Reciprocity explains food sharing in humans and other primates independent of kin selection and tolerated scrounging: a phylogenetic meta-analysis

Jaeggi, Adrian V.; Gurven, Michael

doi:10.1098/rspb.2013.1615

Cited by 143 publications

(151 citation statements)

References 65 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

139

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…when hungry, were serviced more readily if their body condition was low. Reciprocal food sharing occurs also in other animals and is particularly common in primates, including humans [154]. A meta-analysis on 32 independent study populations of six primate species revealed similar effect sizes in humans and primates [154], which contradicts the frequently expressed apprehension that cognitive constraints prevent animals from showing direct reciprocity [190].…”

Section: Which Conditions Select For Reciprocity?mentioning

confidence: 83%

Correlated pay-offs are key to cooperation

Taborsky

Frommen

Riehl

2016

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B

122

199

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

One contribution of 18 to a theme issue 'The evolution of cooperation based on direct fitness benefits.' Subject Areas: behaviour, evolution, ecology Keywords: cooperation, reciprocity, commodity trading, direct fitness benefits, non-kin, decision rules The general belief that cooperation and altruism in social groups result primarily from kin selection has recently been challenged, not least because results from cooperatively breeding insects and vertebrates have shown that groups may be composed mainly of non-relatives. This allows testing predictions of reciprocity theory without the confounding effect of relatedness. Here, we review complementary and alternative evolutionary mechanisms to kin selection theory and provide empirical examples of cooperative behaviour among unrelated individuals in a wide range of taxa. In particular, we focus on the different forms of reciprocity and on their underlying decision rules, asking about evolutionary stability, the conditions selecting for reciprocity and the factors constraining reciprocal cooperation. We find that neither the cognitive requirements of reciprocal cooperation nor the often sequential nature of interactions are insuperable stumbling blocks for the evolution of reciprocity. We argue that simple decision rules such as 'help anyone if helped by someone' should get more attention in future research, because empirical studies show that animals apply such rules, and theoretical models find that they can create stable levels of cooperation under a wide range of conditions. Owing to its simplicity, behaviour based on such a heuristic may in fact be ubiquitous. Finally, we argue that the evolution of exchange and trading of service and commodities among social partners needs greater scientific focus.

show abstract

Section: Which Conditions Select For Reciprocity?mentioning

confidence: 83%

Correlated pay-offs are key to cooperation

Taborsky

Frommen

Riehl

2016

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B

122

199

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Despite the risk of free-riding, human societies do manage to solve this collective action problem. Reciprocity [33] and signalling of status [34,35] have been proposed as two processes that can explain why individuals hunt and share their catch despite the potential for others to shirk. Sometimes collective action problems involve overexploiting a resource rather than underproduction.…”

Section: Collective Action and Human Societiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Leadership solves collective action problems in small-scale societies

Glowacki

Rueden

2015

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B

196

142

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

One contribution of 13 to a theme issue 'Solving the puzzle of collective action through inter-individual differences: evidence from primates and humans'. Observation of leadership in small-scale societies offers unique insights into the evolution of human collective action and the origins of sociopolitical complexity. Using behavioural data from the Tsimane forager-horticulturalists of Bolivia and Nyangatom nomadic pastoralists of Ethiopia, we evaluate the traits of leaders and the contexts in which leadership becomes more institutional. We find that leaders tend to have more capital, in the form of age-related knowledge, body size or social connections. These attributes can reduce the costs leaders incur and increase the efficacy of leadership. Leadership becomes more institutional in domains of collective action, such as resolution of intragroup conflict, where collective action failure threatens group integrity. Together these data support the hypothesis that leadership is an important means by which collective action problems are overcome in small-scale societies.

show abstract

“…Although provisioning of the female by the male is also seen in various cooperative breeders, especially during incubation in birds [76], this provisioning is not reciprocal. The second element is systematic, reciprocal sharing of valuable foods by a local band's men [77], which is an expression of the male-bonding component of human social organization. Male bonding is also seen in chimpanzees, lions or raptors, but they show opportunistic sharing around a kill [78][79][80] rather than the transport of the quarry to a central home base and thus proactive sharing, as seen in humans.…”

Section: The Major Elements Of Cooperative Offspring Carementioning

confidence: 99%

Looking for unity in diversity: human cooperative childcare in comparative perspective

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Humans engage in cooperative childcare, which includes some elements not found in other animals, such as the presence of post-reproductive helpers, extensive food sharing among adults and a pervasive sexual division of labour. In animals, cooperative offspring care has typically been studied in two different contexts. The first mainly involves helpers contributing care in cooperatively breeding family groups; the second context is allomaternal care in species usually not categorized as cooperative breeders (e.g. plural and communal breeders, often without male care). Comparative analyses suggest that cooperative breeding and allomaternal care in plural and communal breeders have distinct evolutionary origins, with humans fitting neither pathway entirely. Nevertheless, some critical proximate mechanisms of helping, including hormonal regulators, are likely to be shared across species. Other mechanisms may vary among species, such as social tolerance, proactive prosociality or conditional mother–infant bonding. These are presumably associated with specific details of the care system, such as whether all group members contribute, or whether mothers can potentially raise offspring alone. Thus, cooperative offspring care is seen in different contexts across animal lineages, but may nonetheless share several important psychological characteristics. We end by discussing how work on humans may play a unifying role in studying cooperative offspring care.

show abstract

Reciprocity explains food sharing in humans and other primates independent of kin selection and tolerated scrounging: a phylogenetic meta-analysis

Cited by 143 publications

References 65 publications

Correlated pay-offs are key to cooperation

Correlated pay-offs are key to cooperation

Leadership solves collective action problems in small-scale societies

Looking for unity in diversity: human cooperative childcare in comparative perspective

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About