Evidence of direct reciprocity, but not of indirect and generalized reciprocity, in the grooming exchanges of wild Barbary macaques (<i>Macaca sylvanus</i>)

Molesti, Sandra; Majolo, Bonaventura

doi:10.1002/ajp.22679

Cited by 9 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 84 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Despite the growing research effort on cooperation in animal societies in the recent decades, it is still unclear whether and to what degree, some non‐human animals are also capable of cooperative interactions based on reciprocal altruism (Taborsky, ). Observational studies, particularly in primates, suggest reciprocity in grooming (Barrett, Henzi, Weingrill, Lycett, & Hill, ; Gomes, Mundry, & Boesch, ; Majolo, Schino, & Aureli, ; Molesti, ; Schino et al, ), grooming for food (de Waal, ), agonistic support (Watts, ), grooming for agonistic support (Carne, Wiper, & Semple, ), food sharing (Wilkinson, ) and allonursing (Engelhardt & Weladji, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Crows and common ravens do not reciprocally exchange tokens with a conspecific to gain food rewards

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Human economic transactions are based on complex forms of reciprocity, which involve the capacities to share and to keep track of what was given and received over time. Animals too engage in reciprocal interactions, but mechanisms such as calculated reciprocity have only been shown experimentally in few species. Various forms of cooperation, for example food and information sharing, are frequently observed in corvids, and they can engage in exchange interactions with human experimenters and accept delayed rewards. Here, we tested whether crows and common ravens would reciprocally exchange tokens with a conspecific in an exchange task. Birds received a set of three different types of tokens, some valuable for themselves, that is, they could exchange them for a food reward with a human experimenter, some valuable for their partner and some without value. The valuable tokens differed between the birds, which means that each bird could obtain more self‐value tokens from their partner's compartment. We did not observe any active transfers, that is one individual giving a token to the experimental partner by placing it in its beak. We only observed 6 indirect transfers, that is one individual transferring a token into the compartment of the partner (3 no‐value, 1 partner‐value and 2 self‐value tokens) and 67 “passive” transfers, that is one subject taking the token lying in reach in the compartment of the partner. Individuals took significantly more self‐value tokens compared with no‐value and partner‐value tokens. This indicates a preference for tokens valuable to focal individuals. Significantly more no‐value tokens compared with partner‐value tokens were taken, likely to be caused by experimental partners exchanging self‐value tokens with the human experimenter, and therefore, more no‐value tokens being available in the compartment. Our results presently do not provide empirical support for reciprocity in crows and ravens, most likely caused by them not understanding the potential roles of receiver and donor. We therefore suggest further empirical tests of calculated reciprocity to be necessary in corvids.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Crows and common ravens do not reciprocally exchange tokens with a conspecific to gain food rewards

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…During exchanges of positive or negative actions between individuals, prior outcomes may influence further social interactions. Many studies show that free-ranging primates display reciprocity in a range of social behaviors but reciprocal behavior has rarely been observed for food exchanges (Packer, 1977; Seyfarth and Cheney, 1984; de Waal and Luttrell, 1988; Ventura et al, 2006; Schino, 2007; Schino and Pellegrini, 2009; Carne et al, 2011; Weinstein and Capitanio, 2012; Xia et al, 2013; Amici et al, 2014; Borgeaud and Bshary, 2015; Molesti and Majolo, 2015, 2017). Surprisingly, under experimentally controlled conditions, monkeys failed to display signs of reciprocity (Brosnan et al, 2009; Yamamoto and Tanaka, 2009; Pelé et al, 2010; Suchak and de Waal, 2012; Claidière et al, 2015).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Short-Term Reciprocity in Macaque’s Social Decision-Making

Ballesta

Reymond

Duhamel

2019

Front. Behav. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Primates live in complex social environments, where individuals create meaningful networks by adapting their behavior according to past experiences with others. Although free-ranging primates do show signs of reciprocity, experiments in more controlled environments have mainly failed to reproduce such social dynamics. Hence, the cognitive and neural processes allowing monkeys to reciprocate during social exchanges remains elusive. Here, pairs of long-tailed macaques (Macaca fascicularis) took turns into a social decision task involving the delivery of positive (juice reward) or negative (airpuff) outcomes. By analyzing the contingencies of one partner’s past decisions on the other’s future decisions, we demonstrate the presence of reciprocity, but only for the exchange of negative outcomes. Importantly, to display this decisional bias, the monkey needs to witness its partner’s decisions, since non-social deliveries of the same outcome did not have such effect. Withholding of negative outcomes also predicted future social decisions, which suggest that the observed tit-for-tat strategy may not only be motivated by retaliation after receiving an airpuff but also by the gratefulness of not having received one. These results clarify the apparent dichotomy within the scientific literature of reciprocity in non-human primates and suggest that their social cognition comprise revenge and gratitude.

show abstract

“…Reciprocity is often observed in nonhuman animals (Trivers, 1971). It has been proposed to explain the mechanisms for the exchange of social behaviors, such as grooming in the case of primates (Molesti & Majolo, 2017). Although reciprocity is a type of altruistic behavior, especially among nonrelatives, individuals expect a return based on their own actions toward a recipient.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although reciprocity is a type of altruistic behavior, especially among nonrelatives, individuals expect a return based on their own actions toward a recipient. Three types of reciprocity have been proposed: direct, indirect, and generalized (Molesti & Majolo, 2017). All three are possible; however, indirect and generalized reciprocity seem to be limited in nonhuman primate species, at least in macaques.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Monkeys that received more grooming did not groom others more (generalized reciprocity; Majolo, Schino, & Aureli, 2012). Grooming distribution in Barbary macaques ( Macaca sylvanus ) was also partner-specific (Molesti & Majolo, 2017). These results support the view that direct reciprocity occurs in nonhuman primates but suggest that indirect and generalized reciprocity are rare or absent in nonhuman primates.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Common marmosets (Callithrix jacchus) evaluate third-party social interactions of human actors but Japanese monkeys (Macaca fuscata) do not.

Kawai

Nakagami

Yasue

et al. 2019

Journal of Comparative Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Reciprocity and cooperation are fundamental to human society and are observed in nonhuman primates. Primates are not only sensitive to direct reciprocity and its violation but also indirect reciprocity. Recent studies demonstrated that some primate species adjusted their behavior by observing others' interactions. Capuchin, marmoset, and squirrel monkeys avoided taking food from human actors who behaved nonreciprocally; however, no such empirical evidence among Old World monkeys is available. Here, we show that common marmosets, which are a highly prosocial species, discriminated between human actors who reciprocated in social exchanges and those who did not; however, Japanese monkeys, who are renowned for despotic social relationships, did not. In the reciprocal condition, 2 human actors exchanged food equally, whereas in the nonreciprocal condition, 1 actor (nonreciprocator) ended up with all the food and the other actor with none. The common marmosets avoided receiving food from the nonreciprocator in the nonreciprocal condition. Nevertheless, the Japanese monkeys did not show differential preferences in either condition. These results suggest a crucial role for prosocial tendencies in monkeys' responses to asymmetric exchanges and indicate that third-party social evaluations are not homologous among primates. Further comparative studies with direct comparisons will be required to explore the underlying mechanism of third-party social evaluations.

show abstract

Evidence of direct reciprocity, but not of indirect and generalized reciprocity, in the grooming exchanges of wild Barbary macaques (Macaca sylvanus)

Cited by 9 publications

References 84 publications

Crows and common ravens do not reciprocally exchange tokens with a conspecific to gain food rewards

Crows and common ravens do not reciprocally exchange tokens with a conspecific to gain food rewards

Short-Term Reciprocity in Macaque’s Social Decision-Making

Common marmosets (Callithrix jacchus) evaluate third-party social interactions of human actors but Japanese monkeys (Macaca fuscata) do not.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About