1
|
Kopp KS, Kanngiesser P, Brügger RK, Daum MM, Gampe A, Köster M, van Schaik CP, Liebal K, Burkart JM. The proximate regulation of prosocial behaviour: towards a conceptual framework for comparative research. Anim Cogn 2024; 27:5. [PMID: 38429436 PMCID: PMC10907469 DOI: 10.1007/s10071-024-01846-w] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/07/2023] [Revised: 10/14/2023] [Accepted: 11/13/2023] [Indexed: 03/03/2024]
Abstract
Humans and many other animal species act in ways that benefit others. Such prosocial behaviour has been studied extensively across a range of disciplines over the last decades, but findings to date have led to conflicting conclusions about prosociality across and even within species. Here, we present a conceptual framework to study the proximate regulation of prosocial behaviour in humans, non-human primates and potentially other animals. We build on psychological definitions of prosociality and spell out three key features that need to be in place for behaviour to count as prosocial: benefitting others, intentionality, and voluntariness. We then apply this framework to review observational and experimental studies on sharing behaviour and targeted helping in human children and non-human primates. We show that behaviours that are usually subsumed under the same terminology (e.g. helping) can differ substantially across and within species and that some of them do not fulfil our criteria for prosociality. Our framework allows for precise mapping of prosocial behaviours when retrospectively evaluating studies and offers guidelines for future comparative work.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kathrin S Kopp
- Comparative Cultural Psychology, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig, Germany.
- Life Sciences, Institute of Biology, Leipzig University, Leipzig, Germany.
- Department of Education and Psychology, Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
| | - Patricia Kanngiesser
- Department of Education and Psychology, Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany
- School of Psychology, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, UK
| | - Rahel K Brügger
- Department of Evolutionary Anthropology, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Moritz M Daum
- Department of Psychology, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
- Jacobs Center for Productive Youth Development, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
- Center for the Interdisciplinary Study of Language Evolution, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Anja Gampe
- Institute of Socio-Economics, University of Duisburg-Essen, Duisburg, Germany
| | - Moritz Köster
- Department of Education and Psychology, Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany
- Institute of Psychology, University of Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany
| | - Carel P van Schaik
- Department of Evolutionary Biology & Environmental Studies, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
- Center for the Interdisciplinary Study of Language Evolution, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Katja Liebal
- Life Sciences, Institute of Biology, Leipzig University, Leipzig, Germany
- Department of Education and Psychology, Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany
| | - Judith M Burkart
- Department of Evolutionary Anthropology, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
- Center for the Interdisciplinary Study of Language Evolution, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Grueneisen S, Leimgruber KL, Vogt RL, Warneken F. Prospection and delay of gratification support the development of calculated reciprocity. Cognition 2023; 234:105369. [PMID: 36696795 DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2023.105369] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/21/2022] [Revised: 01/05/2023] [Accepted: 01/09/2023] [Indexed: 01/24/2023]
Abstract
Humans frequently benefit others strategically to elicit future cooperation. While such forms of calculated reciprocity are powerful in eliciting cooperative behaviors even among self-interested agents, they depend on advanced cognitive and behavioral capacities such as prospection (representing and planning for future events) and extended delay of gratification. In fact, it has been proposed that these constraints help explain why calculated reciprocity exists in humans and is rare or even absent in other animals. The current study investigated the cognitive foundation of calculated reciprocity by examining its ontogenetic emergence in relation to key aspects of children's cognitive development. Three-to-five-year-old children from the US (N = 72, mostly White, from mixed socioeconomic backgrounds) first completed a cognitive test battery assessing the cognitive capacities hypothesized to be foundational for calculated reciprocity. In a second session, children participated in a calculated reciprocity task in which they could decide how many resources to share with a partner who later had the opportunity to reciprocate (reciprocity condition) and with a partner who could not reciprocate (control condition). Results indicated a steep developmental emergence of calculated reciprocity between 3 and 5 years of age. Further analyses showed that measures of delay of gratification and prospection were important predictors of children's rate of calculated reciprocity, even when controlling for age and after including a measure of verbal ability. By contrast, theory of mind abilities were unrelated to children's reciprocal behavior. This is the first systematic investigation of essential cognitive capacities for calculated reciprocity. We discuss prospection and delay of gratification as two domain-general capacities that are utilized for calculated reciprocity and which could explain developmental as well as species-differences in cooperation.
Collapse
|
3
|
Addessi E, Panunzi M, Schino G. Behaviour of tufted capuchin monkeys in a snowdrift game: is there a role for self-control? Anim Behav 2023. [DOI: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2022.10.010] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/21/2022]
|