The nature of prosociality in chimpanzees

Chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) strategically manipulate their environment to deny conspecifics access to food

Humans modify their environment to grant or prevent others' access to valuable resources, for example by using locks. We tested whether sanctuary-living chimpanzees (N = 10) would flexibly modify their environment to either allow or deny a dominant conspecific access to a shared food source by giving them the option to change a food reward's pathway prior to releasing it. The food could end up in one of two locations: one was accessible to both the subject and a dominant conspecific, the other one was only accessible to the subject. We further manipulated the extent of inhibitory control needed for modifying the pathway by varying the subjects' starting position. Our subjects reoriented the pathway competitively to monopolize food but changed the pathway less often in trials with high inhibitory demands. We further show how inhibitory task demands in a social context influence chimpanzees' future planning. Our results show that chimpanzees will strategically manipulate their environment to maximize their own and deny a dominant conspecific access to food.

The proximate regulation of prosocial behaviour: towards a conceptual framework for comparative research

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.

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.

Chimpanzees communicate to coordinate a cultural practice

Human culture thrives by virtue of communication, yet whether communication plays an influential role in the cultural lives of other animals remains understudied. Here, we investigated whether chimpanzees use communication to engage in a cultural practice by analysing grooming handclasp (GHC) interactions-a socio-cultural behaviour requiring interindividual coordination for successful execution. Previous accounts attributed GHC initiations to behavioural shaping, whereby the initiator physically moulds the partner's arm into the desired GHC posture. Using frame-by-frame analysis and matched-control methodology, we find that chimpanzees do not only shape their partner's posture (22%), but also use gestural communication to initiate GHC (44%), which requires an active and synchronized response from the partner. Moreover, in a third (34%) of the GHC initiations, the requisite coordination was achieved by seemingly effortless synchrony. Lastly, using a longitudinal approach, we find that for GHC initiations, communication occurs more frequently than shaping in experienced dyads and less in mother-offspring dyads. These findings are consistent with ontogenetic ritualization, thereby reflecting first documentation of chimpanzees communicating to coordinate a cultural practice. We conclude that chimpanzees show interactional flexibility in the socio-cultural domain, opening the possibility that the interplay between communication and culture is rooted in our deep evolutionary history.

A convergent interaction engine: vocal communication among marmoset monkeys

To understand the primate origins of the human interaction engine, it is worthwhile to focus not only on great apes but also on callitrichid monkeys (marmosets and tamarins). Like humans, but unlike great apes, callitrichids are cooperative breeders, and thus habitually engage in coordinated joint actions, for instance when an infant is handed over from one group member to another. We first explore the hypothesis that these habitual cooperative interactions, the marmoset interactional ethology, are supported by the same key elements as found in the human interaction engine: mutual gaze (during joint action), turn-taking, volubility, as well as group-wide prosociality and trust. Marmosets show clear evidence of these features. We next examine the prediction that, if such an interaction engine can indeed give rise to more flexible communication, callitrichids may also possess elaborate communicative skills. A review of marmoset vocal communication confirms unusual abilities in these small primates: high volubility and large vocal repertoires, vocal learning and babbling in immatures, and voluntary usage and control. We end by discussing how the adoption of cooperative breeding during human evolution may have catalysed language evolution by adding these convergent consequences to the great ape-like cognitive system of our hominin ancestors. This article is part of the theme issue 'Revisiting the human 'interaction engine': comparative approaches to social action coordination'.

CalliFACS: The common marmoset Facial Action Coding System

Facial expressions are subtle cues, central for communication and conveying emotions in mammals. Traditionally, facial expressions have been classified as a whole (e.g. happy, angry, bared-teeth), due to automatic face processing in the human brain, i.e., humans categorise emotions globally, but are not aware of subtle or isolated cues such as an eyebrow raise. Moreover, the same facial configuration (e.g. lip corners pulled backwards exposing teeth) can convey widely different information depending on the species (e.g. humans: happiness; chimpanzees: fear). The Facial Action Coding System (FACS) is considered the gold standard for investigating human facial behaviour and avoids subjective interpretations of meaning by objectively measuring independent movements linked to facial muscles, called Action Units (AUs). Following a similar methodology, we developed the CalliFACS for the common marmoset. First, we determined the facial muscular plan of the common marmoset by examining dissections from the literature. Second, we recorded common marmosets in a variety of contexts (e.g. grooming, feeding, play, human interaction, veterinary procedures), and selected clips from online databases (e.g. YouTube) to identify their facial movements. Individual facial movements were classified according to appearance changes produced by the corresponding underlying musculature. A diverse repertoire of 33 facial movements was identified in the common marmoset (15 Action Units, 15 Action Descriptors and 3 Ear Action Descriptors). Although we observed a reduced range of facial movement when compared to the HumanFACS, the common marmoset's range of facial movements was larger than predicted according to their socio-ecology and facial morphology, which indicates their importance for social interactions. CalliFACS is a scientific tool to measure facial movements, and thus, allows us to better understand the common marmoset's expressions and communication. As common marmosets have become increasingly popular laboratory animal models, from neuroscience to cognition, CalliFACS can be used as an important tool to evaluate their welfare, particularly in captivity.

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.

Chimpanzees and bonobos use social leverage in an ultimatum game

The ultimatum game (UG) is widely used to investigate our sense of fairness, a key characteristic that differentiates us from our closest living relatives, bonobos and chimpanzees. Previous studies found that, in general, great apes behave as rational maximizers in the UG. Proposers tend to choose self-maximizing offers, while responders accept most non-zero offers. These studies do not rule out the possibility that apes can behave prosocially to improve the returns for themselves and others. However, this has never been well studied. In this study, we offer chimpanzee and bonobo proposers the possibility of taking into account the leverage of responders over the offers they receive. This leverage takes the form of access to alternatives for responders. We find that proposers tend to propose fairer offers when responders have the option to access alternatives. Furthermore, we find that both species use their leverage to reject unequal offers. Our results suggest that great apes mostly act as rational maximizers in an UG, yet access to alternatives can lead them to change their strategies such as not choosing the self-maximizing offer as proposers and not accepting every offer higher than zero as responders.

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.

Targeted helping and cooperation in zoo-living chimpanzees and bonobos

Directly comparing the prosocial behaviour of our two closest living relatives, bonobos and chimpanzees, is essential to deepening our understanding of the evolution of human prosociality. We examined whether helpers of six dyads of chimpanzees and bonobos transferred tools to a conspecific. In the experiment 'Helping', transferring a tool did not benefit the helper, while in the experiment 'Cooperation', the helper only obtained a reward by transferring the correct tool. Chimpanzees did not share tools with conspecifics in either experiment, except for a mother-daughter pair, where the mother shared a tool twice in the experiment 'Helping'. By contrast, all female-female bonobo dyads sometimes transferred a tool even without benefit. When helpers received an incentive, we found consistent transfers in all female-female bonobo dyads but none in male-female dyads. Even though reaching by the bonobo receivers increased the likelihood that a transfer occurred, we found no significant species difference in whether receivers reached to obtain tools. Thus, receivers' behaviour did not explain the lack of transfers from chimpanzee helpers. This study supports the notion that bonobos might have a greater ability to understand social problems and the collaborative nature of such tasks.

Chimpanzees behave prosocially in a group-specific manner

Chimpanzees act cooperatively in the wild, but whether they afford benefits to others, and whether their tendency to act prosocially varies across communities, is unclear. Here, we show that chimpanzees from neighboring communities provide valuable resources to group members at personal cost, and that the magnitude of their prosocial behavior is group specific. Provided with a resource-donation experiment allowing free (partner) choice, we observed an increase in prosocial acts across the study period in most of the chimpanzees. When group members could profit (test condition), chimpanzees provided resources more frequently and for longer durations than when their acts produced inaccessible resources (control condition). Strikingly, chimpanzees' prosocial behavior was group specific, with more socially tolerant groups acting more prosocially. We conclude that chimpanzees may purposely behave prosocially toward group members, and that the notion of group-specific sociality in nonhuman animals should crucially inform discussions on the evolution of prosocial behavior.

Impact of internal and external factors on prosocial choices in rhesus macaques

While traditional economic models assume that agents are self-interested, humans and most non-human primates are social species. Therefore, many of decisions they make require the integration of information about other social agents. This study asks to what extent information about social status and the social context in which decisions are taken impact on reward-guided decisions in rhesus macaques. We tested 12 monkeys of varying dominance status in several experimental versions of a two-choice task in which reward could be delivered to self only, only another monkey, both the self and another monkey, or neither. Results showed dominant animals were more prone to make prosocial choices than subordinates, but only when the decision was between a reward for self only and a reward for both self and other. If the choice was between a reward for self only and a reward for other only, no animal expressed altruistic behaviour. Finally, prosocial choices were true social decisions as they were strikingly reduced when the social partner was replaced by a non-social object. These results showed that as in humans, rhesus macaques' social decisions are adaptive and modulated by social status and the cost associated with being prosocial. This article is part of the theme issue 'Existence and prevalence of economic behaviours among non-human primates'.

Azure-winged magpies' decisions to share food are contingent on the presence or absence of food for the recipient

Helping others is a key feature of human behavior. However, recent studies render this feature not uniquely human, and describe discoveries of prosocial behavior in non-human primates, other social mammals, and most recently in some bird species. Nevertheless, the cognitive underpinnings of this prosociality; i.e., whether animals take others’ need for help into account, often remain obscured. In this study, we take a first step in investigating prosociality in azure-winged magpies by presenting them with the opportunity to share highly desired food with their conspecifics i) in a situation in which these conspecifics had no such food, ii) in a situation in which they too had access to that highly desired food, and iii) in an open, base-line, situation where all had equal access to the same food and could move around freely. We find that azure-winged magpies regularly share high-value food items, preferably with, but not restricted to, members of the opposite sex. Most notably, we find that these birds, and specifically the females, seem to differentiate between whether others have food or do not have food, and subsequently cater to that lack. Begging calls by those without food seem to function as cues that elicit the food-sharing, but the response to that begging is condition-dependent. Moreover, analyses on a restricted dataset that excluded those events in which there was begging showed exactly the same patterns, raising the possibility that the azure-winged magpies might truly notice when others have access to fewer resources (even in the absence of vocal cues). This sharing behavior could indicate a high level of social awareness and prosociality that should be further investigated. Further studies are needed to establish the order of intentionality at play in this system, and whether azure-winged magpies might be able to attribute desire states to their conspecifics.

A review of research in primate sanctuaries

While non-human primate studies have long been conducted in laboratories, and more recently at zoological parks, sanctuaries are increasingly considered a viable setting for research. Accredited sanctuaries in non-range countries house thousands of primates formerly used as subjects of medical research, trained performers or personal pets. In range countries, however, sanctuaries typically house orphaned primates confiscated from illegal poaching and the bushmeat and pet trafficking trades. Although the primary mission of these sanctuaries is to rescue and rehabilitate residents, many of these organizations are increasingly willing to participate in non-invasive research. Notably, from a scientific standpoint, most sanctuaries provide potential advantages over traditional settings, such as large, naturalistic physical and social environments which may result in more relevant models of primates' free-ranging wild counterparts than other captive settings. As a result, an impressive scope of research in the fields of primate behaviour, cognition, veterinary science, genetics and physiology have been studied in sanctuaries. In this review, we examine the range and form of research that has been conducted at accredited sanctuaries around the world. We also describe the potential challenges of sanctuary-based work and the considerations that external researchers may face when deciding to collaborate with primate sanctuaries on their research projects.

The zone of latent solutions and its relevance to understanding ape cultures

The zone of latent solutions (ZLS) hypothesis provides an alternative approach to explaining cultural patterns in primates and many other animals. According to the ZLS hypothesis, non-human great ape (henceforth: ape) cultures consist largely or solely of latent solutions. The current competing (and predominant) hypothesis for ape culture argues instead that at least some of their behavioural or artefact forms are copied through specific social learning mechanisms ("copying social learning hypothesis") and that their forms may depend on copying (copying-dependent forms). In contrast, the ape ZLS hypothesis does not require these forms to be copied. Instead, it suggests that several (non-form-copying) social learning mechanisms help determine the frequency (but typically not the form) of these behaviours and artefacts within connected individuals. The ZLS hypothesis thus suggests that increases and stabilisations of a particular behaviour's or artefact's frequency can derive from socially-mediated (cued) form reinnovations. Therefore, and while genes and ecology play important roles as well, according to the ape ZLS hypothesis, apes typically acquire the forms of their behaviours and artefacts individually, but are usually socially induced to do so (provided sufficient opportunity, necessity, motivation and timing). The ZLS approach is often criticized-perhaps also because it challenges the current null hypothesis, which instead assumes a requirement of form-copying social learning mechanisms to explain many ape behavioural (and/or artefact) forms. However, as the ZLS hypothesis is a new approach, with less accumulated literature compared to the current null hypothesis, some confusion is to be expected. Here, we clarify the ZLS approach-also in relation to other competing hypotheses-and address misconceptions and objections. We believe that these clarifications will provide researchers with a coherent theoretical approach and an experimental methodology to examine the necessity of form-copying variants of social learning in apes, humans and other species.

Problem-solving in a cooperative task in peach-fronted conures (Eupsittula aurea)

Cooperation is a complex behaviour found in many kinds of organisms and occurs between individuals of the same and different species. Several studies have examined the intentionality of this behaviour by testing the animals' understanding of the need for a partner when working in pairs. The mammalian species tested express such understanding, whereas most tested birds fail, especially when the test involves a delayed access to the setup by one of the co-operators. In the present study, the cooperative problem-solving capability of four peach-fronted conures (Eupsittula aurea) was investigated with the loose string test. All four parrots solved the paradigm by simultaneously pulling the ends of the same string to bring a platform with a food reward within reach. They were also capable of solving the task when one of the co-operators was delayed, even when visually isolated from each other. To further test their comprehension and to exclude the birds relying on task-associated cues, we video-recorded the trials and quantified possible cues and strategies for timing the pulling behaviour (e.g., sound of the partner's door when opening, sound of steps of partner approaching). The preferred cue to start pulling was to wait for their partner's arrival to the string. The number of vocalisations was significantly higher during visually isolated conditions and for successful trials compared to failed trials, suggesting possible information exchange. Our findings show that peach-fronted conures can solve a cooperative task, and that cooperation success is not determined by external cues or by partner identity or affinity.

The elephant in the room: What matters cognitively in cumulative technological culture

Cumulative technological culture (CTC) refers to the increase in the efficiency and complexity of tools and techniques in human populations over generations. A fascinating question is to understand the cognitive origins of this phenomenon. Because CTC is definitely a social phenomenon, most accounts have suggested a series of cognitive mechanisms oriented toward the social dimension (e.g., teaching, imitation, theory of mind, and metacognition), thereby minimizing the technical dimension and the potential influence of non-social, cognitive skills. What if we have failed to see the elephant in the room? What if social cognitive mechanisms were only catalyzing factors and not the sufficient and necessary conditions for the emergence of CTC? In this article, we offer an alternative, unified cognitive approach to this phenomenon by assuming that CTC originates in non-social cognitive skills, namely technical-reasoning skills which enable humans to develop the technical potential necessary to constantly acquire and improve technical information. This leads us to discuss how theory of mind and metacognition, in concert with technical reasoning, can help boost CTC. The cognitive approach developed here opens up promising new avenues for reinterpreting classical issues (e.g., innovation, emulation vs. imitation, social vs. asocial learning, cooperation, teaching, and overimitation) in a field that has so far been largely dominated by other disciplines, such as evolutionary biology, mathematics, anthropology, archeology, economics, and philosophy.

Why intergroup variation matters for understanding behaviour

Intergroup variation (IGV) refers to variation between different groups of the same species. While its existence in the behavioural realm has been expected and evidenced, the potential effects of IGV are rarely considered in studies that aim to shed light on the evolutionary origins of human socio-cognition, especially in our closest living relatives—the great apes. Here, by taking chimpanzees as a point of reference, we argue that (i) IGV could plausibly explain inconsistent research findings across numerous topics of inquiry (experimental/behavioural studies on chimpanzees), (ii) understanding the evolutionary origins of behaviour requires an accurate assessment of species' modes of behaving across different socio-ecological contexts, which necessitates a reliable estimation of variation across intraspecific groups, and (iii) IGV in the behavioural realm is increasingly likely to be expected owing to the progressive identification of non-human animal cultures. With these points, and by extrapolating from chimpanzees to generic guidelines, we aim to encourage researchers to explicitly consider IGV as an explanatory variable in future studies attempting to understand the socio-cognitive and evolutionary determinants of behaviour in group-living animals.

Chimpanzees help others with what they want; children help them with what they need

Humans, including young children, are strongly motivated to help others, even paying a cost to do so. Humans' nearest primate relatives, great apes, are likewise motivated to help others, raising the question of whether the motivations of humans and apes are the same. Here we compared the underlying motivation to help in human children and chimpanzees. Both species understood the situation and helped a conspecific in a straightforward situation. However, when helpers knew that what the other was requesting would not actually help her, only children gave her what she needed instead of giving her what she requested. These results suggest that both chimpanzees and human children help others but the underlying motivation for why they help differs. In comparison to chimpanzees, young children help in a paternalistic manner. The evolutionary hypothesis is that uniquely human socio-ecologies based on interdependent cooperation gave rise to uniquely human prosocial motivations to help others paternalistically.

Population-specific social dynamics in chimpanzees

Understanding intraspecific variation in sociality is essential for characterizing the flexibility and evolution of social systems, yet its study in nonhuman animals is rare. Here, we investigated whether chimpanzees exhibit population-level differences in sociality that cannot be easily explained by differences in genetics or ecology. We compared social proximity and grooming tendencies across four semiwild populations of chimpanzees living in the same ecological environment over three consecutive years, using both linear mixed models and social network analysis. Results indicated temporally stable, population-level differences in dyadic-level sociality. Moreover, group cohesion measures capturing network characteristics beyond dyadic interactions (clustering, modularity, and social differentiation) showed population-level differences consistent with the dyadic indices. Subsequently, we explored whether the observed intraspecific variation in sociality could be attributed to cultural processes by ruling out alternative sources of variation including the influences of ecology, genetics, and differences in population demographics. We conclude that substantial variation in social behavior exists across neighboring populations of chimpanzees and that this variation is in part shaped by cultural processes.

The face of animal cognition

As an increasing number of researchers investigate the cognitive abilities of an ever-wider range of animals, animal cognition is currently among the most exciting fields within animal behavior. Tinbergen would be proud: all four of his approaches are being pursued and we are learning much about how animals collect information and how they use that information to make decisions for their current and future states as well as what animals do not perceive or choose to ignore. Here I provide an overview of this productivity, alighting only briefly on any single example, to showcase the diversity of species, of approaches and the sheer mass of research effort currently under way. We are getting closer to understanding the minds of other animals and the evolution of cognition at an increasingly rapid rate.

Bonobos voluntarily hand food to others but not toys or tools

A key feature of human prosociality is direct transfers, the most active form of sharing in which donors voluntarily hand over resources in their possession Direct transfers buffer hunter-gatherers against foraging shortfalls. The emergence and elaboration of this behaviour thus likely played a key role in human evolution by promoting cooperative interdependence and ensuring that humans' growing energetic needs (e.g. for increasing brain size) were more reliably met. According to the strong prosociality hypothesis, among great apes only humans exhibit sufficiently strong prosocial motivations to directly transfer food. The versatile prosociality hypothesis suggests instead that while other apes may make transfers in constrained settings, only humans share flexibly across food and non-food contexts. In controlled experiments, chimpanzees typically transfer objects but not food, supporting both hypotheses. In this paper, we show in two experiments that bonobos directly transfer food but not non-food items. These findings show that, in some contexts, bonobos exhibit a human-like motivation for direct food transfer. However, humans share across a far wider range of contexts, lending support to the versatile prosociality hypothesis. Our species' unusual prosocial flexibility is likely built on a prosocial foundation we share through common descent with the other apes.

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.

Chimpanzees spontaneously take turns in a shared serial ordering task

Social coordination can provide optimal solutions to many kinds of group dilemmas, and non-human subjects have been shown to perform single actions successively or simultaneously with partners to maximize food rewards in a variety of experimental settings. Less attention has been given to showing how animals are able to produce multiple (rather than single) intermixed and co-regulated actions, even though many species’ signal transmissions and social interactions rely on extended bouts of coordinated turn-taking. Here we report on coordination behaviour in three pairs of chimpanzees (mother/offspring dyads) during an experimentally induced turn-taking scenario. Participants were given a “shared” version of a computer-based serial ordering task that they had previously mastered individually. We found that minimal trial-and-error learning was necessary for the participants to solve the new social version of the task, and that information flow was more pronounced from mothers toward offspring than the reverse, mirroring characteristics of social learning in wild chimpanzees. Our experiment introduces a novel paradigm for studying behavioural coordination in non-humans, able to yield insights into the evolution of turn-taking which underlies a range of social interactions, including communication and language.

Sharing of science is most likely among male scientists

Humans are considered to be highly prosocial, especially in comparison to other species. However, most tests of prosociality are conducted in highly artificial settings among anonymous participants. To gain a better understanding of how human hyper-cooperation may have evolved, we tested humans' willingness to share in one of the most competitive fields of our current society: academia. Researchers were generally prosocial with 80% sharing a PDF of one of their latest papers, and almost 60% willing to send us their data. Intriguingly, prosociality was most prominent from male to male, and less likely among all other sex-combinations. This pattern suggests the presence of male-exclusive networks in science, and may be based on an evolutionary history promoting strong male bonds.

Meerkats (Suricata suricatta) fail to prosocially donate food in an experimental set-up

Although humans are usually believed to be prosocial, the evolutionary origins of prosociality are largely debated. One hypothesis is that cooperative breeding has been one major precursor to the emergence of prosociality. In vertebrates, however, experimental evidence of prosociality has been mainly gathered in non-human primates. In this study, we tested the cooperative breeding hypothesis in cooperative breeding meerkats (Suricata suricatta). In particular, we tested whether meerkats take into account partners' benefits when distributing food rewards. Nine individuals were presented with two platforms baited with different food distributions (providing food to themselves, to a partner or both). In all conditions, the decision to operate the apparatus was based on the presence of food on the subject's side, and not on the possible benefits to partners. Despite being cooperative breeders, meerkats in this study failed to be prosocial, suggesting that prosociality in this species may be limited to specific contexts.

Genetics and developmental biology of cooperation

Despite essential progress towards understanding the evolution of cooperative behaviour, we still lack detailed knowledge about its underlying molecular mechanisms, genetic basis, evolutionary dynamics and ontogeny. An international workshop "Genetics and Development of Cooperation," organized by the University of Bern (Switzerland), aimed at discussing the current progress in this research field and suggesting avenues for future research. This review uses the major themes of the meeting as a springboard to synthesize the concepts of genetic and nongenetic inheritance of cooperation, and to review a quantitative genetic framework that allows for the inclusion of indirect genetic effects. Furthermore, we argue that including nongenetic inheritance, such as transgenerational epigenetic effects, parental effects, ecological and cultural inheritance, provides a more nuanced view of the evolution of cooperation. We summarize those genes and molecular pathways in a range of species that seem promising candidates for mechanisms underlying cooperative behaviours. Concerning the neurobiological substrate of cooperation, we suggest three cognitive skills necessary for the ability to cooperate: (i) event memory, (ii) synchrony with others and (iii) responsiveness to others. Taking a closer look at the developmental trajectories that lead to the expression of cooperative behaviours, we discuss the dichotomy between early morphological specialization in social insects and more flexible behavioural specialization in cooperatively breeding vertebrates. Finally, we provide recommendations for which biological systems and species may be particularly suitable, which specific traits and parameters should be measured, what type of approaches should be followed, and which methods should be employed in studies of cooperation to better understand how cooperation evolves and manifests in nature.

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.

The psychology of primate cooperation and competition: a call for realigning research agendas

Cooperation and competition are two key components of social life. Current research agendas investigating the psychological underpinnings of competition and cooperation in non-human primates are misaligned. The majority of work on competition has been done in the context of theory of mind and deception, while work on cooperation has mostly focused on collaboration and helping. The current impression that theory of mind is not necessarily implicated in cooperative activities and that helping could not be an integral part of competition might therefore be rather misleading. Furthermore, theory of mind research has mainly focused on cognitive aspects like the type of stimuli controlling responses, the nature of representation and how those representations are acquired, while collaboration and helping have focused primarily on motivational aspects like prosociality, common goals and a sense of justice and other-regarding concerns. We present the current state of these two bodies of research paying special attention to how they have developed and diverged over the years. We propose potential directions to realign the research agendas to investigate the psychological underpinnings of cooperation and competition in primates and other animals.