Abstract

AbstractOne way to cooperate with others and avoid exploitation is reciprocal cooperation. Reciprocity is the selective helping of those who were cooperative before, which is commonly based on outcomes. Yet, outcomes may not reflect intentions, that is if an individual is unable but willing to help. Humans, including children, show such intention‐based reciprocity. However, it is unclear whether other animals consider intentions in reciprocal settings. Here, I tested whether Norway rats (Rattus norvegicus) reciprocate help based on intentions by manipulating the outcome while keeping the partner's cooperative intentions the same. Subjects experienced a partner that was able to help by providing food via a movable platform. In another condition, the same partner was unable to help because the platform was blocked. When the roles were exchanged afterwards, subjects provided food more often to “able” than “unable” partners, even though the latter attempted to help. I compared these findings to data using “willing” and “unwilling” partners that were able to help. Again, rats based their cooperative behaviour on outcomes rather than the intention to help. This suggests that rats reciprocate primarily based on outcomes and seem to not consider cooperative intentions. Although subjects provided consistently less food to partners that did not help, they provided them with some help. Potentially, rats use a cognitively less demanding strategy by helping defectors a bit to maintain cooperation. Thereby, cooperation might be resistant to situations in which an apparent defector was actually unable to help, but had cooperative intentions and might be a good cooperation partner in the future.

Highlights

  • Human adults perceive others as intentional agents and attribute thoughts, beliefs and intentions to them, which helps to explain and predict the behaviour of others (Gummerum & Chu, 2014)

  • Reading intentions might be especially important in the context of reciprocal cooperation, where individuals help those that are cooperative (Trivers, 1971)

  • Partners, and avoid exploitative ones, we usually evaluate the kindness of an action and its outcome—­based on intentions (Falk & Fischbacher, 2006)

Read more

Summary

| INTRODUCTION

Human adults perceive others as intentional agents and attribute thoughts, beliefs and intentions to them, which helps to explain and predict the behaviour of others (Gummerum & Chu, 2014). If an individual is hungry and begging for food, but their partner has no food, it might be important to realise that this partner is not generally unwilling to cooperate, but unable at this occasion In the future, this partner might be able and willing to help and might be a good cooperation partner. The only study to date on intention-­based reciprocity in animals, I am aware of, investigated predator mobbing behaviour in neighbouring pied flycatchers (Ficedula hypoleuca) These birds were more likely to help neighbours that were unable to help on a previous instance, because they were caught by the experimenters, than seemingly unwilling neighbours that were caught but alarm calls were played back (Krams et al, 2013). If rats help based primarily on outcomes, they should make no difference between those partners as the outcome is the same (Table 1)

| METHODS
| Experimental procedure
Findings
| DISCUSSION
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call