Why cooperate?An economic perspective is not enough

Abstract

Cooperation is usually explained from an economic perspective focused mainly on the tangible outcomes received by individuals that are also dependent on the behavior of others, with little reference to the actual behaviors used when cooperating. The potential consequences of social dimensions associated with cooperative behaviors are minimized in Skinnerian and game-theory models by means of anonymous subjects that behave individually while physically isolated in separate chambers. When cooperation and non-cooperation occur in the real world, however, they are often associated not only with different outcomes but also with different behaviors. Unlike non-cooperation, cooperative behaviors are usually intrinsically social, influenced by the presence and behaviors of familiar partners. Research is described that addresses whether the social dimensions of cooperative actions go beyond mere description of behaviors to also explain why cooperation occurs. One way to resolve the relative importance of economic and social factors for explanations of cooperation is to measure choice between the options of cooperation and non-cooperation. The economic perspective, linked to models derived from game theory, frames the question as a choice determined by differences in tangible outcomes such as food or money that, in evolutionary terms, are surrogates for gains in fitness. From a behavioral perspective, the choice between cooperation and non-cooperation is also determined by social dimensions associated only with cooperation. The influence of social cooperation on preference was examined by means of two rectangular chambers interconnected by a T-maze. In one chamber, pairs of laboratory rats were reinforced with saccharine solution for coordinating back-and-forth shuttling; in the second chamber, a single animal was reinforced for back-and-forth shuttling performed in isolation. With outcomes equalized between the two options, cooperation was preferred by the majority of subjects. Moreover, variation in the relative rate of reinforcement during cooperation was not a strong predictor of choice whereas the level of intra-pair coordination was positively related to preference. Implications of this result are discussed for both method and theory, including the hypothesis that the preference is influenced by intrinsic reinforcements evoked by cooperating. The consequences for evolutionary fitness would then arise not only from tangible outcomes but from the relationships that develop when cooperating even when immediate and tangible pay-offs are absent, insufficient or sub-optimal. The impact of cooperative relationships on fitness may therefore not occur immediately but in the future, and perhaps in another context, when they influence outcomes that have a significant impact on survival and reproduction.

The influence of social experience on cooperative behaviour of rats (Rattus norvegicus): direct vs generalised reciprocity

“…In addition, rats show a propensity to cooperate (Schuster 2002;Schuster and Perelberg 2004). In a previous study, we found that anonymous cooperative experience influences a rat's propensity to help others: A rat that was helped before by anonymous partners is more helpful towards a new partner than a rat that had received no help (generalised reciprocity; Rutte and Taborsky 2007).…”

Prosocial Choice in Rats Depends on Food-Seeking Behavior Displayed by Recipients

“…Thus, the development of new paradigms to study social behaviors, such as prosocial choice, under highly controlled environments and using laboratory animal models, will greatly benefit the search for generic mechanisms underlying prosociality. Rats, a social species widely used in neuroscience, have been shown to cooperate in tasks testing for coordination and direct and generalized reciprocity [2,8,9,11,31], and to possess the cognitive capacity to engage in cooperation in the context of social dilemma games [32]. More recently, rats have been shown to release a conspecific from a restrainer, a prosocial act that may not involve a benefit to the focal [17,18].…”

“…In this manner, the recipient rat displayed foodseeking behavior (poking the deactivated port) while the focal controlled the recipient's access to the food-baited arms. It has previously been shown that under some circumstances rats seek proximity with conspecifics [24,31,35]. To avoid a contribution of the preference for being together to prosocial choice, in both prosocial and selfish choices, we ensured that focal and recipient rats always went to the same side of the maze, independently of whether recipients received reward or not.…”

Elephants know when they need a helping trunk in a cooperative task

“…Cooperation is tested experimentally by gauging the reactions of animals to a partner's presence or absence, specific behavior, and motivation (or lack thereof) in a context requiring interindividual coordination (9,10). Apart from a few studies (11)(12)(13)(14)(15), little experimental evidence exists with regards to the cooperative abilities of nonprimates. Although much research explores the cognitive bases for complex sociality and cooperation in various animals, including primates (16,17), corvids (18), and cetaceans (19), elephants have rarely been subjected to cognitive tasks of any kind (see refs.…”