Monkeys benefit from reciprocity without the cognitive burden

Prosocial behavior in competitive fish: the case of the archerfish

Humans are social creatures, demonstrate prosocial behaviors, and are sensitive to the actions and consequent payoff of others. This social sensitivity has also been found in many other species, though not in all. Research has suggested that prosocial tendencies are more pronounced in naturally cooperative species whose social structure requires a high level of interdependence and allomaternal care. The present study challenges this assumption by demonstrating, in a laboratory setting, that archerfish, competitive by nature, preferred targets rewarding both themselves and their tankmates, but only when the payoff was equal. With no tankmate on the other side of the partition, they exhibited no obvious preference. Finding evidence for prosocial behavior and negative responses to unequal distribution of reward to the advantage of the other fish suggests that in a competitive social environment, being prosocial may be the most adaptive strategy for personal survival, even if it benefits others as well.

COVID-19 alters the relationship between relational mobility and helping behavior

To determine if helping behaviors are affected by socioecological variables such as relational mobility and the COVID-19 pandemic, we investigated the impact of relational mobility on helping behaviors before (Study 1) and during (Study 2) COVID-19 in China via two experiments. In Study 1, we manipulated participants’ relational mobility and found that a greater proportion of participants in the high relational mobility condition signed up for another psychological experiment, relative to the low relational mobility condition. In Study 2, the manipulation of relational mobility was embedded in a phone interview, and we found that a high relational mobility condition caused fewer signups for a COVID-19 support program relative to a low relational mobility condition. These results extend our understanding of the meaning of relational mobility under different ecological contexts.

The marmoset as a model for investigating the neural basis of social cognition in health and disease

Social-cognitive processes facilitate the use of environmental cues to understand others, and to be understood by others. Animal models provide vital insights into the neural underpinning of social behaviours. To understand social cognition at even deeper behavioural, cognitive, neural, and molecular levels, we need to develop more representative study models, which allow testing of novel hypotheses using human-relevant cognitive tasks. Due to their cooperative breeding system and relatively small size, common marmosets (Callithrix jacchus) offer a promising translational model for such endeavours. In addition to having social behavioural patterns and group dynamics analogous to those of humans, marmosets have cortical brain areas relevant for the mechanistic analysis of human social cognition, albeit in simplified form. Thus, they are likely suitable animal models for deciphering the physiological processes, connectivity and molecular mechanisms supporting advanced cognitive functions. Here, we review findings emerging from marmoset social and behavioural studies, which have already provided significant insights into executive, motivational, social, and emotional dysfunction associated with neurological and psychiatric disorders.

On experimental tests for studying altruism in capuchin monkeys

Altruism is often considered as the ultimate form of prosociality and is defined as any act that benefits others without direct benefit to the actor. Many nonhuman species have been reported to express different forms of altruism, although their expression in experimental studies is highly dependent on the paradigm used. Tufted capuchin monkeys are one of the most studied species; however, the evidence for altruism in this species remains inconclusive. This study aimed to investigate whether two paradigms, adapted from those in which great apes have shown altruism, could be useful for revealing signs of altruistic capabilities in capuchins. Pairs of monkeys were tested in two experiments involving a similar mechanism but with different costs to acting altruistically. The first used a more costly operant sharing task in which an operator could unlock a door to allow a recipient to enter the room and share his food. The second consisted of a less costly helping task, in which the operator's food was secured but he could help the recipient to get other food that was in a locked container. The results suggest that capuchins, although apparently unwilling to share their food in a costly operant situation, might altruistically help selected recipients, in response to requesting by the latter. While our small sample size along with procedural limitations preclude firm conclusions, we discuss how further ameliorations of our tasks could further contribute to the study of altruistic capacities in primates.

The Myth of a Previous Asocial State: some Criticisms and Reflections

The question about the origin of social behavior from the evolutionary perspective can be traced back to Darwin. However, the advance of research and discoveries made especially in the first half of the past century, as well as the theoretical positions disseminated by some of the representatives of the so-called «Neo-Darwinist» epistemological position, led to the inquiry about reciprocity and cooperation towards the complex necessity to validate the existence of cooperation and reciprocity. This document offers a critical review of the main assumptions that demonstrate how it is that one of its basic assumptions, that of the existence of an asocial state prior to cooperation and reciprocity can be the cause of the difficulties involved in the explanation of the evolutionary origin of the social behavior.

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.

Assessing African grey parrots' prosocial tendencies in a token choice paradigm

Prosociality is defined as a voluntary, typically low-cost behaviour that benefits another individual. Social tolerance has been proposed as a potential driver for its evolution, both on the proximate and on the ultimate level. Parrots are an interesting species to study such other-regarding behaviours, given that they are highly social and stand out in terms of relative brain size and cognitive capacity. We tested eight African grey parrots in a dyadic prosocial choice test. They faced a choice between two different tokens, a prosocial (actor and partner rewarded) and a selfish (only actor rewarded) one. We found that the birds did not behave prosocially when one subject remained in the actor role; however, when roles were alternated, the birds' prosocial choices increased. The birds also seemed to reciprocate their partner's choices, given that a contingency between choices was observed. If the food provisioned to the partner was of higher quality than that the actor obtained, actors increased their willingness to provide food to their partner. Nonetheless, the control conditions suggest that the parrots did not fully understand the task's contingencies. In sum, African grey parrots show the potential for prosociality and reciprocity; however, considering their lack of understanding of the contingencies of the particular tasks used in this study, the underlying motivation for the observed behaviour remains to be addressed by future studies, in order to elucidate the phylogenetic distribution of prosociality further.

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.

Time matching between grooming partners: Do methodological distinctions between short versus long-term reciprocation matter?

Primatologists have long focused on grooming exchanges to examine aspects of social relationships, co-operation, and social cognition. One particular interest is the extent to which reciprocating grooming partners time match, and the time frame over which they do so. Conclusions about time matching vary across species. Generally, researchers focus on the duration of pauses between grooming episodes that involve a switch in partner roles and choose a cut-off point to distinguish short from longer-term reciprocation. Problematically, researchers have made inconsistent choices about cut-offs. Such methodological variations are potentially concerning, as it is unclear whether inconsistent conclusions about short-term time matching are attributable to species/ecological differences, or are due in part to methodological inconsistency. We ask whether various criteria for separating short versus long-term reciprocation influence conclusions about short-term time matching using data from free-ranging rhesus ( Macaca mulatta) and captive-crested macaques ( Macaca nigra). We compare several commonly used cut-offs to ones generated by the currently preferred approach-survival analysis. Crested macaques displayed a mild degree of time matching regardless of the cutoff used. For rhesus macaques, whereas most cut-offs yielded similar degrees of time matching as the one derived from survival analysis, very short ones significantly underestimated both the degree of time matching and the influence of rank distance on time matching. Although researchers may have some flexibility in their choice of cut-offs, we suggest that they employ caution by using survival analysis when possible, and when not possible, by avoiding very short time windows.

Touch-screen-guided task reveals a prosocial choice tendency by chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes)

Humans help others even without direct benefit for themselves. However, the nature of altruistic (i.e., only the other benefits) and prosocial (i.e., self and other both benefit) behaviors in our closest living relative, the chimpanzee, remains controversial. To address this further, we developed a touch-screen-guided task that allowed us to increase the number of trials for a thorough test of chimpanzees’ prosocial and altruistic tendencies. Mother-offspring dyads were tested in the same compartment; one was the actor while the other was the recipient. In Experiment 1, the actor chose among three options: prosocial, selfish (only the actor benefited) and altruistic. To better understand the nature of the chimpanzees’ choices and to improve experimental control, we conducted two additional experiments. Experiment 2 consisted of two-option choices interspersed with three-option choices, and in Experiment 3 the two-option choice were blocked across all trials. The results of Experiment 1 clearly showed that chimpanzees acted prosocially in the touch-screen-guided task, choosing the prosocial option on an average of 79% of choices. Five out of the six chimpanzees showed the preference to act prosocially against chance level. The preference for the prosocial option persisted when conditions were changed in Experiments 2 and 3. When only selfish and altruistic options were available in Experiments 2 and 3, chimpanzees preferred the selfish option. These results suggest that (1) most individuals understood the nature of the task and modified their behavior according to the available options, (2) five out of the six chimpanzees chose to act prosocially when they had the option to, and (3) offspring counterbalanced between altruistic and selfish, when given those two options perhaps to avoid suffering repercussions from the mother.

Bonobos respond prosocially toward members of other groups

Modern humans live in an "exploded" network with unusually large circles of trust that form due to prosociality toward unfamiliar people (i.e. xenophilia). In a set of experiments we demonstrate that semi-free ranging bonobos (Pan paniscus) - both juveniles and young adults - also show spontaneous responses consistent with xenophilia. Bonobos voluntarily aided an unfamiliar, non-group member in obtaining food even when he/she did not make overt requests for help. Bonobos also showed evidence for involuntary, contagious yawning in response to videos of yawning conspecifics who were complete strangers. These experiments reveal that xenophilia in bonobos can be unselfish, proactive and automatic. They support the first impression hypothesis that suggests xenophilia can evolve through individual selection in social species whenever the benefits of building new bonds outweigh the costs. Xenophilia likely evolved in bonobos as the risk of intergroup aggression dissipated and the benefits of bonding between immigrating members increased. Our findings also mean the human potential for xenophilia is either evolutionarily shared or convergent with bonobos and not unique to our species as previously proposed.

Chimpanzees return favors at a personal cost

Humans regularly provide others with resources at a personal cost to themselves. Chimpanzees engage in some cooperative behaviors in the wild as well, but their motivational underpinnings are unclear. In three experiments, chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) always chose between an option delivering food both to themselves and a partner and one delivering food only to themselves. In one condition, a conspecific partner had just previously taken a personal risk to make this choice available. In another condition, no assistance from the partner preceded the subject's decision. Chimpanzees made significantly more prosocial choices after receiving their partner's assistance than when no assistance was given (experiment 1) and, crucially, this was the case even when choosing the prosocial option was materially costly for the subject (experiment 2). Moreover, subjects appeared sensitive to the risk of their partner's assistance and chose prosocially more often when their partner risked losing food by helping (experiment 3). These findings demonstrate experimentally that chimpanzees are willing to incur a material cost to deliver rewards to a conspecific, but only if that conspecific previously assisted them, and particularly when this assistance was risky. Some key motivations involved in human cooperation thus may have deeper phylogenetic roots than previously suspected.

Young children display an increase in prosocial donating in response to an upwards shift in generosity by a same-aged peer

Adult humans frequently engage in the reciprocal exchange of resources with other individuals. However, despite the important role that reciprocity plays in maintaining co-operative exchange we know relatively little of when, and how, reciprocity develops. We first asked whether pairs of young children (M = 74 months) would engage in direct reciprocity in a ‘prosocial choice test’ where a donor could select either a higher, or a lower, value reward (1v 2) for a partner at no cost to themselves (1v 1). In a subsequent retest we asked, for the first time, whether young children increase their level of prosocial donating in response to an upwards shift in generosity from an initially selfish partner. In order to determine whether interacting with another child was fundamental to the development of reciprocity we included a novel yoked non-agent condition. The results suggest that the children were engaging in a calculated form of reciprocity where the prior behavior of their child partner influenced their subsequent level of donation days after the initial exchange. Crucially we show that the children were not influenced by the value of the rewards received per se, rather selection by a human agent was key to reciprocity.

Task Differences and Prosociality; Investigating Pet Dogs' Prosocial Preferences in a Token Choice Paradigm

Prosociality has received increasing interest by non-human animal researchers since the initial discoveries that suggested it is not a uniquely human trait. However, thus far studies, even within the same species, have not garnered conclusive results. A prominent suggestion for this disparity is the effect methodology can have on prosocial responses in animals. We recently found evidence of prosociality in domestic dogs towards familiar conspecifics using a bar-pulling paradigm, in which a subject could pull a rope to deliver food to its partner. Therefore, the current study aimed to assess whether dogs would show a similar response in a different paradigm, based on the token exchange task paradigm frequently used with primates. In this task, dogs had the option to touch a token with their nose that delivered a reward to an adjacent receiver enclosure, which contained a familiar conspecific, a stranger or no dog at all. Crucially, we also included a social facilitation control condition, whereby the partner (stranger/familiar) was present but unable to access the food. We found that the familiarity effect remained consistent across tasks, with dogs of both the bar-pulling and token choice experiments providing more food to familiar partners than in a non-social control and providing less food to stranger partners than this same control. However, in contrast to our previous bar-pulling experiment, we could not exclude social facilitation as an underlying motive in the current task. We propose this difference in results between tasks may be related to increased task complexity in the token choice paradigm, making it harder for dogs to discriminate between the test and social facilitation conditions. Overall our findings suggest that subtle methodological changes can have an impact on prosocial behaviours in dogs and highlights the importance of controlling for social facilitation effects in such experiments.

The nature of prosociality in chimpanzees

An important debate centres around the nature of prosociality in nonhuman primates. Chimpanzees help other individuals in some experimental settings, yet they do not readily share food. One solution to this paradox is that they are motivated to help others provided there are no competing interests. However, benefits to recipients could arise as by-products of testing. Here we report two studies that separate by-product from intended helping in chimpanzees using a GO/NO-GO paradigm. Actors in one group could help a recipient by releasing a food box, but the same action for another group prevented a recipient from being able to get food. We find no evidence for helping-chimpanzees engaged in the test regardless of the effects on their partners. Illusory prosocial behaviour could arise as a by-product of task design.

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.

Critical issues in experimental studies of prosociality in non-human species

Prosociality and acts of altruism are defined as behaviours which benefit another with either no gain or some immediate cost to the self. To understand the evolutionary origins of these behaviours, in recent years, studies have extended to primate species; however, studies on non-primates are still scarce. In light of the fact that phylogenetic closeness to humans does not appear to correlate with prosocial tendencies, but rather differences in the propensity towards prosociality may be linked to allomaternal care or collaborative foraging, it appears that convergent selection pressures may be at work in the evolution of prosociality. It would hence seem particularly important to extend such studies to species outside the primate clade, to allow for comparative hypothesis testing of the factors affecting the evolution of prosocial behaviours. In the current review, we focus on the experimental paradigms which have been used so far (i.e. the prosocial choice task, helping paradigms and food-sharing tests) and highlight the strengths and weaknesses of each method. In line with the aim of encouraging a broader comparative approach to the topic of prosociality, particular emphasis is placed on the methodological issues that need to be taken into account. We conclude that although a number of the paradigms used so far may be successfully applied to non-primate species, there is a need to simplify the cognitive demands of the tasks and ensure task comprehension to allow for a 'fair' comparative approach of prosocial tendencies across species.

Prosocial Choice in Rats Depends on Food-Seeking Behavior Displayed by Recipients

Animals often are prosocial, displaying behaviors that result in a benefit to one another [1-15] even in the absence of self-benefit [16-21] (but see [22-25]). Several factors have been proposed to modulate these behaviors, namely familiarity [6, 13, 18, 20] or display of seeking behavior [16, 21]. Rats have been recently shown to be prosocial under distress [17, 18] (but see [26-29]); however, what drives prosociality in these animals remains unclear. To address this issue, we developed a two-choice task in which prosocial behavior did not yield a benefit or a cost to the focal rat. We used a double T-maze in which only the focal rat controlled access to the food-baited arms of its own and the recipient rat's maze. In this task, the focal rat could choose between one side of the maze, which yielded food only to itself (selfish choice), and the opposite side, which yielded food to itself and the recipient rat (prosocial choice). Rats showed a high proportion of prosocial choices. By manipulating reward delivery to the recipient and its ability to display a preference for the baited arm, we found that the display of food-seeking behavior leading to reward was necessary to drive prosocial choices. In addition, we found that there was more social investigation between rats in selfish trials than in prosocial trials, which may have influenced the focals' choices. This study shows that rats provide access to food to others in the absence of added direct self-benefit, bringing new insights into the factors that drive prosociality.

Estudios Sobre Cooperación en Perros Domésticos: una Revisión Crítica

El análisis comparado de la cooperación contribuye al entendimiento tanto de sus orígenes evolutivos como de los mecanismos próximos involucrados en dicho fenómeno. Esta revisión se centra en estudios sobre cooperación en perros domésticos. Para ello se definieron conceptos relacionados con la cooperación, se describieron las razones filogenéticas y ontogenéticas que hacen del perro un buen modelo para el estudio de este fenómeno y se hizo una revisión crítica de los trabajos realizados en este campo. Fueron incluidas investigaciones sobre situaciones cooperativas y sobre las habilidades cognitivas involucradas. Se discuten hipótesis sobre los mecanismos próximos de esta habilidad que incluyen elementos emocionales, motivacionales y de aprendizaje asociativo.

Orangutans (Pongo spp.) do not spontaneously share benefits with familiar conspecifics in a choice paradigm

Humans are thought to be unique in their ability to help others voluntarily even though it may sometimes incur substantial costs. However, there are a growing number of studies showing that prosocial behaviors can be observed, not only in humans, but also among nonhuman primates that live in complex social groups. Prosociality has often been described as a major factor that facilitates group living. Nonetheless, it has seldom been explored whether solitary living primates, such as orangutans, share this propensity. In the present study, we tested four captive orangutans (Pongo abelii × pigmaeus, Pongo pigmaeus) in a simple food-delivering task. They had a choice, incurring the same cost, between getting a food reward for themselves and providing an additional food reward to a conspecific recipient passively sitting in an adjacent booth. Two orangutans played the actor's role, and two orangutans participated as recipients. The results showed that the actors did not choose to deliver food to the recipients more often than expected by chance (51.3 % on average). The control condition demonstrated that this tendency was independent of the actor's understanding of the task. These findings suggest that orangutans do not spontaneously share benefits with other conspecifics, even when the prosocial choice does not disadvantage them. This study gives the first experimental evidence that socially housed captive orangutans do not behave prosocially in a choice paradigm experiment. Further studies using a different experimental paradigm should be conducted to examine whether this tendency is consistent with previous findings hypothesizing that the enhanced prosocial propensity shown in humans and other group living primates is an evolutionary outcome of living in complex social environments.

Lack of prosociality in great apes, capuchin monkeys and spider monkeys: convergent evidence from two different food distribution tasks

Prosociality can be defined as any behaviour performed to alleviate the needs of others or to improve their welfare. Prosociality has probably played an essential role in the evolution of cooperative behaviour and several studies have already investigated it in primates to understand the evolutionary origins of human prosociality. Two main tasks have been used to test prosociality in a food context. In the Platforms task, subjects can prosocially provide food to a partner by selecting a prosocial platform over a selfish one. In the Tokens task, subjects can prosocially provide food to a partner by selecting a prosocial token over a selfish one. As these tasks have provided mixed results, we used both tasks to test prosociality in great apes, capuchin monkeys and spider monkeys. Our results provided no compelling evidence of prosociality in a food context in any of the species tested. Additionally, our study revealed serious limitations of the Tokens task as it has been previously used. These results highlight the importance of controlling for confounding variables and of using multiple tasks to address inconsistencies present in the literature.

Evolution of microbial markets

Biological market theory has been used successfully to explain cooperative behavior in many animal species. Microbes also engage in cooperative behaviors, both with hosts and other microbes, that can be described in economic terms. However, a market approach is not traditionally used to analyze these interactions. Here, we extend the biological market framework to ask whether this theory is of use to evolutionary biologists studying microbes. We consider six economic strategies used by microbes to optimize their success in markets. We argue that an economic market framework is a useful tool to generate specific and interesting predictions about microbial interactions, including the evolution of partner discrimination, hoarding strategies, specialized versus diversified mutualistic services, and the role of spatial structures, such as flocks and consortia. There is untapped potential for studying the evolutionary dynamics of microbial systems. Market theory can help structure this potential by characterizing strategic investment of microbes across a diversity of conditions.

Preschool children fail primate prosocial game because of attentional task demands

Various nonhuman primate species have been tested with prosocial games (i.e. derivates from dictator games) in order to better understand the evolutionary origin of proactive prosociality in humans. Results of these efforts are mixed, and it is difficult to disentangle true species differences from methodological artifacts. We tested 2- to 5-year-old children with a costly and a cost-free version of a prosocial game that differ with regard to the payoff distribution and are widely used with nonhuman primates. Simultaneously, we assessed the subjects' level of Theory of Mind understanding. Prosocial behavior was demonstrated with the prosocial game, and did not increase with more advanced Theory of Mind understanding. However, prosocial behavior could only be detected with the costly version of the game, whereas the children failed the cost-free version that is most commonly used with nonhuman primates. A detailed comparison of the children's behavior in the two versions of the game indicates that the failure was due to higher attentional demands of the cost-free version, rather than to a lack of prosociality per se. Our results thus show (i) that subtle differences in prosociality tasks can substantially bias the outcome and thus prevent meaningful species comparisons, and (ii) that like in nonhuman primates, prosocial behavior in human children does not require advanced Theory of Mind understanding in the present context. However, both developmental and comparative psychology accumulate increasing evidence for the multidimensionality of prosocial behaviors, suggesting that different forms of prosociality are also regulated differentially. For future efforts to understand the evolutionary origin of prosociality it is thus crucial to take this heterogeneity into account.