Male Norway rats cooperate according to direct but not generalized reciprocity rules

Schweinfurth, Manon K.; Aeschbacher, Jonathan; Santi, Massimiliano; Taborsky, Michael

doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2019.03.015

Cited by 24 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 75 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In comparison to humans 19 – 21 , only few studies have yet experimentally scrutinized whether non-human animals use the cognitively less demanding behavioural strategy ‘generalized reciprocity’ when given the chance to reciprocate received help (but see for example: capuchin monkeys 22 , chimpanzees 23 , domestic dogs 24 , Norway rats 25 – 28 ). Hitherto it is not known whether non-human animals switch from applying direct reciprocity rules to the simpler generalized reciprocity decision rule when memorizing the previous behaviour of individual partners becomes challenging.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Rats show direct reciprocity when interacting with multiple partners

Kettler

Schweinfurth

Taborsky

2021

Sci Rep

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Direct reciprocity, where individuals apply the decision rule ‘help someone who has helped you’, is believed to be rare in non-human animals due to its high cognitive demands. Especially if previous encounters with several partners need to be correctly remembered, animals might either stop reciprocating favours previously received from an individual, or switch to the simpler generalized reciprocity mechanism. Here we tested the decision rules Norway rats apply when interacting with multiple partners before being able to return received help. In a sequential prisoner’s dilemma situation, focal subjects encountered four different partners that were either helpful or not, on four consecutive days. On the fifth day, the focal subject was paired with one of the previous four partners and given the opportunity to provide it with food. The focal rats returned received help by closely matching the quantity of help their partner had previously provided, independently of the time delay between received and given help, and independently of the ultimate interaction preceding the test. This shows that direct reciprocity is not limited to dyadic situations in Norway rats, suggesting that cognitive demands involved in applying the required decision rules can be met by non-human animals even when they interact with multiple partners differing in helping propensity.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Rats show direct reciprocity when interacting with multiple partners

Kettler

Schweinfurth

Taborsky

2021

Sci Rep

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…They frequently interact with related and unrelated colony members and form dominance hierarchies (Calhoun, 1979). They engage in various social behaviours like alarm calls, food sharing, huddling, social grooming and social play (reviewed in Schweinfurth, under review).…”

Section: Three Textbook Examples Of Reciprocitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…First, they help each other according to direct reciprocity. Female and male rats donate food to others reciprocally by providing more food to cooperating than defecting partners (Li & Wood, 2017; Rutte & Taborsky, 2008; Schneeberger, Dietz, & Taborsky, 2012; Schweinfurth, Aeschbacher, Santi, & Taborsky, 2019; Schweinfurth & Taborsky, 2016, 2017, 2018c; Simones, 2007; Viana, Gordo, Sucena, & Moita, 2010). In addition, female rats apply direct reciprocity when grooming each other (Schweinfurth, Stieger, & Taborsky, 2017).…”

Section: Three Textbook Examples Of Reciprocitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Finally, female rats also exchange allogrooming for food and vice versa (Schweinfurth & Taborsky, 2018b; Stieger et al, 2017). Besides direct reciprocity, female, but not male, rats engage in generalised reciprocity (Rutte & Taborsky, 2007, 2008; Schweinfurth et al, 2019). In a direct comparison, however, female rats donate over 20% more food to a partner with whom they have interacted, showing that direct reciprocity generates higher levels of cooperation than generalised reciprocity (Rutte & Taborsky, 2008).…”

Section: Three Textbook Examples Of Reciprocitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Third, there is no evidence for calculated reciprocity either. The amounts of received and immediate given help are not matched in male and female rats (Schweinfurth et al, 2019; Schweinfurth & Taborsky, under review). This is in line with their numerical ability being limited to six items, which is below the amount of grooming bouts they are known to reciprocate (cf.…”

Section: Three Textbook Examples Of Reciprocitymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Reciprocity: Different behavioural strategies, cognitive mechanisms and psychological processes

Schweinfurth

Call

2019

Learn Behav

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Reciprocity is probably one of the most debated theories in evolutionary research. After more than 40 years of research, some scientists conclude that reciprocity is an almost uniquely human trait mainly because it is cognitively demanding. Others, however, conclude that reciprocity is widespread and of great importance to many species. Yet, it is unclear how these species reciprocate, given its apparent cognitive complexity. Therefore, our aim was to unravel the psychological processes underlying reciprocity. By bringing together findings from studies investigating different aspects of reciprocity, we show that reciprocity is a rich concept with different behavioural strategies and cognitive mechanisms that require very different psychological processes. We reviewed evidence from three textbook examples, i.e. the Norway rat, common vampire bat and brown capuchin monkey, and show that the species use different strategies and mechanisms to reciprocate. We continue by examining the psychological processes of reciprocity. We show that the cognitive load varies between different forms of reciprocity. Several factors can lower the memory demands of reciprocity such as distinctiveness of encounters, memory of details and network size. Furthermore, there are different information operation systems in place, which also vary in their cognitive load due to assessing the number of encounters and the quality and quantity of help. We conclude that many species possess the psychological processes to show some form of reciprocity. Hence, reciprocity might be a widespread phenomenon that varies in terms of strategies and mechanisms.

show abstract