Calculated reciprocity? A comparative test with six primate species

Prosocial or photo preferences? Gorillas' prosocial choices using a touchscreen

Three male Western lowland gorillas (Gorilla gorilla gorilla) were given the opportunity to select their own or conspecific photos on a touchscreen to indicate whether they wished the experimenter to deliver a food reward only to them or to them and the selected conspecific(s). This is only the second symbolic test of prosocial preferences with apes using a touchscreen, and the first with gorillas. The use of self and other photographs as symbols of prosocial choices was intuitive while controlling for the distraction of visible food rewards, and allowing for tests of transfer to further validate apparent prosocial intentions. Gorillas rapidly learned to avoid selecting a photograph of an empty enclosure that resulted in no rewards for any of the gorillas and transferred this learning to a novel photograph. The gorillas did not behave in a consistently self-interested or prosocial manner but they clearly rejected the opportunity to choose spitefully. Their preferences for certain photographs did not necessarily reflect a preference to be prosocial toward that particular individual because these preferences did not transfer to novel photographs of the same individuals. The results call into question whether gorillas recognize themselves and conspecifics in photographs but cannot conclusively speak to whether gorillas have prosocial preferences. They do stress the importance of carefully probing alternative explanations when inferring intentions from observable behaviors.

Moving the stakeholder journey forward

Though the customer journey (CJ) is gaining traction, its limited customer focus overlooks the dynamics characterizing other stakeholders' (e.g., employees'/suppliers') journeys, thus calling for an extension to the stakeholder journey (SJ). Addressing this gap, we advance the SJ, which covers any stakeholder's journey with the firm. We argue that firms' consideration of the SJ, defined as a stakeholder's trajectory of role-related touchpoints and activities, enacted through stakeholder engagement, that collectively shape the stakeholder experience with the firm, enhances their stakeholder relationship management and performance outcomes. We also view the SJ in a network of intersecting journeys that are characterized by interdependence theory's structural tenets of stakeholder control, covariation of interest, mutuality of dependence, information availability, and temporal journey structure, which we view to impact stakeholders' journey-based engagement and experience, as formalized in a set of Propositions. We conclude with theoretical (e.g., further research) and practical (e.g., SJ design/management) implications.

Rats play tit-for-tat instead of integrating social experience over multiple interactions

Theoretical models of cooperation typically assume that agents use simple rules based on last encounters, such as 'tit-for-tat', to reciprocate help. By contrast, empiricists generally suppose that animals integrate multiple experiences over longer timespans. Here, we compared these two alternative hypotheses by exposing Norway rats to partners that cooperated on three consecutive days but failed to cooperate on the fourth day, and to partners that did the exact opposite. In additional controls, focal rats experienced cooperating and defecting partners only once. In a bar-pulling setup, focal rats based their decision to provide partners with food on last encounters instead of overall cooperation levels. To check whether this might be owing to a lack of memory capacity, we tested whether rats remember the outcome of encounters that had happened three days before. Cooperation was not diminished by the intermediate time interval. We conclude that rats reciprocate help mainly based on most recent encounters instead of integrating social experience over longer timespans.

Not by the same token: A female orangutan (Pongo pygmaeus) is selectively prosocial

Studies of prosocial behavior in nonhumans have focused on group-living social animals. Despite being highly social and closely related to humans, chimpanzees have rarely exhibited prosocial preferences in experimental tasks. Fewer studies have provided their non group-living relatives-orangutans-with the opportunity to express prosocial preferences. Here, we allowed a single female orangutan to provide rewards for herself and for her mother, sister, or both, across various phases, using a token economy task. The orangutan was more likely to choose prosocially when she could provide rewards to her sister and herself compared to when she could provide rewards to her mother and herself. However, when presented with the simultaneous options of providing rewards for self, self and mother, or self and sister, she chose prosocially equally often to her mother and sister. She made the largest number of prosocial choices in a phase when she could provide rewards to all participants (herself, her sister, and her mother) rather than providing rewards only to herself or only to herself and one other participant. Despite the obvious limitations of a single case study, the study adds to the limited information on prosocial preferences in less social primate species, particularly when given the chance to share food items with different kin.

Reciprocity: Different behavioural strategies, cognitive mechanisms and psychological processes

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.

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

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.

Reciprocal Trading of Different Commodities in Norway Rats

The prevalence of reciprocal cooperation in non-human animals is hotly debated [1, 2]. Part of this dispute rests on the assumption that reciprocity means paying like with like [3]. However, exchanges between social partners may involve different commodities and services. Hitherto, there is no experimental evidence that animals other than primates exchange different commodities among conspecifics based on the decision rules of direct reciprocity. Here, we show that Norway rats (Rattus norvegicus) apply direct reciprocity rules when exchanging two different social services: food provisioning and allogrooming. Focal rats were made to experience partners either cooperating or non-cooperating in one of the two commodities. Afterward, they had the opportunity to reciprocate favors by the alternative service. Test rats traded allogrooming against food provisioning, and vice versa, thereby acting by the rules of direct reciprocity. This might indicate that reciprocal altruism among non-human animals is much more widespread than currently assumed.

Social manipulation in nonhuman primates: Cognitive and motivational determinants

Social interactions are the result of individuals' cooperative and competitive tendencies expressed over an extended period of time. Although social manipulation, i.e., using another individual to achieve one's own goals, is a crucial aspect of social interactions, there has been no comprehensive attempt to differentiate its various types and to map its cognitive and motivational determinants. For this purpose, we survey in this article the experimental literature on social interactions in nonhuman primates. We take social manipulation, illustrated by a case study with orangutans (Pongo abelii), as our starting point and move in two directions. First, we will focus on a flexibility/sociality axis that includes technical problem solving, social tool-use and communication. Second, we will focus on a motivational/prosociality axis that includes exploitation, cooperation, and helping. Combined, the two axes offer a way to capture a broad range of social interactions performed by human and nonhuman primates.

Direct reciprocity in animals: The roles of bonding and affective processes

The presence of direct reciprocity in animals is a debated topic, because, despite its evolutionary plausibility, it is believed to be uncommon. Some authors claim that stable reciprocal exchanges require sophisticated cognition which has acted as a constraint on its evolution across species. In contrast, a more recent trend of research has focused on the possibility that direct reciprocity occurs within long-term bonds and relies on simple as well as more complex affective mechanisms such as emotional book-keeping, rudimentary and higher forms of empathy, and inequity aversion, among others. First, we present evidence supporting the occurrence of long-term reciprocity in the context of existing bonds in social birds and mammals. Second, we discuss the evidence for affective responses which, modulated by bonding, may underlie altruistic behaviours in different species. We conclude that the mechanisms that may underlie reciprocal exchanges are diverse, and that some act in interaction with bonding processes. From simple associative learning in social contexts, through emotional contagion and behavioural mimicry, to empathy and a sense of fairness, widespread and diverse social affective mechanisms may explain why direct reciprocity may not be a rare phenomenon among social vertebrates.