Tolerant food sharing and reciprocity is precluded by despotism among bonobos but not chimpanzees

Differences in expression of male aggression between wild bonobos and chimpanzees

Researchers investigating the evolution of human aggression look to our closest living relatives, bonobos (Pan paniscus) and chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes), as valuable sources of comparative data.1,2 Males in the two species exhibit contrasting patterns: male chimpanzees sexually coerce females3,4,5,6,7,8 and sometimes kill conspecifics,9,10,11,12 whereas male bonobos exhibit less sexual coercion13,14 and no reported killing.13 Among the various attempts to explain these species differences, the self-domestication hypothesis proposes negative fitness consequences of male aggression in bonobos.2,15,16 Nonetheless, the extent to which these species differ in overall rates of aggression remains unclear due to insufficiently comparable observation methods.17,18,19,20,21,22,23 We used 14 community-years of focal follow data-the gold standard for observational studies24-to compare rates of male aggression in 3 bonobo communities at the Kokolopori Bonobo Reserve, Democratic Republic of Congo, and 2 chimpanzee communities at Gombe National Park, Tanzania. As expected, given that females commonly outrank males, we found that bonobos exhibited lower rates of male-female aggression and higher rates of female-male aggression than chimpanzees. Surprisingly, we found higher rates of male-male aggression among bonobos than chimpanzees even when limiting analyses to contact aggression. In both species, more aggressive males obtained higher mating success. Although our findings indicate that the frequency of male-male aggression does not parallel species difference in its intensity, they support the view that contrary to male chimpanzees, whose reproductive success depends on strong coalitions, male bonobos have more individualistic reproductive strategies.25.

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.

Group-specific expressions of co-feeding tolerance in bonobos and chimpanzees preclude dichotomous species generalizations

Bonobos are typically portrayed as more socially tolerant than chimpanzees, yet the current evidence supporting such a species-level categorization is equivocal. Here, we used validated group-level co-feeding assays to systematically test expressions of social tolerance in sixteen groups of zoo- and sanctuary-housed bonobos and chimpanzees. We found that co-feeding tolerance substantially overlaps between the species, thus precluding categorical inference at the species level. Instead, marked differences were observed between groups, with some bonobo communities exhibiting higher social tolerance than chimpanzee communities, and vice versa. Moreover, considerable intergroup variation was found within species living in the same environment, which attests to Pan's behavioral flexibility. Lastly, chimpanzees showed more tolerance in male-skewed communities, whereas bonobos responded less pronounced to sex-ratio variation. We conclude that the pervasive dichotomy between the tolerant bonobo and the belligerent chimpanzee requires quantitative nuance, and that accurate phylogenetic tracing of (human) social behavior warrants estimations of intraspecific group variation.

Empirical challenges from the comparative and developmental literature to the Shared Intentionality Theory - a review of alternative data on recursive mind reading, prosociality, imitation and cumulative culture

Humans have an irresistible inclination to coordinate actions with others, leading to species-unique forms of cooperation. According to the highly influential Shared Intentionality Theory (SITh), human cooperation is made possible by shared intentionality (SI), typically defined as a suite of socio-cognitive and motivational traits for sharing psychological states with others, thereby enabling individuals to engage in joint action in the mutually aware pursuit of shared goals. SITh theorises that SI evolved as late as 400,000 years ago, when our ancestors (in particular, Homo heidelbergensis) turned to a kind of food procurement that obligatorily required joint coordinated action. SI is, thus, hypothesized to be absent in other extant species, including our closest genetic relatives, the nonhuman great apes ("apes"). According to SITh, ape psychology is exclusively driven by individualistic motivations, as opposed to human psychology which is uniquely driven by altruistic motivations. The evolutionary scenario proposed by SITh builds on a series of findings from socio-cognitive research with apes and human children, and on the assumption that abilities expressed early in human development are human universals, unlikely to have been shaped by socio-cultural influences. Drawing on the primatological and developmental literature, we provide a systematic - albeit selective - review of SITh-inconsistent findings concerning psychological and behavioural traits theorised to be constitutive of SI. The findings we review pertain to all three thematic clusters typically addressed in SITh: (i) recursive mind reading; (ii) prosociality; (iii) imitation and cumulative culture. We conclude that such alternative data undermine two core SITh claims: the late evolutionary emergence of SI and the radical divide between ape and human psychology. We also discuss several conceptual and methodological limitations that currently hamper reliable comparative research on SI, in particular those engendered by Western-centric biases in the social sciences, where an overreliance on Western samples has promoted the formulation of Western-centric conceptualisations, operationalisations and methodologies.

Food sharing with friends and acquaintances: A study in preschool boys and girls

Introduction

The current study examined whether preschoolers in a (semi-)natural situation shared more food with friends or acquaintances, and whether this was different between boys and girls, older and younger children, and for preferred and non- preferred food. In order to do so, we replicated and extended the classical work of Birch and Billman in a Dutch sample.

Methods

Participants included 91 children aged between 3 to 6 years (52.7% boys, 93.4% Western European) from a middle- to upper-middle-class neighborhood in the Netherlands.

Results

The results revealed that children shared more non-preferred than preferred food with others. Girls gave more non-preferred food to acquaintances than to friends, whereas boys gave more to friends than to acquaintances. No effect of relationship was found for preferred food. Older children shared more food than younger children. Compared to acquaintances, friends made more active attempts to get food. Moreover, children who were not shared with were just as likely to share food as children who were shared with.

Discussion

Overall, only a small degree of agreement with the original study was found: Some significant findings could not be replicated, and some unconfirmed hypotheses of the original study were supported. The results underscore both the need for replications and studying the effect of social-contextual factors in natural settings.

Behavioral and physiological response to inequity in bonobos (Pan paniscus)

Inequity aversion (IA), the affective, cognitive, and behavioral response to inequitable outcomes, allows individuals to avoid exploitation and therefore stabilizes cooperation. The presence of IA varies across animal species, which has stimulated research to investigate factors that might explain this variation, and to investigate underlying affective responses. Among great apes, IA is most often studied in chimpanzees. Here, we investigate IA in bonobos, a reputedly tolerant and cooperative species for which few IA studies are available. We describe how bonobos respond to receiving less preferred rewards than a partner in a token exchange task. We show that bonobos respond to receiving less preferred rewards by refusing tokens and rewards, and by leaving the experimental area. Bonobos never refused a trial when receiving preferred rewards, and thus showed no advantageous IA. We also investigate the variability in the disadvantageous IA response on a dyadic level, because the level of IA is expected to vary, depending on characteristics of the dyad. Like in humans and chimpanzees, we show that the tolerance towards inequity was higher in bonobo dyads with more valuable relationships. To study the affective component of IA, we included behavioral and physiological measures of arousal: a displacement behavior (rough self-scratching) and changes in salivary cortisol levels. Both measures of arousal showed large variability, and while analyses on rough self-scratching showed no significant effects, salivary cortisol levels seemed to be lower in subjects that received less than their partner, but higher in subjects that received more than their partner, albeit that both were not significantly different from the equity condition. This suggests that although overcompensated bonobos showed no behavioral response, they might be more aroused. Our data support the cooperation hypothesis on an interspecific and intraspecific level. They show inequity aversion in bonobos, a reputedly cooperative species, and suggest that the variability in IA in bonobos can be explained by their socioecology. Most successful cooperative interactions happen between mothers and their sons and among closely bonded females. The limited need to monitor the partners' investment within these dyads can result in a higher tolerance towards inequity. We therefore suggest future studies to consider relevant socioecological characteristics of the species when designing and analyzing IA studies.

Does tolerance allow bonobos to outperform chimpanzees on a cooperative task? A conceptual replication of Hare et al., 2007

Across various taxa, social tolerance is thought to facilitate cooperation, and many species are treated as having species-specific patterns of social tolerance. Yet studies that assess wild and captive bonobos and chimpanzees result in contrasting findings. By replicating a cornerstone experimental study on tolerance and cooperation in bonobos and chimpanzees (Hare et al. 2007 Cur. Biol. 17, 619-623 (doi:10.1016/j.cub.2007.02.040)), we aim to further our understanding of current discrepant findings. We tested bonobos and chimpanzees housed at the same facility in a co-feeding and cooperation task. Food was placed on dishes located on both ends or in the middle of a platform. In the co-feeding task, the tray was simply made available to the ape duos, whereas in the cooperation task the apes had to simultaneously pull at both ends of a rope attached to the platform to retrieve the food. By contrast to the published findings, bonobos and chimpanzees co-fed to a similar degree, indicating a similar level of tolerance. However, bonobos cooperated more than chimpanzees when the food was monopolizable, which replicates the original study. Our findings call into question the interpretation that at the species level bonobos cooperate to a higher degree because they are inherently more tolerant.

The Association Between the Bared-Teeth Display and Social Dominance in Captive Chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes)

Humans use smiles - widely observed emotional expressions - in a variety of social situations, of which the meaning varies depending on social relationship and the context in which it is displayed. The homologue of the human smile in non-human primates - both due to morphological and functional similarities - is the bared-teeth display (BT). According to the power asymmetry hypothesis (PAH), species with strict linear dominance hierarchies are predicted to produce distinct communicative signals to avoid escalations of social conflicts. Hence, while the BT in a despotic species is predicted to be expressed from low- to high-ranking individuals, signaling submission, the BT in a tolerant species is predicted to be expressed in multiple contexts, regardless of rank. We tested this hypothesis in a group of 8 captive chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes), a species commonly characterized as rather despotic. An investigation of 11,774 dyadic social interactions revealed this chimpanzee group to have a linear dominance hierarchy, with moderate steepness. A Bayesian GLMM - used to test the effects of social contexts and rank relationships of dyads on the use of the BT display - indicated multi-contextual use of the BT which is contingent on the rank relationship. We also found that slight morphological and/or acoustic variants (i.e., silent bared-teeth and vocalized bared-teeth) of the BT display may have different communicative meanings. Our findings are in line with the prediction derived from the PAH for a moderately despotic species, and the view that the human smile originated from the primate BT display.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s42761-022-00138-1.

Self-interest precludes prosocial juice provisioning in a free choice group experiment in bonobos

Previous studies on prosociality in bonobos have reported contrasting results, which might partly be explained by differences in experimental contexts. In this study, we implement a free choice group experiment in which bonobos can provide fruit juice to their group members at a low cost for themselves. Four out of five bonobos passed a training phase and understood the setup and provisioned fruit juice in a total of 17 dyads. We show that even in this egalitarian group with a shallow hierarchy, the majority of pushing was done by the alpha female, who monopolized the setup and provided most juice to two adult females, her closest social partners. Nonetheless, the bonobos in this study pushed less frequently than the chimpanzees in the original juice-paradigm study, suggesting that bonobos might be less likely than chimpanzees to provide benefits to group members. Moreover, in half of the pushing acts, subjects obtained juice for themselves, suggesting that juice provisioning was partly driven by self-regarding behavior. Our study indicates that a more nuanced view on the prosocial food provisioning nature of bonobos is warranted but based on this case study, we suggest that the observed sex differences in providing food to friends corresponds with the socio-ecological sex difference in cooperative interactions in wild and zoo-housed bonobos.

Bared-teeth displays in bonobos (Pan paniscus): An assessment of the power asymmetry hypothesis

Facial expressions are key to navigating social group life. The Power Asymmetry Hypothesis of Motivational Emancipation predicts that the type of social organization shapes the meaning of communicative displays in relation to an individual's dominance rank. The bared-teeth (BT) display represents one of the most widely observed communicative signals across primate species. Studies in macaques indicate that the BT display in despotic species is often performed unidirectionally, from low- to high-ranking individuals (signaling submission), whereas the BT display in egalitarian species is usually produced irrespective of dominance (mainly signaling affiliation and appeasement). Despite its widespread presence, research connecting BT displays to the power asymmetry hypothesis outside the Macaca genus remains scarce. To extend this knowledge, we investigated the production of BT in relation to social dominance in dyadic interactions (N = 11,377 events) of 11 captive bonobos (Pan paniscus). Although adult bonobos were more despotic than previously suggested in the literature, BT displays were produced irrespective of dominance rank. Moreover, while adults produced the BT exclusively during socio-sexual interactions, especially during periods of social tension, immature bonobos produced the BT in a wider number of contexts. As such, the results indicate that the communicative meaning of the BT display is consistent with signaling appeasement, especially in periods of social tension. Moreover, the BT display does not seem to signal social status, supporting the prediction for species with a high degree of social tolerance. These results advance our understanding of the origins of communicative signals and their relation to species' social systems.

Long-tailed macaques: an unfairness model for humans

The current study was designed to predict why human primates often behave unfairly (equity aversion) by not exhibiting equity preference (the ability to equally distribute outcomes 1:1 among participants). Parallel to humans, besides inequity aversion, lab monkeys such as kin of long-tailed macaques (Macaca fascicularis) also demonstrate equity aversion depending on their preference for the outcome (food) type. During the pre-experiment phase, a food-preference test was conducted to determine the most preferred income per individual monkey. Red grapes were the most preferred outcome (100%) when compared to vanilla wafers (0%). The first set of experiments used a 1:1 ratio (equity condition) of grape distribution among six kin-pairs of female long-tailed macaques, and we compared their aversion (Av) versus acceptance (Ac). In the second experiment, we assessed the response to the 0:2 and 1:3 ratio distribution of grapes (inequity condition). A total of 60 trials were conducted for each condition with N = 6 pairs. Our results show aversion to the inequity conditions (1:3 ratios) in long-tailed macaques was not significantly different from aversion to the equity conditions (1:1 ratios). We suggest that the aversion observed in this species was associated with the degree of preference for the outcome (food type) offered rather than the distribution ratio. The subjective preferences for outcome types could bring this species into irrationality; they failed to share foods with an equal ratio of 1:1.

Drivers of Dyadic Cofeeding Tolerance in Pan: A Composite Measure Approach

This study aimed to construct a composite model of Dyadic Cofeeding Tolerance (DCT) in zoo-housed bonobos and chimpanzees using a validated experimental cofeeding paradigm and to investigate whether components resulting from this model differ between the two species or vary with factors such as sex, age, kinship and social bond strength. Using dimension reduction analysis on five behavioral variables from the experimental paradigm (proximity, aggression, food transfers, negative food behavior, participation), we found a two-factor model: "Tolerant Cofeeding" and "Agonistic Cofeeding". To investigate the role of social bond quality on DCT components alongside species effects, we constructed and validated a novel relationship quality model for bonobos and chimpanzees combined, resulting in two factors: Relationship Value and Incompatibility. Interestingly, bonobos and chimpanzees did not differ in DCT scores, and sex and kinship effects were identical in both species but biased by avoidance of the resource zone by male-male dyads in bonobos. Social bonds impacted DCT similarly in both species, as dyads with high Relationship Value showed more Tolerant Cofeeding, while dyads with higher Relationship Incompatibility showed more Agonistic Cofeeding. We showed that composite DCT models can be constructed that take into account both negative and positive cofeeding behavior. The resulting DCT scores were predicted by sex, kinship and social bonds in a similar fashion in both Pan species, likely reflecting their adaptability to changing socio-ecological environments. This novel operational measure to quantify cofeeding tolerance can now be applied to a wider range of species in captivity and the wild to see how variation in local socio-ecological circumstances influences fitness interdependence and cofeeding tolerance at the dyadic and group levels. This can ultimately lead to a better understanding of how local environments have shaped the evolution of tolerance in humans and other species.

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.

What isn't social tolerance? The past, present, and possible future of an overused term in the field of primatology

In the past four decades, the term social tolerance has been utilized to describe, explain, and predict many different aspects of primates' sociality and has been measured with a large range of traits and behaviors. To date, however, there has been little discussion on whether these different phenomena all reflect one and the same construct. This paper opens the discussion by presenting the historical development of the term social tolerance and a structured overview of its current, overextended use. We argue that social tolerance has developed to describe two distinct concepts: social tolerance as the social structure of a group and social tolerance as the dyadic or group-level manifestation of tolerant behaviors. We highlight how these two concepts are based on conflicting theoretical understandings and practical assessments. In conclusion, we present suggestions for future research on primate social tolerance, which will allow for a more systematic and comparable investigation of primate sociality.

Assessing joint commitment as a process in great apes

Many social animals interact jointly, but only humans experience a specific sense of obligation toward their co-participants, a joint commitment. However, joint commitment is not only a mental state but also a process that reveals itself in the coordination efforts deployed during entry and exit phases of joint action. Here, we investigated the presence and duration of such phases in N = 1,242 natural play and grooming interactions of captive chimpanzees and bonobos. The apes frequently exchanged mutual gaze and communicative signals prior to and after engaging in joint activities with conspecifics, demonstrating entry and exit phases comparable to those of human joint activities. Although rank effects were less clear, phases in bonobos were more moderated by friendship compared to phases in chimpanzees, suggesting bonobos were more likely to reflect patterns analogous to human “face management”. This suggests that joint commitment as process was already present in our last common ancestor with Pan.

•

Great apes exchange signals and gaze before entering and exiting joint actions

•

Joint action structure of both ape species resembles that of humans

•

Coordinated joint action phases indicate an underlying joint commitment

•

Social bonds affect joint action structure more in bonobos than in chimpanzees

Social dominance and cooperation in female vampire bats

When group-living animals develop individualized social relationships, they often regulate cooperation and conflict through a dominance hierarchy. Female common vampire bats have been an experimental system for studying cooperative relationships, yet surprisingly little is known about female conflict. Here, we recorded the outcomes of 1023 competitive interactions over food provided ad libitum in a captive colony of 33 vampire bats (24 adult females and their young). We found a weakly linear dominance hierarchy using three common metrics (Landau's h' measure of linearity, triangle transitivity and directional consistency). However, patterns of female dominance were less structured than in many other group-living mammals. Female social rank was not clearly predicted by body size, age, nor reproductive status, and competitive interactions were not correlated with kinship, grooming nor food sharing. We therefore found no evidence that females groomed or shared food up a hierarchy or that differences in rank explained asymmetries in grooming or food sharing. A possible explanation for such apparently egalitarian relationships among female vampire bats is the scale of competition. Female vampire bats that are frequent roostmates might not often directly compete for food in the wild.

Does the social network structure of wild animal populations differ from that of animals in captivity?

The social behaviour of wild animals living in groups leads to social networks with structures that produce group-level effects and position individuals within them with differential consequences for an individual's fitness. Social dynamics in captivity can differ greatly from those in wild conspecifics given the different constraints on social organization in wild populations, e.g. group size, predation pressure, distribution of resources (food, mates), which are all regulated by human carers in captive populations. The social networks of animals in zoos is expected to differ from those of free-living conspecifics. While many studies have described the social networks of a wide diversity of wild and captive animals, none has directly compared the networks of multiple groups of a single species both in the wild and in captivity. Meerkats, Suricata suricatta, are an excellent species to compare the social networks of wild and captive groups. We replicated the methods of Madden et al. (2009, 2011), who studied eight groups in the wild, in fifteen captive groups. We tested how network structures and individual positions in grooming, foraging competition and dominance networks differed between wild and captive groups. Groups of wild and captive meerkats differed in various aspects of their social network structure. Differences in the network may be due to individuals occupying different network positions and the difference in the number and strength of their connections to other individuals. This distinct way of interacting and associating could be a result of group specific attributes, such as group size, and/or the attributes of the donor and recipient, including sex, status or age. Critically, the differences may be explained by the dissimilar living environment that each encounters.

Cofeeding tolerance in chimpanzees depends on group composition: a longitudinal study across four communities

Social tolerance is generally treated as a stable, species-specific characteristic. Recent research, however, has questioned this position and emphasized the importance of intraspecific variation. We investigate the temporal stability of social tolerance in four groups of sanctuary-housed chimpanzees over eight years using a commonly employed measure: experimental cofeeding tolerance. We then draw on longitudinal data on the demographic composition of each group to identify the factors associated with cofeeding tolerance. We find appreciable levels of variation in cofeeding tolerance across both groups and years that correspond closely to changes in group-level demographic composition. For example, cofeeding tolerance is lower when there are many females with young infants. These results suggest that social tolerance may be a "responding trait" of chimpanzee sociality, reflecting individual-level behavioral responses to social changes. Additional, experimental research is needed to better model the causal drivers of social tolerance within and among species.

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.

Macaque species with varying social tolerance show no differences in understanding what other agents perceive

A growing body of work demonstrates that a species' socioecology can impact its cognitive abilities. Indeed, even closely related species with different socioecological pressures often show different patterns of cognitive performance on the same task. Here, we explore whether major differences in social tolerance in two closely related macaque species can impact a core sociocognitive ability, the capacity to recognize what others see. Specifically, we compared the performance of Barbary macaques (Macaca sylvanus, n = 80) and rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatta, n = 62) on a standard test of visual perspective understanding. In contrast to the difference in performance, one might expect from these species' divergent socioecologies that our results show similar performance across Barbary and rhesus macaques, with both species forming expectations about how another agent will act based on that agent's visual perspective. These results suggest that differences in socioecology may not play as big of a role in the evolution of some theory of mind capacities as they do in other decision-making or foraging contexts.

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.

Higher social tolerance in wild versus captive common marmosets: the role of interdependence

Social tolerance in a group reflects the balance between within-group competition and interdependence: whereas increased competition leads to a reduction in social tolerance, increased interdependence increases it. Captivity reduces both feeding competition and interdependence and can therefore affect social tolerance. In independently breeding primates, social tolerance has been shown to be higher in captivity, indicating a strong effect of food abundance. It is not known, however, how social tolerance in cooperative breeders, with their much higher interdependence, responds to captivity. Here, we therefore compared social tolerance between free-ranging and captive groups in the cooperatively breeding common marmoset and found higher social tolerance (measured as proximity near food, co-feeding, and food sharing) in the wild. Most likely, social tolerance in the wild is higher because interdependence is particularly high in the wild, especially because infant care is more costly there than in captivity. These results indicate that the high social tolerance of these cooperative breeders in captivity is not an artefact, and that captive data may even have underestimated it. They may also imply that the cooperative breeding and foraging of our hominin ancestors, which relied on strong interdependence at multiple levels, was associated with high social tolerance.

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.

Validity of Cognitive Tests for Non-human Animals: Pitfalls and Prospects

Comparative psychology assesses cognitive abilities and capacities of non-human animals and humans. Based on performance differences and similarities in various species in cognitive tests, it is inferred how their minds work and reconstructed how cognition might have evolved. Critically, such species comparisons are only valid and meaningful if the tasks truly capture individual and inter-specific variation in cognitive abilities rather than contextual variables that might affect task performance. Unlike in human test psychology, however, cognitive tasks for non-human primates (and most other animals) have been rarely evaluated regarding their measurement validity. We review recent studies that address how non-cognitive factors affect performance in a set of commonly used cognitive tasks, and if cognitive tests truly measure individual variation in cognitive abilities. We find that individual differences in emotional and motivational factors primarily affect performance via attention. Hence, it is crucial to systematically control for attention during cognitive tasks to obtain valid and reliable results. Aspects of test design, however, can also have a substantial effect on cognitive performance. We conclude that non-cognitive factors are a minor source of measurement error if acknowledged and properly controlled for. It is essential, however, to validate and eventually re-design several primate cognition tasks in order to ascertain that they capture the cognitive abilities they were designed to measure. This will provide a more solid base for future cognitive comparisons within primates but also across a wider range of non-human animal species.

Teaching varies with task complexity in wild chimpanzees

Understanding social influences on how apes acquire tool behaviors can help us model the evolution of culture and technology in humans. Humans scaffold novice tool skills with diverse strategies, including the transfer of tools between individuals. Chimpanzees transfer tools, and this behavior meets criteria for teaching. However, it is unclear how task complexity relates to this form of helping. Here, we find differences between 2 wild chimpanzee populations in rate, probability, and types of tool transfer during termite gathering. Chimpanzees showed greater helping in the population where termite gathering is a more complex tool task. In wild chimpanzees, as in humans, regular and active provisioning of learning opportunities may be essential to the cultural transmission of complex skills.

Cumulative culture is a transformative force in human evolution, but the social underpinnings of this capacity are debated. Identifying social influences on how chimpanzees acquire tool tasks of differing complexity may help illuminate the evolutionary origins of technology in our own lineage. Humans routinely transfer tools to novices to scaffold their skill development. While tool transfers occur in wild chimpanzees and fulfill criteria for teaching, it is unknown whether this form of helping varies between populations and across tasks. Applying standardized methods, we compared tool transfers during termite gathering by chimpanzees in the Goualougo Triangle, Republic of Congo, and in Gombe, Tanzania. At Goualougo, chimpanzees use multiple, different tool types sequentially, choose specific raw materials, and perform modifications that improve tool efficiency, which could make it challenging for novices to manufacture suitable tools. Termite gathering at Gombe involves a single tool type, fishing probes, which can be manufactured from various materials. Multiple measures indicated population differences in tool-transfer behavior. The rate of transfers and probability of transfer upon request were significantly higher at Goualougo, while resistance to transfers was significantly higher at Gombe. Active transfers of tools in which possessors moved to facilitate possession change upon request occurred only at Goualougo, where they were the most common transfer type. At Gombe, tool requests were typically refused. We suggest that these population differences in tool-transfer behavior may relate to task complexity and that active helping plays an enhanced role in the cultural transmission of complex technology in wild apes.

The effect of individual and food characteristics on food retrieval and food sharing in captive Guinea baboons (Papio papio)

Access to food is of major importance to the fitness and survival of every individual, particularly in group-living animals, in which individual characteristics and food distribution can affect food intake. Additionally, several species of primates are known to share food under certain conditions. Such unresisted transfer of food from one individual to another appears to be adaptive, for instance as a tool to maintain and reinforce social bonds. In this study, we aimed to test how food retrieval and food sharing varies depending on the social relationship between individuals, and on the characteristics of the food. In six different test conditions, we provided a captive group of Guinea baboons (Papio papio, N = 23) with multiple food items, differing in quality, quantity, density, monopolizability, and effort required to obtain it. We further used behavioral observations to assess individual relationships and possible variations in grooming exchanges linked to food sharing events. Out of 424 events in which food items were retrieved by the subjects, we detected no instances of active food sharing and only 17 of passive food sharing. The way food was retrieved was affected by individual and food characteristics (i.e., quantity, quality, and monopolizability of food): Males and central individuals (i.e., those connected to many partners, and/or having partners with many connections in the social network) were more likely to retrieve food during test conditions. In particular, events of passive food sharing mostly happened when the quality of food was low, and between individuals belonging to the same community (i.e., having close relationships). No other food characteristics affected the probability to share food, and the occurrence of food sharing had no immediate effect on grooming exchanges. Overall, our findings suggest that food sharing is relatively rare in Guinea baboons unless the food has a low quality and individuals form close social bonds.

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.

Children, but not great apes, respect ownership

Access to and control of resources is a major source of costly conflicts. Animals, under some conditions, respect what others control and use (i.e. possession). Humans not only respect possession of resources, they also respect ownership. Ownership can be viewed as a cooperative arrangement, where individuals inhibit their tendency to take others' property on the condition that those others will do the same. We investigated to what degree great apes follow this principle, as compared to human children. We conducted two experiments, in which dyads of individuals could access the same food resources. The main test of respect for ownership was whether individuals would refrain from taking their partner's resources even when the partner could not immediately access and control them. Captive apes (N = 14 dyads) failed to respect their partner's claim on food resources and frequently monopolized the resources when given the opportunity. Human children (N = 14 dyads), tested with a similar apparatus and procedure, respected their partner's claim and made spontaneous verbal references to ownership. Such respect for the property of others highlights the uniquely cooperative nature of human ownership arrangements.

Aggression by male bonobos against immature individuals does not fit with predictions of infanticide

The selective advantage of male infanticide is enhancement of reproductive success of the aggressor. This implies that aggression is directed at individuals sired by others, infant loss shortens the mother's inter-birth interval, and the aggressor has a greater likelihood of siring the next offspring of the victims' mother. As these conditions are not always met, the occurrence of male infanticide is expected to vary, and hominoid primates offer an interesting example of variation in male infanticide. Infanticide has been reported in gorillas and chimpanzees but appears to be absent in orangutans and bonobos. One argument for the absence of infanticide in bonobos is reduction of male aggression. However, given that male aggression against immature individuals occurs and that females engage in behavior that is considered to be counterstrategy against male infanticide, the risk of male infanticide may pose a potential threat. Here, we explored whether aggression by male bonobos fits predictions of male infanticide. Male aggression toward immature individuals was rare and did not have lethal consequences, but the majority of observed cases exposed targets to risks of injury. Males did not target their own offspring less frequently than unrelated immatures, and the risk of being the target of male aggression increased with the targets' age. Overall, these results do not match the predictions of the adaptive male infanticide hypothesis. Instead, aggression by males may promote the emigration of the targets and older males may reinforce their superior status toward individuals that will soon compete for the same resources.

Social bonds facilitate cooperative resource sharing in wild chimpanzees

Why share when access to benefits is uncertain is crucial to our understanding of the evolution of humans' extensive cooperation. Here, we investigated some of the different human sharing hypotheses and potential neuroendocrine mechanisms, in one of our closest living relatives, chimpanzees. The strongest predictor of sharing across food types was the presence of enduring and mutually preferred grooming partners, more than harassment, direct signalling, or trade. Moreover, urinary oxytocin levels were higher after the sharing of both individually and jointly acquired resources compared with controls. We conclude that the emotional connection inherent in social bonds was a key factor determining sharing patterns, with the oxytocinergic system potentially facilitating long-term cooperative exchanges. Testing for the role of social bonds in increasing predictability of sharing behaviour, a feature frequently overlooked, may help us to identify the evolutionary drivers of resource sharing and mechanisms that sustain delayed reciprocity between non-kin.

Food Sharing across Borders : First Observation of Intercommunity Meat Sharing by Bonobos at LuiKotale, DRC

Evolutionary models consider hunting and food sharing to be milestones that paved the way from primate to human societies. Because fossil evidence is scarce, hominoid primates serve as referential models to assess our common ancestors' capacity in terms of communal use of resources, food sharing, and other forms of cooperation. Whereas chimpanzees form male-male bonds exhibiting resource-defense polygyny with intolerance and aggression toward nonresidents, bonobos form male-female and female-female bonds resulting in relaxed relations with neighboring groups. Here we report the first known case of meat sharing between members of two bonobo communities, revealing a new dimension of social tolerance in this species. This observation testifies to the behavioral plasticity that exists in the two Pan species and contributes to scenarios concerning the traits of the last common ancestor of Pan and Homo. It also contributes to the discussion of physiological triggers of in-group/out-group behavior and allows reconsideration of the emergence of social norms in prehuman societies.

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.

Zoon politikon: The evolutionary origins of human socio-political systems

We deploy the most up-to-date evidence available in various behavioral fields in support of the following hypothesis: The emergence of bipedalism and cooperative breeding in the hominin line, together with environmental developments that made a diet of meat from large animals adaptive, as well as cultural innovations in the form of fire, cooking, and lethal weapons, created a niche for hominins in which there was a significant advantage to individuals with the ability to communicate and persuade in a moral context. These forces added a unique political dimension to human social life which, through gene-culture coevolution, became Homo ludens-Man, the game player-with the power to conserve and transform the social order. Homo sapiens became, in the words of Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics, a zoon politikon.

Bonobos respond prosocially toward members of other groups

Modern humans live in an "exploded" network with unusually large circles of trust that form due to prosociality toward unfamiliar people (i.e. xenophilia). In a set of experiments we demonstrate that semi-free ranging bonobos (Pan paniscus) - both juveniles and young adults - also show spontaneous responses consistent with xenophilia. Bonobos voluntarily aided an unfamiliar, non-group member in obtaining food even when he/she did not make overt requests for help. Bonobos also showed evidence for involuntary, contagious yawning in response to videos of yawning conspecifics who were complete strangers. These experiments reveal that xenophilia in bonobos can be unselfish, proactive and automatic. They support the first impression hypothesis that suggests xenophilia can evolve through individual selection in social species whenever the benefits of building new bonds outweigh the costs. Xenophilia likely evolved in bonobos as the risk of intergroup aggression dissipated and the benefits of bonding between immigrating members increased. Our findings also mean the human potential for xenophilia is either evolutionarily shared or convergent with bonobos and not unique to our species as previously proposed.

Bystanders intervene to impede grooming in Western chimpanzees and sooty mangabeys

Grooming interactions benefit groomers, but may have negative consequences for bystanders. Grooming limits bystanders' grooming access and ensuing alliances could threaten the bystander's hierarchy rank or their previous investment in the groomers. To gain a competitive advantage, bystanders could intervene into a grooming bout to increase their own grooming access or to prevent the negative impact of others' grooming. We tested the impact of dominance rank and social relationships on grooming intervention likelihood and outcome in two sympatric primate species, Western chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes verus) and sooty mangabeys (Cercocebus atys atys). In both species, rather than increasing their own access to preferred partners, bystanders intervened mainly when an alliance between groomers could have a negative impact on them: when the lower-ranking groomer was close to the bystander in rank, when either groomer was an affiliation partner whose services they could lose, or the groomers were not yet strongly affiliated with each other. Thus, bystanders in both species appear to monitor grooming interactions and intervene based on their own dominance rank and social relationships, as well as triadic awareness of the relationship between groomers. While the motivation to intervene did not differ between species, mangabeys appeared to be more constrained by dominance rank than chimpanzees.

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.

Unraveling the evolution of uniquely human cognition

A satisfactory account of human cognitive evolution will explain not only the psychological mechanisms that make our species unique, but also how, when, and why these traits evolved. To date, researchers have made substantial progress toward defining uniquely human aspects of cognition, but considerably less effort has been devoted to questions about the evolutionary processes through which these traits have arisen. In this article, I aim to link these complementary aims by synthesizing recent advances in our understanding of what makes human cognition unique, with theory and data regarding the processes of cognitive evolution. I review evidence that uniquely human cognition depends on synergism between both representational and motivational factors and is unlikely to be accounted for by changes to any singular cognitive system. I argue that, whereas no nonhuman animal possesses the full constellation of traits that define the human mind, homologies and analogies of critical aspects of human psychology can be found in diverse nonhuman taxa. I suggest that phylogenetic approaches to the study of animal cognition-which can address questions about the selective pressures and proximate mechanisms driving cognitive change-have the potential to yield important insights regarding the processes through which the human cognitive phenotype evolved.

Survival of the Friendliest: Homo sapiens Evolved via Selection for Prosociality

The challenge of studying human cognitive evolution is identifying unique features of our intelligence while explaining the processes by which they arose. Comparisons with nonhuman apes point to our early-emerging cooperative-communicative abilities as crucial to the evolution of all forms of human cultural cognition, including language. The human self-domestication hypothesis proposes that these early-emerging social skills evolved when natural selection favored increased in-group prosociality over aggression in late human evolution. As a by-product of this selection, humans are predicted to show traits of the domestication syndrome observed in other domestic animals. In reviewing comparative, developmental, neurobiological, and paleoanthropological research, compelling evidence emerges for the predicted relationship between unique human mentalizing abilities, tolerance, and the domestication syndrome in humans. This synthesis includes a review of the first a priori test of the self-domestication hypothesis as well as predictions for future tests.

Reciprocal Exchange Patterned by Market Forces Helps Explain Cooperation in a Small-Scale Society

Social organisms sometimes depend on help from reciprocating partners to solve adaptive problems [1], and individual cooperation strategies should aim to offer high supply commodities at low cost to the donor in exchange for high-demand commodities with large return benefits [2, 3]. Although such market dynamics have been documented in some animals [4-7], naturalistic studies of human cooperation are often limited by focusing on single commodities [8]. We analyzed cooperation in five domains (meat sharing, produce sharing, field labor, childcare, and sick care) among 2,161 household dyads of Tsimane' horticulturalists, using Bayesian multilevel models and information-theoretic model comparison. Across domains, the best-fit models included kinship and residential proximity, exchanges in kind and across domains, measures of supply and demand and their interactions with exchange, and household-specific exchange slopes. In these best models, giving, receiving, and reciprocating were to some extent shaped by market forces, and reciprocal exchange across domains had a strong partial effect on cooperation independent of more exogenous factors like kinship and proximity. Our results support the view that reciprocal exchange can provide a reliable solution to adaptive problems [8-11]. Although individual strategies patterned by market forces may generate gains from trade in any species [3], humans' slow life history and skill-intensive foraging niche favor specialization and create interdependence [12, 13], thus stabilizing cooperation and fostering divisions of labor even in informal economies [14, 15].