Abstract

Several theories have been generated to understand the socio-cognitive mechanisms underlying the unique cooperative abilities of humans. The ‘interdependence hypothesis' posits first, that the cognitive dimension of human cooperation evolved in contexts when several individuals needed to act together to achieve a common goal, like when hunting large prey. Second, the more interdependent individuals are, the more likely they are to provide services to conspecifics in other contexts. Alternatively, the ‘social tolerance hypothesis' proposes that higher social tolerance allows conspecifics to cooperate more efficiently and with a wider range of partners. We conducted the first field experimental evaluation of both hypotheses in our closest living relatives by contrasting chimpanzees to the less interdependent but more tolerant bonobos. We compared each species' performance during a cooperative task: informing conspecifics about a danger. We presented Gaboon viper models to 82 individuals from five wild communities. Chimpanzees arriving late at the snake were significantly more likely to have heard a call and less likely to startle, indicating that chimpanzees were better informed about the presence of the threat than bonobos. This stems from clear species differences in how individuals adjusted their calling decisions to the level of information already available. Chimpanzees were more likely to call and produced more alarm calls when they had not yet heard a call, whereas bonobos did so when they already heard a call. Our results confirm the link between interdependence and cooperation performance. These species differences were most likely driven by differences in motivation rather than in cognitive capacities because both species tended to consider audience knowledge in their decision to call. Our results inform theories on the evolution of human cooperation by linking inter-group competition pressure and in-group cooperative motivation and/or capability.

Highlights

  • Humans have evolved sophisticated cooperative systems that are unprecedented in the animal kingdom and characterized by an exceptional ability to operate large scale group-level cooperation with non-relatives [1]

  • The interdependence hypothesis hereby conceptually links two different forms of human cooperation: (i) ‘collaboration’ which refers to the joint action of two or more conspecifics towards a common goal that each participant could not have reached on their own; and (ii) ‘non-collaborative’ cooperation, which refers to a service provided by an individual to a conspecific and which provides some form of fitness benefit to the recipient [4]

  • In the first model, we investigated the likelihood for a late arriver to have received auditory information about the threat before approaching the snake using a general linear mixed models (GLMMs) with binomial error structure with ‘late arriver heard an alarm call before seeing the snake: yes or no’ as a response

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Humans have evolved sophisticated cooperative systems that are unprecedented in the animal kingdom and characterized by an exceptional ability to operate large scale group-level cooperation with non-relatives [1]. The first aim of the study was to compare the efficiency of the alarm calling system (as a measure of success at solving a non-collaborative cooperative task) between wild bonobos and chimpanzees, using the same, highly salient, naturally present stimuli in both species: a model of a Gaboon viper (hereafter ‘snake model’). We ran a GLMM with a binomial error structure and ‘a conspecific was on the ground within 5 m of the snake with its body oriented towards the snake (later on defined as ‘snake-oriented-body’, electronic supplementary material, figure S4) yes or no’ as a response In both models, species was used as a test predictor and individual’s age class and sex as control predictors. We checked for model stability and the absence of collinearity and overdispersion issue (model 2b) which revealed no violation of the models’ assumptions (see the electronic supplementary material)

Results
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