt 1992;Marler 1996). It is assumed that these relationships are fostered through reciprocal altruism and tactical manipulation (Seyfarth & Cheney 1984;de Waal & Lutrell 1988), mechanisms which may require sophisticated cognitive processes (Stevens & Hauser 2004). Although most previous studies of social complexity have focused on mammals, there is no reason to assume that the same processes are not important for birds, possibly occurring through a process of convergent evolution (Emery & Clayton 2004).…”

Section: Primate-like Social Complexity In Rooksmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although we suggested earlier that allopreening may be important for the maintenance of a partnership, studies of primate behaviour have proposed that it is the 'trade' between different behavioural commodities (such as grooming, sharing, social support, etc.) which forms the basis for a solid partnership (Seyfarth & Cheney 1984;de Waal & Lutrell 1988). We therefore examined the frequency with which three different affiliative behaviours (allopreening, food sharing and provision of social support) were provided to others or received from others across the different blocks.…”

Section: Primate-like Social Complexity In Rooksmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Cognitive adaptations of social bonding in birds

Emery

Seed

Bayern

et al. 2007

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B

344

341

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The ‘social intelligence hypothesis’ was originally conceived to explain how primates may have evolved their superior intellect and large brains when compared with other animals. Although some birds such as corvids may be intellectually comparable to apes, the same relationship between sociality and brain size seen in primates has not been found for birds, possibly suggesting a role for other non-social factors. But bird sociality is different from primate sociality. Most monkeys and apes form stable groups, whereas most birds are monogamous, and only form large flocks outside of the breeding season. Some birds form lifelong pair bonds and these species tend to have the largest brains relative to body size. Some of these species are known for their intellectual abilities (e.g. corvids and parrots), while others are not (e.g. geese and albatrosses). Although socio-ecological factors may explain some of the differences in brain size and intelligence between corvids/parrots and geese/albatrosses, we predict that the type and quality of the bonded relationship is also critical. Indeed, we present empirical evidence that rook and jackdaw partnerships resemble primate and dolphin alliances. Although social interactions within a pair may seem simple on the surface, we argue that cognition may play an important role in the maintenance of long-term relationships, something we name as ‘relationship intelligence’.

show abstract

Section: Primate-like Social Complexity In Rooksmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Primate-like Social Complexity In Rooksmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cognitive adaptations of social bonding in birds

Emery

Seed

Bayern

et al. 2007

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B

344

341

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Ruling out third-party interventions on behalf of kin, there are only a handful of examples in which the intervener appears to be neutral to the outcomes. For instance, chimpanzees (de Waal 1982;de Waal & Luttrell 1988) and monkeys such as bonnet macaques (Macaca radiata; Silk 1992) will intervene in conflicts. However, the evidence tends to be indirect, such as the observation that there is an increase in the number of conflicts in groups of monkeys (pigtailed macaques, Macaca nemestrina) after the removal of the dominant individuals (Flack et al 2006); however, this may just reflect an increase in conflicts as the sub-dominants jockey for position in the resulting power vacuum.…”

Section: Gros-louis 2004)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Punishment and spite, the dark side of cooperation

Jensen

2010

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B

170

167

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Causing harm to others would hardly seem to be relevant to cooperation, other than as a barrier to it. However, because selfish individuals will exploit cooperators, functional punishment is an effective mechanism for enforcing cooperation by deterring free-riding. Although functional punishment can shape the social behaviour of others by targeting non-cooperative behaviour, it can also intimidate others into doing almost anything. Second-party functional punishment is a self-serving behaviour at the disposal of dominant individuals who can coerce others into behaving cooperatively, but it need not do so. Third-party and altruistic functional punishment are less likely to be selfishly motivated and would seem more likely to maintain norms of cooperation in large groups. These forms of functional punishment may be an essential part of non-kin cooperation on a scale exhibited only by humans. While punitive sentiments might be the psychological force behind punitive behaviours, spiteful motives might also play an important role. Furthermore, functionally spiteful acts might not be maladaptive; reckoning gains relative to others rather than in absolute terms can lead to hyper-competitiveness, which might also be an important part of human cooperation, rather than just an ugly by-product.

show abstract

“…One of these studies also gave the chimpanzees the opportunity to control personally disadvantageous outcomes by acting spitefully, and their disinclination to do so led to the conclusion that our closest living relatives are not other-regarding (21). Nonhuman animals do retaliate against others, and this can serve, among other things, to maintain cooperative behavior (2,(22)(23)(24). However, it is not known whether animals other than humans react to harmful actions directed toward them by retaliating against the perpetrator, and whether they react to disproportionate outcomes by behaving spitefully toward the fortunes of others.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Chimpanzees are vengeful but not spiteful

Jensen

Call

Tomasello

2007

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

151

120

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

People are willing to punish others at a personal cost, and this apparently antisocial tendency can stabilize cooperation. What motivates humans to punish noncooperators is likely a combination of aversion to both unfair outcomes and unfair intentions. Here we report a pair of studies in which captive chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) did not inflict costs on conspecifics by knocking food away if the outcome alone was personally disadvantageous but did retaliate against conspecifics who actually stole the food from them. Like humans, chimpanzees retaliate against personally harmful actions, but unlike humans, they are indifferent to simply personally disadvantageous outcomes and are therefore not spiteful.cooperation ͉ fairness ͉ other-regard ͉ punishment ͉ reciprocity P eople will willingly suffer a cost to punish others. Although this does not sound like a formula for cooperation, something that humans are exceedingly good at, theoretical models and experimental evidence show that in the absence of punishment, cooperation does not survive the degrading influence of free-riders (1). Punishment, in the biological sense, is a strategy that decreases the occurrence of a behavior, and it is typically selfish in that it provides a future benefit for the individual such as the reduction of harmful behavior received from others (2) † . Punishment can make an act of spite, incurring a cost to impose a cost on another individual, beneficial in the long run and is therefore a means to an end. Spite, on the other hand, is the decreasing of the welfare of another individual as an end in itself, just as proximate-level altruism has increasing the welfare of another as the ultimate end (3). Negative reciprocity makes spite selfish just as positive reciprocity does for altruism (4). We use the term ''spiteful'' for proximate-level spite to distinguish it from ultimate-level spite ‡ .A special form of punishment has been revealed in economic experiments such as the ultimatum and public goods games. This ''altruistic punishment'' (7) provides benefits in the form of increased cooperation to others, whereas the punisher alone bears the costs. It could be argued that on a short time-scale, such unselfish punishment is spitefully motivated, and altruistic outcomes are an unintended byproduct; to our knowledge, the underlying motivations behind altruistic punishment remain to be shown. What might motivate punitive and possibly spiteful behaviors is that, instead of acting solely selfishly and counting only one's own gains and losses, people appear to compare their outcomes with those of others and appraise the motives behind the actions of others. The punishment of others based on unfair outcomes (8, 9) or intentions (10-13) has been argued to be a central and possibly unique feature of human cooperation.There is currently controversy about whether nonhuman primates also have a sense of fairness (in the sense of personally disadvantageous outcomes). Capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella) and chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) reject food offered b...

show abstract

Mechanisms of social reciprocity in three primate species: Symmetrical relationship characteristics or cognition?

Cited by 293 publications

References 32 publications

Cognitive adaptations of social bonding in birds

Cognitive adaptations of social bonding in birds

Punishment and spite, the dark side of cooperation

Chimpanzees are vengeful but not spiteful

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About