Male monkeys use punishment and coercion to de-escalate costly intergroup fights

In search of animal normativity: a framework for studying social norms in non-human animals

Social norms - rules governing which behaviours are deemed appropriate or inappropriate within a given community - are typically taken to be uniquely human. Recently, this position has been challenged by a number of philosophers, cognitive scientists, and ethologists, who have suggested that social norms may also be found in certain non-human animal communities. Such claims have elicited considerable scepticism from norm cognition researchers, who doubt that any non-human animals possess the psychological capacities necessary for normative cognition. However, there is little agreement among these researchers about what these psychological prerequisites are. This makes empirical study of animal social norms difficult, since it is not clear what we are looking for and thus what should count as behavioural evidence for the presence (or absence) of social norms in animals. To break this impasse, we offer an approach that moves beyond contested psychological criteria for social norms. This approach is inspired by the animal culture research program, which has made a similar shift away from heavily psychological definitions of 'culture' to become organised around a cluster of more empirically tractable concepts of culture. Here, we propose an analogous set of constructs built around the core notion of a normative regularity, which we define as a socially maintained pattern of behavioural conformity within a community. We suggest methods for studying potential normative regularities in wild and captive primates. We also discuss the broader scientific and philosophical implications of this research program with respect to questions of human uniqueness, animal welfare and conservation.

Human and nonhuman norms: a dimensional framework

Human communities teem with a variety of social norms. In order to change unjust and harmful social norms, it is crucial to identify the psychological processes that give rise to them. Most researchers take it for granted that social norms are uniquely human. By contrast, we approach this matter from a comparative perspective, leveraging recent research on animal social behaviour. While there is currently only suggestive evidence for norms in nonhuman communities, we argue that human social norms are likely produced by a wide range of mechanisms, many of which we share with nonhuman animals. Approaching this variability from a comparative perspective can help norm researchers expand and reframe the range of hypotheses they test when attempting to understand the causes of socially normative behaviours in humans. First, we diagnose some of the theoretical obstacles to developing a comparative science of social norms, and offer a few basic constructs and distinctions to help norm researchers overcome these obstacles. Then we develop a six-dimensional model of the psychological and social factors that contribute to variability in both human and potential nonhuman norms. This article is part of the theme issue 'Social norm change: drivers and consequences'.

Context-dependent alarm responses in wild vervet monkeys

The alarm calls of nonhuman primates are occasionally cited as functionally equivalent to lexical word meaning in human language. Recently, however, it has become increasingly unlikely that one-to-one relations between alarm call structures and predator categories are the default, mainly because many call types are produced in multiple contexts, requiring more complex notions of meaning. For example, male vervet monkeys produce the same alarm calls during encounters with terrestrial predators and neighbouring groups, suggesting that recipients require additional information to attribute meaning to the calls. We empirically tested the hypothesis that vervet monkeys take contextual information into account when responding to each other's alarm calls. In playback experiments, we exposed subjects to recordings of male alarm barks during actual intergroup encounters (predator unlikely) or when there was no intergroup encounter (predator likely). Subjects responded more strongly in the no intergroup encounter situations, typically associated with discovering a hiding predator, measured in terms of startle responses, vigilance behaviour and gazing towards the presumed caller. We discuss the significance of using contextual information for meaning attribution in nonhuman primate communication.

Optimizing the social utility of judicial punishment: An evolutionary biology and neuroscience perspective

Punishment as a response to impairment of individual or group welfare may be found not only among humans but also among a wide range of social animals. In some cases, acts of punishment serve to increase social cooperation among conspecifics. Such phenomena motivate the search for the biological foundations of punishment among humans. Of special interest are cases of pro-social punishment of individuals harming others. Behavioral studies have shown that in economic games people punish exploiters even at a cost to their own welfare. Additionally, neuroimaging studies have reported activity during the planning of such punishment in brain areas involved in the anticipation of reward. Such findings hint that there is an evolutionarily honed basic drive to punish social offenders. I argue that the transfer of punishment authority from the individual to the group requires that social offenders be punished as a public good, even if such punishment is not effective as retribution or deterrent. Furthermore, the social need for punishment of offenders has implications for alternatives to incarceration, publicity of punishment, and judicial structure.

Male services during between-group conflict: the 'hired gun' hypothesis revisited

In many group-living mammals, philopatric females form the stable core of the group and defend food or shelter against other groups of females. Where males are larger, their participation could give their female group the edge. How can females secure the contribution of males that are neither the father of current infants, nor the dominant male expecting to sire the next generation of infants? It has been proposed that females recruit these males as 'hired guns', receiving social support and copulations in exchange for fighting, against the interests of the dominant male. We first develop the logic of this hypothesis in unprecedented detail by considering the potential pay-off consequences for females and males. We then provide empirical evidence for the existence of hired guns in this context in several primate species. The game-theoretical aspects of the phenomenon remain to be studied, as is the distribution across contexts (e.g. predation avoidance) and species of the hired gun phenomenon. This article is part of the theme issue 'Intergroup conflict across taxa'.

Key individuals catalyse intergroup violence

Intergroup violence is challenging to understand: why do individuals cooperate to harm members of other groups when they themselves may be killed or injured? Despite progress in understanding the evolutionary and proximate mechanisms that underlie violence, we still have little insight into the processes that lead to the emergence of coalitionary aggression. We argue that an overlooked component is the presence of individuals who have a crucial role in initiating violence. In instigating intergroup violence, these key individuals may expect to face lower costs, receive greater benefits, or garner benefits that have a greater value to them than others. Alternatively, key individuals may be motivated by individual traits such as increased boldness, propensity for aggression or exploratory behaviour. Key individuals catalyse the emergence of coalitionary violence through one of several processes including altering the costs and benefits that accrue to others, paying a greater share of the startup costs, signalling privileged knowledge, or providing coordination, among other factors. Here we integrate diverse lines of empirical research from humans and non-human animals demonstrating that inter-individual variation is an important factor in the emergence of intergroup violence. Focusing on the role of key individuals provides new insights into how and why violence emerges. This article is part of the theme issue 'Intergroup conflict across taxa'.

Sex bias in intergroup conflict and collective movements among social mammals: male warriors and female guides

Intergroup conflict is a major evolutionary force shaping animal and human societies. Males and females should, on average, experience different costs and benefits for participating in collective action. Specifically, among mammals, male fitness is generally limited by access to mates whereas females are limited by access to food and safety. Here we analyse sex biases among 72 species of group-living mammals in two contexts: intergroup conflict and collective movements. Our comparative phylogenetic analyses show that the modal mammalian pattern is male-biased participation in intergroup conflict and female-biased leadership in collective movements. However, the probability of male-biased participation in intergroup conflicts decreased and female-biased participation increased with female-biased leadership in movements. Thus, female-biased participation in intergroup conflict only emerged in species with female-biased leadership in collective movements, such as in spotted hyenas and some lemurs. Sex differences are probably attributable to costs and benefits of participating in collective movements (e.g. towards food, water, safety) and intergroup conflict (e.g. access to mates or resources, risk of injury). Our comparative review offers new insights into the factors shaping sex bias in leadership across social mammals and is consistent with the 'male warrior hypothesis' which posits evolved sex differences in human intergroup psychology. This article is part of the theme issue 'Intergroup conflict across taxa'.

Variation between species, populations, groups and individuals in the fitness consequences of out-group conflict

Out-group conflict is rife in the natural world, occurring from primates to ants. Traditionally, research on this aspect of sociality has focused on the interactions between groups and their conspecific rivals, investigating contest function and characteristics, which group members participate and what determines who wins. In recent years, however, there has been increasing interest in the consequences of out-group conflict. In this review, we first set the scene by outlining the fitness consequences that can arise immediately to contest participants, as well as a broader range of delayed, cumulative and third-party effects of out-group conflict on survival and reproductive success. For the majority of the review, we then focus on variation in these fitness consequences of out-group conflict, describing known examples both between species and between populations, groups and individuals of the same species. Throughout, we suggest possible reasons for the variation, provide examples from a diverse array of taxa, and suggest what is needed to advance this burgeoning area of social evolution. This article is part of the theme issue 'Intergroup conflict across taxa'.

An Evolutionary Explanation for the Female Leadership Paradox

Social influence is distributed unequally between males and females in many mammalian societies. In human societies, gender inequality is particularly evident in access to leadership positions. Understanding why women historically and cross-culturally have tended to be under-represented as leaders within human groups and organizations represents a paradox because we lack evidence that women leaders consistently perform worse than men. We also know that women exercise overt influence in collective group-decisions within small-scale human societies, and that female leadership is pervasive in particular contexts across non-human mammalian societies. Here, we offer a transdisciplinary perspective on this female leadership paradox. Synthesis of social science and biological literatures suggests that females and males, on average, differ in why and how they compete for access to political leadership in mixed-gender groups. These differences are influenced by sexual selection and are moderated by socioecological variation across development and, particularly in human societies, by culturally transmitted norms and institutions. The interplay of these forces contributes to the emergence of female leaders within and across species. Furthermore, females may regularly exercise influence on group decisions in less conspicuous ways and different domains than males, and these underappreciated forms of leadership require more study. We offer a comprehensive framework for studying inequality between females and males in access to leadership positions, and we discuss the implications of this approach for understanding the female leadership paradox and for redressing gender inequality in leadership in humans.

Network-level consequences of outgroup threats in banded mongooses: Grooming and aggression between the sexes

Animal groups are heterogeneous assemblages of individuals with differing fitness interests, which may lead to internal conflict over investment in group territorial defence. Differences between individuals may lead to different behavioural responses to intergroup conflict, particularly between the sexes. These potential impacts have been little studied. We used social network analysis to investigate the impact of simulated intergroup conflicts on social relationships in groups of wild banded mongooses Mungos mungo, in which intergroup fights are more costly for males than females. We predicted that social cohesion (specifically male-to-male and female-to-male grooming) would increase after conflict, and aggression would decrease, to minimize conflict between the sexes. Simulated intergroup conflicts were performed by exposing banded mongoose groups to scents, 'war cry' playbacks, and live intruders from a rival group. All grooming and aggression interactions between individuals were recorded, and grooming and aggression social networks were created for the 2 days preceding a simulated intergroup conflict (pre-conflict network) and the 2 days after (post-conflict network). We found no evidence of an increase in social cohesion after simulated conflicts, measured as grooming eigenvector centrality. Male-to-male, male-to-female and female-to-male grooming strength decreased after simulated intrusions compared to female-to-female grooming strength. However, male-female aggression decreased in intrusion trials compared to other interaction types, consistent with the hypothesis that intergroup encounters reduce the level of intragroup conflict between males and females. Males were more affected socially by intergroup encounters than females, which may be because they are investing in defence rather than internal relationships. Focusing on individual relationship changes, using social network analysis, can reveal changes in the directionality of behaviour in response to intergroup encounters, and highlight how individual responses to conflict may scale up to affect social networks and, potentially, group performance. This study highlights the importance of studying both group-level behaviours and individual relationships to more fully understand responses to intergroup encounters.

Interactions with conspecific outsiders as drivers of cognitive evolution

The social intelligence hypothesis (SIH) posits that within-group interactions drive cognitive evolution, but it has received equivocal support. We argue the SIH overlooks a major component of social life: interactions with conspecific outsiders. Competition for vital resources means conspecific outsiders present myriad threats and opportunities in all animal taxa across the social spectrum (from individuals to groups). We detail cognitive challenges generated by conspecific outsiders, arguing these select for ‘Napoleonic’ intelligence; explain potential influences on the SIH; and highlight important considerations when empirically testing these ideas. Including interactions with conspecific outsiders may substantially improve our understanding of cognitive evolution.

The social intelligence hypothesis predicts that social organisms tend to be more intelligent because within-group interactions drive cognitive evolution. Here, authors propose that conspecific outsiders can be just as important in selecting for sophisticated cognitive adaptations.

Effect of Group Size and Individual Characteristics on Intergroup Encounters in Primates

Intergroup encounters are common in nonhuman primates and can vary from affiliative to aggressive. We extracted data from the literature to test five different hypotheses: 1) where there are group size differences between opposing groups, whether the larger group is more likely to win an intergroup encounter than the smaller group; 2) whether the likelihood of a group engaging in aggressive intergroup encounters increases with group size; and 3–5) whether dominant, older individuals, and/or males are more likely to participate aggressively in intergroup encounters than subordinate, younger individuals and/or females. Our data set comprised 52 studies on 31 primate species (3 lemur species, 5 New World monkeys, 19 Old World monkeys, and 4 apes). We found that the larger group is more likely to win an encounter against a smaller group than vice versa. We found no significant relationship between group size and propensity to be aggressive during intergroup encounters. We found weak/no support for the effect of age, dominance rank, and sex on the frequency of aggression displayed toward outgroup individuals during intergroup encounters. Species- and population-specific differences in inter- and intragroup competition and in the degree of the unequal distribution of resources across group members may explain why age, dominance rank, and sex are not strong predictors of aggression during intergroup encounters.

Punishment: one tool, many uses

Humans are outstanding in their ability to cooperate with unrelated individuals, and punishment - paying a cost to harm others - is thought to be a key supporting mechanism. According to this view, cooperators punish defectors, who respond by behaving more cooperatively in future interactions. However, a synthesis of the evidence from laboratory and real-world settings casts serious doubts on the assumption that the sole function of punishment is to convert cheating individuals into cooperators. Instead, punishment often prompts retaliation and punishment decisions frequently stem from competitive, rather than deterrent motives. Punishment decisions often reflect the desire to equalise or elevate payoffs relative to targets, rather than the desire to enact revenge for harm received or to deter cheats from reoffending in future. We therefore suggest that punishment also serves a competitive function, where what looks like spiteful behaviour actually allows punishers to equalise or elevate their own payoffs and/or status relative to targets independently of any change in the target's behaviour. Institutions that reduce or remove the possibility that punishers are motivated by relative payoff or status concerns might offer a way to harness these competitive motives and render punishment more effective at restoring cooperation.

Warfare in an evolutionary perspective

The importance of warfare for human evolution is hotly debated in anthropology. Some authors hypothesize that warfare emerged at least 200,000-100,000 years BP, was frequent, and significantly shaped human social evolution. Other authors claim that warfare is a recent phenomenon, linked to the emergence of agriculture, and mostly explained by cultural rather than evolutionary forces. Here I highlight and critically evaluate six controversial points on the evolutionary bases of warfare. I argue that cultural and evolutionary explanations on the emergence of warfare are not alternative but analyze biological diversity at two distinct levels. An evolved propensity to act aggressively toward outgroup individuals may emerge irrespective of whether warfare appeared early/late during human evolution. Finally, I argue that lethal violence and aggression toward outgroup individuals are two linked but distinct phenomena, and that war and peace are complementary and should not always be treated as two mutually exclusive behavioral responses.

Experimental evidence that intruder and group member attributes affect outgroup defence and associated within-group interactions in a social fish

In many social species, individuals communally defend resources from conspecific outsiders. Participation in defence and in associated within-group interactions, both during and after contests with outgroup rivals, is expected to vary between group members because the threat presented by different outsiders is not the same to each individual. However, experimental tests examining both the contributions to, and the consequences of, outgroup conflict for all group members are lacking. Using groups of the cichlid Neolamprologus pulcher, we simulated territorial intrusions by different-sized female rivals and altered the potential contribution of subordinate females to defence. Dominant females and subordinate females defended significantly more against size- and rank-matched intruders, while males displayed lower and less variable levels of defence. Large and small, but not intermediate-sized, intruders induced increased levels of within-group aggression during intrusions, which was targeted at the subordinate females. Preventing subordinate females from helping in territorial defence led to significant decreases in post-contest within-group and female-specific submissive and affiliative displays. Together, these results show that the defensive contributions of group members vary greatly depending both on their own traits and on intruder identity, and this variation has significant consequences for within-group social dynamics both during and in the aftermath of outgroup contests.

Experimental field evidence that out-group threats influence within-group behavior

In social species, conspecific outsiders present various threats to groups and their members. These out-group threats are predicted to affect subsequent within-group interactions (e.g., affiliation and aggression) and individual behavior (e.g., foraging and vigilance decisions). However, experimental investigations of such consequences are rare, especially in natural conditions. We used field-based call playbacks and fecal presentations on habituated wild dwarf mongooses (Helogale parvula)-a cooperatively breeding, territorial species-to examine postinteraction responses to the simulated threat of a rival group. Dwarf mongooses invested more in grooming of groupmates, foraged closer together, and more regularly acted as sentinels (a raised guard) after encountering indicators of rival-group presence compared to control conditions. These behavioral changes likely arise from greater anxiety and, in the case of increased vigilance, the need to seek additional information about the threat. The influence of an out-group threat lasted at least 1 h but individuals of different dominance status and sex responded similarly, potentially because all group members suffer costs if a contest with rivals is lost. Our results provide field-based experimental evidence from wild animals that out-group threats can influence within-group behavior and decision making, and suggest the need for greater consideration of the lasting impacts of social conflict.

Between-group attack and defence in an ecological setting: Insights from nonhuman animals

Attempts to understand the fundamental forces shaping conflict between attacking and defending groups can be hampered by a narrow focus on humans and reductionist, oversimplified modelling. Further progress depends on recognising the striking parallels in between-group conflict across the animal kingdom, harnessing the power of experimental tests in nonhuman species and modelling the eco-evolutionary feedbacks that drive attack and defence.

Male monkeys use punishment and coercion to de-escalate costly intergroup fights

In numerous social species, males direct aggression towards female group members during intergroup fights, and this behaviour is commonly thought to function as mate guarding, even though males often target non-receptive females. In studying intergroup fights in a wild population of vervet monkeys, we found that male intragroup aggression was primarily directed towards individuals who had either just finished exhibiting, or were currently attempting to instigate intergroup aggression. Targeted females were less likely to instigate intergroup aggression in the future, indicating that male intragroup aggression functioned as coercion (when directed towards those who were currently trying to instigate a fight) and punishment (when directed towards those who had recently fought). These manipulative tactics effectively prevented intergroup encounters from escalating into fights and often de-escalated ongoing conflicts. Males who were likely sires were those most likely to use punishment/coercion, particularly when they were wounded, and, therefore, less able to protect vulnerable offspring should a risky intergroup fight erupt. This work, along with our previous finding that females use punishment and rewards to recruit males into participating in intergroup fights, highlights the inherent conflict of interest that exists between the sexes, as well as the role that social incentives can play in resolving this conflict. Furthermore, unlike other studies which have found punishment to be used asymmetrically between partners, these works represent a novel example of reciprocal punishment in a non-human animal.