Food transfers in capuchin monkeys: an experiment on partner choice

Sabbatini, Gloria; Vizioli, Aurora De Bortoli; Visalberghi, Elisabetta; Schino, Gabriele

doi:10.1098/rsbl.2012.0534

Cited by 46 publications

(50 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Similarly, results reported on partially overlapping subsets of subjects, e.g. male and female recipients [20,37], or obtained from different experiments on the same subjects [8] were averaged. Only study populations with more than three dyads could be considered.…”

Section: Materials and Methods (A) Compiling The Datasetmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…food-food þ grooming þ coalitions). Relationship quality, a composite factor including grooming, coalitionary support, aggression and/or time spent in proximity was treated as a measure of trade [8,31,32]. Interaction terms could not be taken into account.…”

Section: (B) Obtaining and Combining Effect Sizesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Furthermore, dominants or high producers with greater access to food may trade it for services provided by others such as mating or coalitionary support [26 -29]. As different commodities are exchanged among the same partners, the combination of in-kind reciprocity and trade should result in long-term correlations between giving food and receiving food and/or any other commodities, as is commonly found among primates [7,8,26,29].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There are two main reasons for this: first, demonstrating that helping is conditional on past help in a tit-for-tat manner, as it has been predominantly theorized, is difficult outside controlled experiments [3][4][5]. However, helping is often better predicted by help received over long-time periods rather than recent interactions [6][7][8], suggesting that tit-for-tat is not a good model for social exchange in natural groups [4]. Instead, helping may simply be directed to those partners who on average provided most help in the past and are therefore most likely to provide it in the future, leading to long-term correlations between giving and receiving [9 -11] within stable social relationships [4,5].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

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

2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ResearchCite this article: Jaeggi AV, Gurven M. 2013 Reciprocity explains food sharing in humans and other primates independent of kin selection and tolerated scrounging: a phylogenetic meta-analysis. Helping, i.e. behaviour increasing the fitness of others, can evolve when directed towards kin or reciprocating partners. These predictions have been tested in the context of food sharing both in human foragers and non-human primates. Here, we performed quantitative meta-analyses on 32 independent study populations to (i) test for overall effects of reciprocity on food sharing while controlling for alternative explanations, methodological biases, publication bias and phylogeny and (ii) compare the relative effects of reciprocity, kinship and tolerated scrounging, i.e. sharing owing to costs imposed by others. We found a significant overall weighted effect size for reciprocity of r ¼ 0.20-0.48 for the most and least conservative measure, respectively. Effect sizes did not differ between humans and other primates, although there were species differences in in-kind reciprocity and trade. The relative effect of reciprocity in sharing was similar to those of kinship and tolerated scrounging. These results indicate a significant independent contribution of reciprocity to human and primate helping behaviour. Furthermore, similar effect sizes in humans and primates speak against cognitive constraints on reciprocity. This study is the first to use meta-analyses to quantify these effects on human helping and to directly compare humans and other primates.

show abstract

Section: Materials and Methods (A) Compiling The Datasetmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: (B) Obtaining and Combining Effect Sizesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

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

2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Here, reciprocity is tied to mutual social preferences. If symmetrical characteristics of the dyadic relationship (e.g., mutual association) induce prosocial tendencies, the resulting behavior will automatically be reciprocally distributed without a need for mental scorekeeping (34,35). However, as such symmetrybased reciprocity requires an established social relationship, this mechanism is unlikely between individuals that do not live together.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Monkeys benefit from reciprocity without the cognitive burden

Suchak

Waal

2012

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

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The debate about the origins of human prosociality has focused on the presence or absence of similar tendencies in other species, and, recently, attention has turned to the underlying mechanisms. We investigated whether direct reciprocity could promote prosocial behavior in brown capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella). Twelve capuchins tested in pairs could choose between two tokens, with one being "prosocial" in that it rewarded both individuals (i.e., 1/1), and the other being "selfish" in that it rewarded the chooser only (i.e., 1/0). Each monkey's choices with a familiar partner from their own group was compared with choices when paired with a partner from a different group. Capuchins were spontaneously prosocial, selecting the prosocial option at the same rate regardless of whether they were paired with an in-group or out-group partner. This indicates that interaction outside of the experimental setting played no role. When the paradigm was changed, such that both partners alternated making choices, prosocial preference significantly increased, leading to mutualistic payoffs. As no contingency could be detected between an individual's choice and their partner's previous choice, and choices occurred in rapid succession, reciprocity seemed of a relatively vague nature akin to mutualism. Having the partner receive a better reward than the chooser (i.e., 1/2) during the alternating condition increased the payoffs of mutual prosociality, and prosocial choice increased accordingly. The outcome of several controls made it hard to explain these results on the basis of reward distribution or learned preferences, and rather suggested that joint action promotes prosociality, resulting in so-called attitudinal reciprocity.cooperation | tit-for-tat | inequity | mirroring

show abstract

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

Molesti

Majolo

2017

American J Primatol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Reciprocity is one of the mechanisms that have been proposed to explain the exchange of social behaviors, such as grooming, in animals. Reciprocity assumes that individuals act as the donor and recipient of grooming and switch roles over time to balance the benefits and costs of this behavior. Three main patterns of reciprocity may follow a grooming given: (i) direct reciprocity, where the former recipient returns the grooming to the former donor; (ii) indirect reciprocity, where another individual returns the grooming to the former donor; and (iii) generalized reciprocity, where the former recipient returns the grooming to another individual. While there is evidence that direct reciprocity plays an important role in various species of animals, the role of indirect and generalized reciprocity is less clear and has been rarely analyzed. We tested the role of direct, indirect, and generalized reciprocity in explaining grooming exchanges of wild Barbary macaques, by analyzing the temporal contingency between giving and receiving grooming. We collected the occurrence and latency of the three types of grooming reciprocation during 1 hr long focal sessions run simultaneously on two partners who just stopped grooming (post-grooming session) or who were in proximity (i.e., within 1.5 m) without grooming each other (control session). We ran the analyses on 284 post-grooming and 63 control sessions. The results revealed a temporal contingency of grooming interactions exchanged according to direct reciprocity but not according to indirect or generalized reciprocity. Our results indicate that grooming distribution in Barbary macaques is partner-specific. We discuss the possible role of cognition and emotions in explaining direct reciprocity in animals.

show abstract

Food transfers in capuchin monkeys: an experiment on partner choice

Cited by 46 publications

References 15 publications

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

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

Monkeys benefit from reciprocity without the cognitive burden

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About