Emotional bookkeeping and high partner selectivity are necessary for the emergence of partner-specific reciprocal affiliation in an agent-based model of primate groups

Prosociality and reciprocity in capybaras (Hydrochoerus hydrochaeris) in a non-reproductive context

Prosocial behaviours (providing benefits to a recipient with or without cost for the donor) have been found to be highly influenced by sex and by hierarchy. Rodents, in particular, are good model for studying prosocial responses, as they were found to exhibit intentional prosocial behaviours to reward a conspecific, and are very sensitive to reciprocity. In our study, we conducted a Prosocial Choice Test (PCT) in which four capybaras (Hydrochoerus hydrochaeris) living in a social group could choose between three tokens: choosing the prosocial token rewarded simultaneously the subject and a recipient, while choosing the selfish token only rewarded the subject; and choosing the null token provided no reward to anyone. Dominance within each dyad was also studied, both before and during the PCT experiment. Our results showed an influence of hierarchy: subjects were more prosocial towards the recipient when it was a subordinate than when it was a dominant individual. These results could be interpreted as a desire of strengthening a hierarchical rank regarding the subordinate, of punishing aggressive conspecifics (usually the subject's direct dominant), and of weakening dominant individuals in order to modify the pre-existing hierarchy. Additionally, our results highlighted a direct reciprocity phenomenon, a subject being more likely to be prosocial towards a prosocial recipient. All these findings suggest that prosociality could be well developed in other taxa than Primates and that, in long enough PCT experiments, subtle rules could influence individual prosocial strategies.

Emotional bookkeeping and differentiated affiliative relationships: Exploring the role of dynamics and speed in updating relationship quality in the EMO-model

Emotional bookkeeping is the process by which primates integrate the emotional effects of social interactions to form internal representations of their affiliative relationships. The dynamics and speed of this process, which comprises the formation, maintenance and fading out of affiliative relationships, are not clear. Empirical data suggest that affiliative relationships are slowly formed and do not easily fade out. The EMO-model, an agent-based model designed to simulate the social life of primates capable of emotional bookkeeping, was used to explore the effects of different types of internal relationship dynamics and speeds of increase and decrease of relationship strength. In the original EMO-model the internal dynamics involves a fast built-up of a relationship independent of its current quality, alongside a relatively fast fading out of relationship quality. Here we explore the effect of this original dynamics and an alternative dynamics more in line with empirical data, in combination with different speeds of internal relationship quality increase and decrease, on the differentiation and stability of affiliative relationships. The alternative dynamics leads to more differentiated and stable affiliative relationships than the original dynamics, especially when the speed with which internal relationship quality increases is low and the speed with which it decreases is intermediate. Consequently, individuals can groom different group members with varying frequency and support a rich social life with stable preferred partners and attention to several others. In conclusion, differentiated and stable affiliative relationships are especially formed when friends are not made too quickly and not forgotten too easily.

How to Get the Biggest Slice of the Cake. A Comparative View of Social Behaviour and Resource Access in Human Children and Nonhuman Primates

Social complexity results from engaging in different classes of social behaviour. The presence of different classes of social behaviour is reflected in multidimensional concepts of social asymmetry, found in both human and nonhuman primates. Based on an overview of such concepts, we propose that three classes of social behaviour are involved in having access to scarce and desired resources: next to aggressive and affiliative behaviour, also action indicating behaviour (i.e., inspire another individual to follow one's example or intentions) may lead to resource access. Studies with nonhuman primate and human children show that the contribution of aggression and affiliation to resource access has been widely documented and that there is initial support for action indicating behaviour. In addition, the studies show similarities and differences in conceptualization and approach that may inspire future research. Future research should address the (in)dependency of the behavioural dimensions, their relative importance, individual differences in combined expression and the type of resources accessed. Only a multi-dimensional view on behaviour leading to resource access will highlight the benefits of social complexity.

What matters for cooperation? The importance of social relationship over cognition

Cooperation is vital for the survival of many species and has been extensively researched at the ultimate level however, there is a considerable degree of variation within a given species in the extent of cooperative behaviours exhibited. Possible factors that have been discussed to contribute to this variation are the social relationship between the cooperating individuals, but also non-social factors such as inhibitory control. Investigating the performance of wolves, a highly cooperative species, in three experimental cooperative tasks; a coordination (string-pulling) task, a prosocial task and an inequity aversion task, we found that the social relationship between the partners had the largest effects on all tasks, while non-social factors (inhibition, learning speed, causal understanding and persistence) had rather unpredicted, or no effects. The results support the potential importance of relational factors, rather than motivation and cognitive abilities, in driving cooperative interactions.

Inequity aversion in dogs: a review

The study of inequity aversion in animals debuted with a report of the behaviour in capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella). This report generated many debates following a number of criticisms. Ultimately, however, the finding stimulated widespread interest, and multiple studies have since attempted to demonstrate inequity aversion in various other non-human animal species, with many positive results in addition to many studies in which no response to inequity was found. Domestic dogs represent an interesting case as, unlike many primates, they do not respond negatively to inequity in reward quality but do, however, respond negatively to being unrewarded in the presence of a rewarded partner. Numerous studies have been published on inequity aversion in dogs in recent years. Combining three tasks and seven peer-reviewed publications, over 140 individual dogs have been tested in inequity experiments. Consequently, dogs are one of the best studied species in this field and could offer insights into inequity aversion in other non-human animal species. In this review, we summarise and critically evaluate the current evidence for inequity aversion in dogs. Additionally, we provide a comprehensive discussion of two understudied aspects of inequity aversion, the underlying mechanisms and the ultimate function, drawing on the latest findings on these topics in dogs while also placing these developments in the context of what is known, or thought to be the case, in other non-human animal species. Finally, we highlight gaps in our understanding of inequity aversion in dogs and thereby identify potential avenues for future research in this area.

One for You, One for Me

Long-term collaborative relationships require that any jointly produced resources be shared in mutually satisfactory ways. Prototypically, this sharing involves partners dividing up simultaneously available resources, but sometimes the collaboration makes a resource available to only one individual, and any sharing of resources must take place across repeated instances over time. Here, we show that beginning at 5 years of age, human children stabilize cooperation in such cases by taking turns across instances of obtaining a resource. In contrast, chimpanzees do not take turns in this way, and so their collaboration tends to disintegrate over time. Alternating turns in obtaining a collaboratively produced resource does not necessarily require a prosocial concern for the other, but rather requires only a strategic judgment that partners need incentives to continue collaborating. These results suggest that human beings are adapted for thinking strategically in ways that sustain long-term cooperative relationships and that are absent in their nearest primate relatives.

Symmetry-based reciprocity: evolutionary constraints on a proximate mechanism

Background. While the evolution of reciprocal cooperation has attracted an enormous attention, the proximate mechanisms underlying the ability of animals to cooperate reciprocally are comparatively neglected. Symmetry-based reciprocity is a hypothetical proximate mechanism that has been suggested to be widespread among cognitively unsophisticated animals.

Methods. We developed two agent-based models of symmetry-based reciprocity (one relying on an arbitrary tag and the other on interindividual proximity) and tested their ability both to reproduce significant emergent features of cooperation in group living animals and to promote the evolution of cooperation.

Results. Populations formed by agents adopting symmetry-based reciprocity showed differentiated “social relationships” and a positive correlation between cooperation given and received: two common aspects of animal cooperation. However, when reproduction and selection across multiple generations were added to the models, agents adopting symmetry-based reciprocity were outcompeted by selfish agents that never cooperated.

Discussion. In order to evolve, hypothetical proximate mechanisms must be able to stand competition from alternative strategies. While the results of our simulations require confirmation using analytical methods, we provisionally suggest symmetry-based reciprocity is to be abandoned as a possible proximate mechanism underlying the ability of animals to reciprocate cooperative interactions.

Reciprocity in group-living animals: partner control versus partner choice

Reciprocity is probably the most debated of the evolutionary explanations for cooperation. Part of the confusion surrounding this debate stems from a failure to note that two different processes can result in reciprocity: partner control and partner choice. We suggest that the common observation that group-living animals direct their cooperative behaviours preferentially to those individuals from which they receive most cooperation is to be interpreted as the result of the sum of the two separate processes of partner control and partner choice. We review evidence that partner choice is the prevalent process in primates and propose explanations for this pattern. We make predictions that highlight the need for studies that separate the effects of partner control and partner choice in a broader variety of group-living taxa.

Intermediate-term emotional bookkeeping is necessary for long-term reciprocal grooming partner preferences in an agent-based model of macaque groups

Whether and how primates are able to maintain long-term affiliative relationships is still under debate. Emotional bookkeeping (EB), the partner-specific accumulation of emotional responses to earlier interactions, is a candidate mechanism that does not require high cognitive abilities. EB is difficult to study in real animals, due to the complexity of primate social life. Therefore, we developed an agent-based model based on macaque behavior, the EMO-model, that implements arousal and two emotional dimensions, anxiety-FEAR and satisfaction-LIKE, which regulate social behavior. To implement EB, model individuals assign dynamic LIKE attitudes towards their group members, integrating partner-specific emotional responses to earlier received grooming episodes. Two key parameters in the model were varied to explore their effects on long-term affiliative relationships: (1) the timeframe over which earlier affiliation is accumulated into the LIKE attitudes; and (2) the degree of partner selectivity. EB over short and long timeframes gave rise to low variation in LIKE attitudes, and grooming partner preferences were only maintained over one to two months. Only EB over intermediate-term timeframes resulted in enough variation in LIKE attitudes, which, in combination with high partner selectivity, enables individuals to differentiate between regular and incidental grooming partners. These specific settings resulted in a strong feedback between differentiated LIKE attitudes and the distribution of grooming, giving rise to strongly reciprocated partner preferences that could be maintained for longer periods, occasionally up to one or two years. Moreover, at these settings the individual's internal, socio-emotional memory of earlier affiliative episodes (LIKE attitudes) corresponded best to observable behavior (grooming partner preferences). In sum, our model suggests that intermediate-term LIKE dynamics and high partner selectivity seem most plausible for primates relying on emotional bookkeeping to maintain their social bonds.