PhD student in Biological Anthropology, specializing in the behavior and evolution of monkeys.
We all know how much animals compete with each other. So what about their helpful, cooperative side?
##How do animals cooperate?
Many animals live together in social groups where the cooperate on all sorts of tasks. Many animals band together to defend the group against predators: by coordinating their movements, they can scare off predators many times bigger than themselves.
Other animals share food - when vampire bats return to their nests at night, those who have been successful will share extra food with their neighbors who weren't so lucky. Without this extra help, the less fortunate bats would quickly starve to death.
In some cases, animals will even help raise the offspring of others! Known as "alloparenting," this behavior is found in a few primate species and several birds.
##Why go to all that trouble? Aren't animals supposed to compete with each other?
This has been a huge question for evolutionary biology ever since Darwin. It's true that natural selection is a competitive process, and animals that don't compete will not pass on their genes as successfully, which means those behaviors will be less likely to persist over time.
But cooperation can be mutually beneficial for both parties. Take the vampire bats, for example. Their lifestyle is very risky: if they find a host, they'll get more blood than they can possibly digest in one night; and if they fail to find a host, they will likely starve to death. Any bat could be unlucky on any given night, so it's worth their while to develop cooperative friendships with the other bats in their nest.
Abstract: Among its many roles in body and brain, oxytocin influences social behavior. Understanding the precise nature of this influence is crucial, both within the broader theoretical context of neurobiology, social neuroscience and brain evolution, but also within a clinical context of disorders such as anxiety, schizophrenia, and autism. Research exploring oxytocin's role in human social behavior is difficult owing to its release in both body and brain and its interactive effects with other hormones and neuromodulators. Additional difficulties are due to the intricacies of the blood-brain barrier and oxytocin's instability, which creates measurement issues. Questions concerning how to interpret behavioral results of human experiments manipulating oxytocin are thus made all the more pressing. The current paper discusses several such questions. We highlight unresolved fundamental issues about what exactly happens when oxytocin is administered intranasally, whether such oxytocin does in fact reach appropriate receptors in brain, and whether central or peripheral influences account for the observed behavioral effects. We also highlight the deeper conceptual issue of whether the human data should be narrowly interpreted as implicating a specific role for oxytocin in complex social cognition, such a generosity, trust, or mentalizing, or more broadly interpreted as implicating a lower-level general effect on general states and dispositions, such as anxiety and social motivation. Using several influential studies, we show how seemingly specific, higher-level social-cognitive effects can emerge via a process by which oxytocin's broad influence is channeled into a specific social behavior in a context of an appropriate social and research setting. This article is part of a Special Issue entitled Oxytocin, Vasopressin, and Social Behavior.
Pub.: 27 Dec '11, Pinned: 08 May '17
Abstract: Evolutionary biologists have grappled with the question of the emergenceand maintenance of cooperation since Darwin first listed animal cooperation asapotential problem for his theory of natural selection. Here I review four pathsthat have been delineated in the study of intra-specific cooperation amonganimals. These paths – kinship, reciprocity, byproduct mutualism andgroupselection – serve as a starting point for behavioral ecologistsinterestedstudying the initiation and maintenance of cooperation. After reviewing theempirical and theoretical underpinnings of these paths to cooperation, I touchupon some recent work that has attempted to examine (or reexamine) the role ofphylogeny, punishment and morality in the light of cooperative behavior.
Pub.: 01 Sep '02, Pinned: 27 Apr '17
Abstract: The apparent rarity of contingent cooperation in animals has convinced many investigators that such reciprocity is unimportant, stimulating consideration of alternative explanations for cooperation, such as by-product mutualism and biological markets motivated by the likelihood of immediate reward. Nevertheless, there is also limited evidence that animals do sometimes rely on memory of recent interactions when behaving altruistically toward others. Here we describe a playback experiment conducted on wild female baboons, suggesting that contingent cooperation may occur among unrelated individuals, even when there is a temporal delay between the two cooperative acts. Hearing the recruitment call of an unrelated recent grooming partner caused subjects to move in the direction of the loudspeaker and approach their former partner, particularly when this partner had an infant. When the subject and her partner were close kin no such effect was observed. Subjects' responses were not influenced by any type of recent interaction, because prior grooming and prior aggression influenced their behavior in qualitatively different ways. Similarly, their responses were not prompted only by the motivation to resume friendly interactions, because prior grooming alone did not elicit approach. Instead, subjects were most likely to approach their former grooming partner when they had also heard her recruitment call. Results suggest that at least some forms of cooperation in animals may be based on memory of specific recent interactions.
Pub.: 12 May '10, Pinned: 27 Apr '17
Abstract: Individuals in many animal species are strongly motivated to form close social bonds and to attend to the social interactions of others. Some animals may also recognize other individuals' intentions and simple mental states. Such curiosity appears to be adaptive, because it enables observers to learn about others' status and relationships and to anticipate future events without direct participation. However, many questions remain unresolved. In particular, it remains unclear whether animals keep track of favors given and received when interacting with others, and whether they rely on memory of past cooperative acts when anticipating future ones. Primates appear to possess many of the cognitive abilities required for human-like contingent cooperation. However, most investigations of captive primates have indicated that cooperation is seldom contingency-based, and that interactions are not influenced by inequity aversion or sensitivity to cheaters. In contrast, several experiments with nonprimates have found that animals can take into account recent interactions when supporting others, suggesting that the apparent rarity of contingent cooperation in primates may not stem from cognitive constraints. Instead, individuals may tolerate short-term inequities in favors given and received because most cooperation occurs among long-term reciprocating partners.
Pub.: 22 Jun '11, Pinned: 27 Apr '17
Abstract: Recognition of conspecifics occurs when individuals classify sets of conspecifics based on sensory input from them and associate these sets with different responses. Classification of conspecifics can vary in specificity (the number of individuals included in a set) and multiplicity (the number of sets differentiated). In other words, the information transmitted varies in complexity. Although recognition of conspecifics has been reported in a wide variety of organisms, few reports have addressed the specificity or multiplicity of this capability. This review discusses examples of these patterns, the mechanisms that can produce them, and the evolution of these mechanisms. Individual recognition is one end of a spectrum of specificity, and binary classification of conspecifics is one end of a spectrum of multiplicity. In some cases, recognition requires no more than simple forms of learning, such as habituation, yet results in individually specific recognition. In other cases, recognition of individuals involves complex associations of multiple cues with multiple previous experiences in particular contexts. Complex mechanisms for recognition are expected to evolve only when simpler mechanisms do not provide sufficient specificity and multiplicity to obtain the available advantages. In particular, the evolution of cooperation and deception is always promoted by specificity and multiplicity in recognition. Nevertheless, there is only one demonstration that recognition of specific individuals contributes to cooperation in animals other than primates. Human capacities for individual recognition probably have a central role in the evolution of complex forms of human cooperation and deception. Although relatively little studied, this capability probably rivals cognitive abilities for language.
Pub.: 18 Sep '12, Pinned: 27 Apr '17
Abstract: Joint group membership is of major importance for cooperation in humans, and close ties or familiarity with a partner are also thought to promote cooperation in other animals. Here, we present the opposite pattern: female cleaner fish, Labroides dimidiatus, behave more cooperatively (by feeding more against their preference) when paired with an unfamiliar male rather than with their social partner. We propose that cooperation based on asymmetric punishment causes this reversed pattern. Males are larger than and dominant to female partners and are more aggressive to unfamiliar than to familiar female partners. In response, females behave more cooperatively with unfamiliar male partners. Our data suggest that in asymmetric interactions, weaker players might behave more cooperatively with out-group members than with in-group members to avoid harsher punishment.
Pub.: 24 Feb '12, Pinned: 27 Apr '17
Abstract: Cooperation in animals and humans is widely observed even if evolutionary biology theories predict the evolution of selfish individuals. Previous game theory models have shown that cooperation can evolve when the game takes place in a structured population such as a social network because it limits interactions between individuals. Modularity, the natural division of a network into groups, is a key characteristic of all social networks but the influence of this crucial social feature on the evolution of cooperation has never been investigated. Here, we provide novel pieces of evidence that network modularity promotes the evolution of cooperation in 2-person prisoner's dilemma games. By simulating games on social networks of different structures, we show that modularity shapes interactions between individuals favouring the evolution of cooperation. Modularity provides a simple mechanism for the evolution of cooperation without having to invoke complicated mechanisms such as reputation or punishment, or requiring genetic similarity among individuals. Thus, cooperation can evolve over wider social contexts than previously reported.
Pub.: 25 Dec '12, Pinned: 27 Apr '17
Abstract: Reproductive cooperation in social animals has been the focus of intensive research, yet the role of environmental factors in promoting such cooperation remains uncertain. A recent global analysis suggested that cooperative breeding in birds is a 'bet-hedging' strategy associated with climatic uncertainty, but it is unclear whether this mechanism applies generally or is restricted to the insectivorous passerines that predominate as cooperative breeders at the global scale. Here, we use a phylogenetic framework to assess the effect of climate on the evolution of cooperation in hornbills (Bucerotidae), an avian family characterized by frugivory and carnivory. We show that, in contrast to the global pattern, cooperative reproduction is positively associated with both inter- and intra-annual climatic stability. This reversed relationship implies that hornbills are relatively insensitive to climatic fluctuations, perhaps because of their dietary niche or increased body mass, both of which may remove the need for bet-hedging. We conclude that the relationship between climatic variability and cooperative breeding is inconsistent across taxa, and potentially mediated by life-history variation. These findings help to explain the mixed results of previous studies and highlight the likely shortcomings of global datasets inherently biased towards particular categories.
Pub.: 09 Aug '13, Pinned: 27 Apr '17
Abstract: Reciprocity is one of the most debated among the mechanisms that have been proposed to explain the evolution of cooperation. While a distinction can be made between two general processes that can underlie reciprocation (within-pair temporal relations between cooperative events, and partner choice based on benefits received), theoretical modelling has concentrated on the former, while the latter has been often neglected. We developed a set of agent-based models in which agents adopted a strategy of obligate cooperation and partner choice based on benefits received. Our models tested the ability of partner choice both to reproduce significant emergent features of cooperation in group living animals and to promote the evolution of cooperation. Populations formed by agents adopting a strategy of obligate cooperation and partner choice based on benefits received showed differentiated "social relationships" and a positive correlation between cooperation given and received, two common phenomena in animal cooperation. When selection across multiple generations was added to the model, agents adopting a strategy of partner choice based on benefits received outperformed selfish agents that did not cooperate. Our results suggest partner choice is a significant aspect of cooperation and provides a possible mechanism for its evolution.
Pub.: 10 Dec '13, Pinned: 27 Apr '17
Abstract: Background. While the evolution of reciprocal cooperation has attracted an enormous attention, the proximate mechanisms underlying the ability of animals to cooperate reciprocally are comparatively neglected. Symmetry-based reciprocity is a hypothetical proximate mechanism that has been suggested to be widespread among cognitively unsophisticated animals. Methods. We developed two agent-based models of symmetry-based reciprocity (one relying on an arbitrary tag and the other on interindividual proximity) and tested their ability both to reproduce significant emergent features of cooperation in group living animals and to promote the evolution of cooperation. Results. Populations formed by agents adopting symmetry-based reciprocity showed differentiated "social relationships" and a positive correlation between cooperation given and received: two common aspects of animal cooperation. However, when reproduction and selection across multiple generations were added to the models, agents adopting symmetry-based reciprocity were outcompeted by selfish agents that never cooperated. Discussion. In order to evolve, hypothetical proximate mechanisms must be able to stand competition from alternative strategies. While the results of our simulations require confirmation using analytical methods, we provisionally suggest symmetry-based reciprocity is to be abandoned as a possible proximate mechanism underlying the ability of animals to reciprocate cooperative interactions.
Pub.: 22 Mar '16, Pinned: 27 Apr '17