Fundamental problems with the cooperative breeding hypothesis. A reply to Burkart & van Schaik

Prosociality in a despotic society

Prosociality is the intent to improve others' well-being. Existing hypotheses postulate that enhanced social tolerance and inter-individual dependence may facilitate prosocial preferences, which may favor the evolution of altruism. While most studies are restricted to "tolerant" (cooperatively breeding and self-domesticated) species, despotic societies provide an alternative opportunity to investigate prosociality due to nepotism and ample inter-individual dependencies. Japanese macaques live in hierarchical matrilineal societies, with strong kin bonds. Besides, tolerance among non-kin may persist through reciprocity. Using a group service food-provision paradigm, we found prosocial preferences in a semi free-ranging group of Japanese macaques. The extent of provisioning was at levels comparable to tolerant species. Dyadic tolerance predicted the likelihood and magnitude of provisioning, while kinship predicted the magnitude. We emphasize the role of a complex socio-ecology fostering individual prosocial tendencies through kinship and tolerance. These findings necessitate a framework including different forms of interdependence beyond the generally tolerant species.

Problems with using comparative analyses of avian brain size to test hypotheses of cognitive evolution

There are multiple hypotheses for the evolution of cognition. The most prominent hypotheses are the Social Intelligence Hypothesis (SIH) and the Ecological Intelligence Hypothesis (EIH), which are often pitted against one another. These hypotheses tend to be tested using broad-scale comparative studies of brain size, where brain size is used as a proxy of cognitive ability, and various social and/or ecological variables are included as predictors. Here, we test how robust conclusions drawn from such analyses may be. First, we investigate variation in brain and body size measurements across >1000 bird species. We demonstrate that there is substantial variation in brain and body size estimates across datasets, indicating that conclusions drawn from comparative brain size models are likely to differ depending on the source of the data. Following this, we subset our data to the Corvides infraorder and interrogate how modelling decisions impact results. We show that model results change substantially depending on variable inclusion, source and classification. Indeed, we could have drawn multiple contradictory conclusions about the principal drivers of brain size evolution. These results reflect concerns from a growing number of researchers that conclusions drawn from comparative brain size studies may not be robust. We suggest that to interrogate hypotheses of cognitive evolution, a fruitful way forward is to focus on testing cognitive performance within and between closely related taxa, with an emphasis on understanding the relationship between informational uncertainty and cognitive evolution.

The human fear paradox: Affective origins of cooperative care

Already as infants humans are more fearful than our closest living primate relatives, the chimpanzees. Yet heightened fearfulness is mostly considered maladaptive, as it is thought to increase the risk of developing anxiety and depression. How can this human fear paradox be explained? The fearful ape hypothesis presented herein stipulates that, in the context of cooperative caregiving and provisioning unique to human great ape group life, heightened fearfulness was adaptive. This is because from early in ontogeny fearfulness expressed and perceived enhanced care-based responding and provisioning from, while concurrently increasing cooperation with, mothers and others. This explanation is based on a synthesis of existing research with human infants and children, demonstrating a link between fearfulness, greater sensitivity to and accuracy in detecting fear in others, and enhanced levels of cooperative behaviors. These insights critically advance current evolutionary theories of human cooperation by adding an early-developing affective component to the human cooperative makeup. Moreover, the current proposal has important cultural, societal, and health implications, as it challenges the predominant view in Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic (WEIRD) societies that commonly construe fearfulness as a maladaptive trait, potentially ignoring its evolutionary adaptive functions.

Neurobiology of Loneliness, Isolation, and Loss: Integrating Human and Animal Perspectives

In social species such as humans, non-human primates, and even many rodent species, social interaction and the maintenance of social bonds are necessary for mental and physical health and wellbeing. In humans, perceived isolation, or loneliness, is not only characterized by physical isolation from peers or loved ones, but also involves negative perceptions about social interactions and connectedness that reinforce the feelings of isolation and anxiety. As a complex behavioral state, it is no surprise that loneliness and isolation are associated with dysfunction within the ventral striatum and the limbic system - brain regions that regulate motivation and stress responsiveness, respectively. Accompanying these neural changes are physiological symptoms such as increased plasma and urinary cortisol levels and an increase in stress responsivity. Although studies using animal models are not perfectly analogous to the uniquely human state of loneliness, studies on the effects of social isolation in animals have observed similar physiological symptoms such as increased corticosterone, the rodent analog to human cortisol, and also display altered motivation, increased stress responsiveness, and dysregulation of the mesocortical dopamine and limbic systems. This review will discuss behavioral and neuropsychological components of loneliness in humans, social isolation in rodent models, and the neurochemical regulators of these behavioral phenotypes with a neuroanatomical focus on the corticostriatal and limbic systems. We will also discuss social loss as a unique form of social isolation, and the consequences of bond disruption on stress-related behavior and neurophysiology.

Adult bonobos show no prosociality in both prosocial choice task and group service paradigm

Previous studies reported contrasting conclusions concerning bonobo prosociality, which are likely due to differences in the experimental design, the social dynamics among subjects and characteristics of the subjects themselves. Two hypotheses have been proposed to explain the occurrence of prosociality in animals: the cooperative breeding hypothesis and the self-domestication hypothesis. While the former predicts low levels of prosociality in bonobos because they are non-cooperative breeders, the latter predicts high levels of prosociality because self-domestication has been proposed to select for high levels of tolerance in this species. Here, we presented a group of thirteen bonobos with two platform food-provisioning tasks: the prosocial choice task (PCT) and the group service paradigm (GSP). The latter has so far never been applied to bonobos. To allow for free choice of participation and partner, we implemented both tasks in a group setting. Like in previous PCT studies, bonobos did not choose the prosocial option more often when a group member could benefit vs not benefit. In the GSP, where food provisioning is costly, only subadult bonobos showed a limited amount of food provisioning, which was much lower than what was previously reported for chimpanzees. In both experiments, adult subjects were highly motivated to obtain rewards for themselves, suggesting that bonobos behaved indifferently to the gains of group members. We suggest that previous positive food-provisioning prosociality results in bonobos are mainly driven by the behaviour of subadult subjects. The lack of prosociality in this study corresponds to the hypothesis that proactive food provisioning co-occurs with cooperative breeding and suggests that proactive prosociality might not be part of the self-domestication syndrome in bonobos.

The expression of care: Alloparental care frequency predicts neural control of facial muscles in primates

The adaptive value of facial expressions has been debated in evolutionary biology ever since Darwin's seminal work. Among mammals, primates, including humans, exhibit the most intricate facial displays. Although previous work has focused on the role of sociality in the evolution of primate facial expressions, this relationship has not been verified in a wide sample of species. Here, we examine the relationship between allomaternal care (paternal or alloparental) and the morphology of three orofacial brainstem nuclei (facial; trigeminal motor; hypoglossal) across primates to test the hypothesis that allomaternal care explains variation in the complexity of facial expressions, proxied by relative facial nucleus size and neuropil fraction. The latter represents the proportion of synaptically dense tissue and may, therefore, correlate with dexterity. We find that alloparental care frequency predicts relative neuropil fraction of the facial nucleus, even after controlling for social system organization, whereas allomaternal care is not associated with the trigeminal motor or hypoglossal nuclei. Overall, this work suggests that alloparenting requires increased facial dexterity to facilitate nonverbal communication between infants and their nonparent caregivers and/or between caregivers. Accordingly, alloparenting and complex facial expressions are likely to have coevolved in primates.

How animals collaborate: Underlying proximate mechanisms

Collaboration or social interactions in which two or more individuals coordinate their behavior to produce outcomes from which both individuals benefit are common in nature. Individuals from many species hunt together, defend their territory, and form coalitions in intragroup competition. However, we still know very little about the proximate mechanisms underlying these behaviors. Recent theories of human cognitive evolution have emphasized the role collaboration may have played in the selection of socio-cognitive skills. It has been argued that the capacity to form shared goals and joint intentions with others, is what allows humans to collaborate so flexibly and efficiently. Although there is no evidence that nonhuman animals are capable of shared intentionality, there is conceivably a wide range of proximate mechanisms that support forms of, potentially flexible, collaboration in other species. We review the experimental literature with the aim of evaluating what we know about how other species achieve collaboration; with a particular focus on chimpanzees. We structure the review with a new categorization of collaborative behavior that focuses on whether individuals intentionally coordinate actions with others. We conclude that for a wider comparative perspective we need more data from other species but the findings so far suggest that chimpanzees, and possibly other great apes, are capable of understanding the causal role of a partner in collaboration. This article is categorized under: Cognitive Biology > Evolutionary Roots of Cognition Psychology > Comparative Psychology.

Hypotheses for the Evolution of Reduced Reactive Aggression in the Context of Human Self-Domestication

Parallels in anatomy between humans and domesticated mammals suggest that for the last 300,000 years, Homo sapiens has experienced more intense selection against the propensity for reactive aggression than other species of Homo. Selection against reactive aggression, a process that can also be called self-domestication, would help explain various physiological, behavioral, and cognitive features of humans, including the unique system of egalitarian male hierarchy in mobile hunter-gatherers. Here I review nine leading proposals for the occurrence of self-domestication in H. sapiens. To account for the domestication syndrome, proposals must explain what led to a decline in fitness of highly aggressive males, and why the explanatory factor applies only to H. sapiens and not to other species of Homo. The proposed explanations invoke genetic group selection; group-structured culture selection (also known as cultural group selection); social selection by female mate choice; social selection by male partner choice; increased self-control; cooperative breeding; high population density; use of lethal weapons; and language-based conspiracy. Most of these proposals face difficulties in accounting for the origins and/or maintenance of reduced reactive aggression. I conclude that the evolution of language-based conspiracy, which is a form of collective intentionality, was the key factor initiating and maintaining self-domestication in H. sapiens, because it is the most convincing mechanism for explaining the selective pressure against individually powerful fighters. Sophisticated language enabled males of low fighting prowess to cooperatively plan the execution of physically aggressive and domineering alpha males. This system is known today as a leveling mechanism in small-scale societies. Group-structured culture selection possibly accelerated the process.

Looking for unity in diversity: human cooperative childcare in comparative perspective

Humans engage in cooperative childcare, which includes some elements not found in other animals, such as the presence of post-reproductive helpers, extensive food sharing among adults and a pervasive sexual division of labour. In animals, cooperative offspring care has typically been studied in two different contexts. The first mainly involves helpers contributing care in cooperatively breeding family groups; the second context is allomaternal care in species usually not categorized as cooperative breeders (e.g. plural and communal breeders, often without male care). Comparative analyses suggest that cooperative breeding and allomaternal care in plural and communal breeders have distinct evolutionary origins, with humans fitting neither pathway entirely. Nevertheless, some critical proximate mechanisms of helping, including hormonal regulators, are likely to be shared across species. Other mechanisms may vary among species, such as social tolerance, proactive prosociality or conditional mother-infant bonding. These are presumably associated with specific details of the care system, such as whether all group members contribute, or whether mothers can potentially raise offspring alone. Thus, cooperative offspring care is seen in different contexts across animal lineages, but may nonetheless share several important psychological characteristics. We end by discussing how work on humans may play a unifying role in studying cooperative offspring care.

Ospreys do not teach offspring how to kill prey at the nest

There is strong evidence for teaching in only a handful of species, most of which are cooperative breeders, leading some researchers to suggest that teaching may be more likely to evolve in such species. Alternatively, this initial distribution could be an artefact of the popularity and tractability of cooperative breeders as behavioural study systems. Therefore, establishing or refuting this potential evolutionary link requires researchers to assess potential cases of teaching in more non-cooperatively breeding species. We tested for teaching in the osprey ( Pandion haliaetus ), a non-cooperatively-breeding bird anecdotally reported to teach hunting skills to their offspring. We tested whether parents brought back more live prey to the nest as their offspring got older, allowing the latter to practice killing prey in a manner analogous to the progressive teaching seen in meerkats. We found the opposite trend to that predicted by the teaching hypothesis, indicating that ospreys do not teach their young at the nest.

Harnessing learning biases is essential for applying social learning in conservation

Social learning can influence how animals respond to anthropogenic changes in the environment, determining whether animals survive novel threats and exploit novel resources or produce maladaptive behaviour and contribute to human-wildlife conflict. Predicting where social learning will occur and manipulating its use are, therefore, important in conservation, but doing so is not straightforward. Learning is an inherently biased process that has been shaped by natural selection to prioritize important information and facilitate its efficient uptake. In this regard, social learning is no different from other learning processes because it too is shaped by perceptual filters, attentional biases and learning constraints that can differ between habitats, species, individuals and contexts. The biases that constrain social learning are not understood well enough to accurately predict whether or not social learning will occur in many situations, which limits the effective use of social learning in conservation practice. Nevertheless, we argue that by tapping into the biases that guide the social transmission of information, the conservation applications of social learning could be improved. We explore the conservation areas where social learning is highly relevant and link them to biases in the cues and contexts that shape social information use. The resulting synthesis highlights many promising areas for collaboration between the fields and stresses the importance of systematic reviews of the evidence surrounding social learning practices.