Marmoset monkeys evaluate third-party reciprocity

Many non-human primates have been observed to reciprocate and to understand reciprocity in one-to-one social exchanges. A recent study demonstrated that capuchin monkeys are sensitive to both third-party reciprocity and violation of reciprocity; however, whether this sensitivity is a function of general intelligence, evidenced by their larger brain size relative to other primates, remains unclear. We hypothesized that highly pro-social primates, even with a relatively smaller brain, would be sensitive to others'' reciprocity. Here, we show that common marmosets discriminated between human actors who reciprocated in social exchanges with others and those who did not. Monkeys accepted rewards less frequently from non-reciprocators than they did from reciprocators when the non-reciprocators had retained all food items, but they accepted rewards from both actors equally when they had observed reciprocal exchange between the actors. These results suggest that mechanisms to detect unfair reciprocity in third-party social exchanges do not require domain-general higher cognitive ability based on proportionally larger brains, but rather emerge from the cooperative and pro-social tendencies of species, and thereby suggest this ability evolved in multiple primate lineages.     

Cooperative problem solving in rooks (Corvus frugilegus)

Recent work has shown that captive rooks, like chimpanzees and other primates, develop cooperative alliances with their conspecifics. Furthermore, the pressures hypothesized to have favoured social intelligence in primates also apply to corvids. We tested cooperative problem-solving in rooks to compare their performance and cognition with primates. Without training, eight rooks quickly solved a problem in which two individuals had to pull both ends of a string simultaneously in order to pull in a food platform. Similar to chimpanzees and capuchin monkeys, performance was better when within-dyad tolerance levels were higher. In contrast to chimpanzees, rooks did not delay acting on the apparatus while their partner gained access to the test room. Furthermore, given a choice between an apparatus that could be operated individually over one that required the action of two individuals, four out of six individuals showed no preference. These results may indicate that cooperation in chimpanzees is underpinned by more complex cognitive processes than that in rooks. Such a difference may arise from the fact that while both chimpanzees and rooks form cooperative alliances, chimpanzees, but not rooks, live in a variable social network made up of competitive and cooperative relationships.     

Mechanisms of reciprocity in primates: testing for short-term contingency of grooming and food sharing in bonobos and chimpanzees

Much of the debate about reciprocity in humans and other primates hinges on proximate mechanisms, or more precisely, the contingency of one service on another. While there is good evidence for long-term statistical contingencies of services given and received in primates, results for short-term behavioral contingencies are mixed. Indeed, as we show here controlled experiments using artificial tasks and explicit turn-taking were unlikely to find short-term effects. We therefore used more naturalistic experiments to test for short-term contingencies of grooming on food sharing and vice versa in one group of chimpanzees and two groups of bonobos. Overall, we found significant effects of grooming on food sharing and vice versa, however, in the chimpanzees these effects disappeared when controlling for long-term characteristics of the dyad including services exchanged over the whole study period. In the bonobos, short-term contingencies remained significant which was likely a consequence of considerable tension surrounding monopolizable food resulting in higher rates of grooming and other affiliative behaviors around sharing sessions. These results are consistent with the fact that previous evidence for short-term contingency often involved grooming and that long-term contingency is more commonly observed in primates. We propose that long-term contingency is proximately regulated by a ‘relationship score’ computed through a tally of past interactions which tend to outweigh recent single events. We therefore suggest that future research into the proximate mechanisms of reciprocity should trace the development of such a score by focusing on newly formed dyads with no history of interactions.     

The fourth dimension of tool use: temporally enduring artefacts aid primates learning to use tools

All investigated cases of habitual tool use in wild chimpanzees and capuchin monkeys include youngsters encountering durable artefacts, most often in a supportive social context. We propose that enduring artefacts associated with tool use, such as previously used tools, partly processed food items and residual material from previous activity, aid non-human primates to learn to use tools, and to develop expertise in their use, thus contributing to traditional technologies in non-humans. Therefore, social contributions to tool use can be considered as situated in the three dimensions of Euclidean space, and in the fourth dimension of time. This notion expands the contribution of social context to learning a skill beyond the immediate presence of a model nearby. We provide examples supporting this hypothesis from wild bearded capuchin monkeys and chimpanzees, and suggest avenues for future research.     

Fission-fusion dynamics, behavioral flexibility, and inhibitory control in primates

The Machiavellian Intelligence or Social Brain Hypothesis explains the evolution of increased brain size as mainly driven by living in complex organized social systems in which individuals represent "moving targets" who can adopt multiple strategies to respond to one another. Frequently splitting and merging in subgroups of variable composition (fission-fusion or FF dynamics) has been proposed as one aspect of social complexity ( compare with) that may be associated with an enhancement of cognitive skills like inhibition, which allows the suppression of prepotent but ineffective responses in a changing social environment. We compared the performance of primates experiencing high levels of FF dynamics (chimpanzees, bonobos, orangutans, and spider monkeys) to that of species living in more cohesive groups (gorillas, capuchin monkeys, and long-tailed macaques) on five inhibition tasks. Testing species differing in diet, phylogenetic relatedness, and levels of FF dynamics allowed us to contrast ecological, phylogenetic, and socioecological explanations for interspecific differences. Spider monkeys performed at levels comparable to chimpanzees, bonobos, and orangutans, and better than gorillas. A two-cluster analysis grouped all species with higher levels of FF dynamics together. These findings confirmed that enhanced inhibitory skills are positively associated with FF dynamics, more than to phylogenetic relations or feeding ecology.     

Calculated reciprocity? A comparative test with six primate species

Little evidence of calculated reciprocity has been found in non-human primates so far. In this study, we used a simple experimental set-up to test whether partners pulled a sliding table to altruistically provide food to each other in short-term interactions. We tested 46 dyads of chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas, orangutans, brown capuchin monkeys and spider monkeys to examine whether a subject’s tendency to provide food to a partner was directly affected by the partner’s previous behaviour, by the species, by the condition (i.e., whether the partner could access the food provided by the subject) and by the social tolerance levels within each dyad. Chimpanzees and orangutans were the only species pulling significantly more when the partner could retrieve the food altruistically provided. However, no species reciprocated food exchanges, as subjects’ probability to pull was not affected by the previous number of the partner’s pulls, with the possible exception of one orangutan dyad. Although subjects clearly knew how the apparatus worked and easily obtained food for themselves, individuals did not usually take the opportunity to provide food to their partners, suggesting that calculated reciprocity is not a common behaviour and that food exchanges are usually not reciprocated in the short-term within dyads.     

Tolerance for inequity may increase with social closeness in chimpanzees

Economic decision-making depends on our social environment. Humans tend to respond differently to inequity in close relationships, yet we know little about the potential for such variation in other species. We examine responses to inequity in several groups of chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) in a paradigm similar to that used previously in capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella). We demonstrate that, like capuchin monkeys, chimpanzees show a response to inequity of rewards that is based upon the partner receiving the reward rather than the presence of the reward alone. However, we also found a great amount of variation between groups tested, indicating that chimpanzees, like people, respond to inequity in a variable manner, which we speculate could be caused by such variables as group size, the social closeness of the group (as reflected in length of time that the group has been together) and group-specific traditions.     

Food transfers in capuchin monkeys: an experiment on partner choice

Although most primates live in groups, experiments on reciprocity usually test individuals in dyads. This could hide the processes emerging in richer social settings, reducing the ecological validity of the results. We run an experiment on reciprocal food transfers testing capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella) in triads, so that subjects could choose to allow access to their food to either of their two partners. We tested the hypothesis that partner choice was related to a comparison of long-term social bonds with the two partners, more than to a comparison of recent food transfer events from the two partners. The results confirmed this hypothesis, thus supporting the notion that reciprocal partner preferences are based on long-term accounts of benefits that have been exchanged.     

Responses to a simple barter task in chimpanzees, Pan troglodytes

Chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) frequently participate in social exchange involving multiple goods and services of variable value, yet they have not been tested in a formalized situation to see whether they can barter using multiple tokens and rewards. We set up a simple barter economy with two tokens and two associated rewards and tested chimpanzees on their ability to obtain rewards by returning the matching token in situations in which their access to tokens was unlimited or limited. Chimpanzees easily learned to associate value with the tokens, as expected, and did barter, but followed a simple strategy of favoring the higher-value token, regardless of the reward proffered, instead of a more complex but more effective strategy of returning the token that matched the reward. This response is similar to that shown by capuchin monkeys in our previous study. We speculate that this response, while not ideal, may be sufficient to allow for stability of the social exchange system in these primates, and that the importance of social barter to both species may have led to this convergence of strategies.     

Use of a tool-set by capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella)

The purpose of this study was to examine the use of a tool-set by capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella). Capuchins were presented with an apparatus designed to accommodate the use of pounding tools to crack walnuts and the use of probing tools to loosen and extract the inner meat. Three capuchins used stones and sticks sequentially for these purposes. The capuchins' behavior was similar in form and function to behavior that has been reported for chimpanzees in analogous situations. These results provide further evidence of the extensive tool-using capabilities of capuchin monkeys and are consistent with a hypothesis of cross-species continuity in the skillful use of tools by primates.     

A Modular Mind? A Test Using Individual Data from Seven Primate Species

It has long been debated whether the mind consists of specialized and independently evolving modules, or whether and to what extent a general factor accounts for the variance in performance across different cognitive domains. In this study, we used a hierarchical Bayesian model to re-analyse individual level data collected on seven primate species (chimpanzees, bonobos, orangutans, gorillas, spider monkeys, brown capuchin monkeys and long-tailed macaques) across 17 tasks within four domains (inhibition, memory, transposition and support). Our modelling approach evidenced the existence of both a domain-specific factor and a species factor, each accounting for the same amount (17%) of the observed variance. In contrast, inter-individual differences played a minimal role. These results support the hypothesis that the mind of primates is (at least partially) modular, with domain-specific cognitive skills undergoing different evolutionary pressures in different species in response to specific ecological and social demands.     

The ecology of primate material culture

Tool use in extant primates may inform our understanding of the conditions that favoured the expansion of hominin technology and material culture. The ‘method of exclusion’ has, arguably, confirmed the presence of culture in wild animal populations by excluding ecological and genetic explanations for geographical variation in behaviour. However, this method neglects ecological influences on culture, which, ironically, may be critical for understanding technology and thus material culture. We review all the current evidence for the role of ecology in shaping material culture in three habitual tool-using non-human primates: chimpanzees, orangutans and capuchin monkeys. We show that environmental opportunity, rather than necessity, is the main driver. We argue that a better understanding of primate technology requires explicit investigation of the role of ecological conditions. We propose a model in which three sets of factors, namely environment, sociality and cognition, influence invention, transmission and retention of material culture.     

Abstract Knowledge in the Broken-String Problem: Evidence from Nonhuman Primates and Pre-Schoolers

There is still large controversy about whether abstract knowledge of physical problems is uniquely human. We presented 9 capuchin monkeys, 6 bonobos, 6 chimpanzees and 48 children with two versions of a broken-string problem. In the standard condition, participants had to choose between an intact and a broken string as means to a reward. In the critical condition, the functional parts of the strings were covered up and replaced by perceptually similar, but non-functional cues. Apes, monkeys and young children performed significantly better in the standard condition in which the cues played a functional role, indicating knowledge of the functional properties involved. Moreover, a control experiment with chimpanzees and young children ruled out that this difference in performance could be accounted for by differences of perceptual feedback in the two conditions. We suggest that, similar to humans, nonhuman primates partly rely on abstract concepts in physical problem-solving.     

Mechanisms of social reciprocity in three primate species: Symmetrical relationship characteristics or cognition?

Agonistic intervention behavior was observed in captive groups of chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes), rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta), and stumptail monkeys (M. arctoides). Reciprocity correlations of interventions were determined while removing from the data the effects of several symmetrical relationship characteristics, that is, matrillineal kinship, proximity relations, and same-sex combination. It was considered likely that if significant reciprocity persisted after controlling for these characteristics, the reciprocity was based on cognitive mechanisms. Statistical significance was tested by means of recently developed matrix permutation procedures. All three species exhibited significant reciprocity with regard to beneficial interventions, even after controlling for symmetrical traits. Harmful interventions were, however, reciprocal among chimpanzees only. This species showed a “revenge system”, that is, if A often intervened against B, B did the same to A. In contrast, both macaque species showed significantly inversed reciprocity in their harmful interventions: if A often intervened against B, B rarely intervened against A. Further analysis indicates that the strict hierarchy of macaques prevents them from achieving complete reciprocity. Compared to chimpanzees, macaques rarely intervene against higher ranking group members. The observed contrast can be partially explained on the basis of differences in available space, as indicated by a comparison of indoor and outdoor living conditions for the chimpanzee colony. Yet, even when such spatial factors are taken into account, substantial behavior differences between chimpanzees and macaques remain.     

Prosocial primates: selfish and unselfish motivations

Non-human primates are marked by well-developed prosocial and cooperative tendencies as reflected in the way they support each other in fights, hunt together, share food and console victims of aggression. The proximate motivation behind such behaviour is not to be confused with the ultimate reasons for its evolution. Even if a behaviour is ultimately self-serving, the motivation behind it may be genuinely unselfish. A sharp distinction needs to be drawn, therefore, between (i) altruistic and cooperative behaviour with knowable benefits to the actor, which may lead actors aware of these benefits to seek them by acting cooperatively or altruistically and (ii) altruistic behaviour that offers the actor no knowable rewards. The latter is the case if return benefits occur too unpredictably, too distantly in time or are of an indirect nature, such as increased inclusive fitness. The second category of behaviour can be explained only by assuming an altruistic impulse, which—as in humans—may be born from empathy with the recipient''s need, pain or distress. Empathy, a proximate mechanism for prosocial behaviour that makes one individual share another''s emotional state, is biased the way one would predict from evolutionary theories of cooperation (i.e. by kinship, social closeness and reciprocation). There is increasing evidence in non-human primates (and other mammals) for this proximate mechanism as well as for the unselfish, spontaneous nature of the resulting prosocial tendencies. This paper further reviews observational and experimental evidence for the reciprocity mechanisms that underlie cooperation among non-relatives, for inequity aversion as a constraint on cooperation and on the way defection is dealt with.     

Adult Cleaner Wrasse Outperform Capuchin Monkeys,Chimpanzees and Orang-utans in a Complex Foraging Task Derived from Cleaner – Client Reef Fish Cooperation

The insight that animals'' cognitive abilities are linked to their evolutionary history, and hence their ecology, provides the framework for the comparative approach. Despite primates renowned dietary complexity and social cognition, including cooperative abilities, we here demonstrate that cleaner wrasse outperform three primate species, capuchin monkeys, chimpanzees and orang-utans, in a foraging task involving a choice between two actions, both of which yield identical immediate rewards, but only one of which yields an additional delayed reward. The foraging task decisions involve partner choice in cleaners: they must service visiting client reef fish before resident clients to access both; otherwise the former switch to a different cleaner. Wild caught adult, but not juvenile, cleaners learned to solve the task quickly and relearned the task when it was reversed. The majority of primates failed to perform above chance after 100 trials, which is in sharp contrast to previous studies showing that primates easily learn to choose an action that yields immediate double rewards compared to an alternative action. In conclusion, the adult cleaners'' ability to choose a superior action with initially neutral consequences is likely due to repeated exposure in nature, which leads to specific learned optimal foraging decision rules.     

Seasonal variation in the testicular volume of capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella) in captivity

The study of the reproductive strategy developed by different species in order to adapt to their environmental conditions and their meaning in an evolutionary perspective is essential for understanding the mechanisms involved in the process of reproduction. Non-human primates are very interesting models for this purpose. Some species show a typical seasonal reproductive pattern, such as rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatta) [Sade, 1964; Conaway and Sade, 1965] and ring-tailed lemurs (Lemur catta) [Zuckerman, 1953], while others, such as gorillas (Gorilla gorilla) and chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) [Puschmann, 1975], show relative independence of the environment. Neotropical primates display many different breeding strategies. Female capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella), for instance, having reached puberty, have fertile cycles year-round [Hamlett, 1939; Nagle and Denari, 1983]. Interestingly, there are reports of a clear peak of births in free-living [Hamlett, 1939] and captive colonies [Welker et al., 1983] in the dry season, i.e. May-June in the southern hemisphere. Some authors suggest that a seasonal variation in spermatogenesis could explain the birth peak [Freese and Oppenheimer, 1981]. The aim of this study was to investigate this theory, measuring seasonal variation in total testicular volume in a captive group of male capuchin monkeys and assessing its temporal correlation with the birth season as an indirect indication of variation in male fertility.     

Can Traditions Emerge from the Interaction of Stimulus Enhancement and Reinforcement Learning? An Experimental Model

The study of social learning in captivity and behavioral traditions in the wild are two burgeoning areas of research, but few empirical studies have tested how learning mechanisms produce emergent patterns of tradition. Studies have examined how social learning mechanisms that are cognitively complex and possessed by few species, such as imitation, result in traditional patterns, yet traditional patterns are also exhibited by species that may not possess such mechanisms. We propose an explicit model of how stimulus enhancement and reinforcement learning could interact to produce traditions. We tested the model experimentally with tufted capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella), which exhibit traditions in the wild but have rarely demonstrated imitative abilities in captive experiments. Monkeys showed both stimulus enhancement learning and a habitual bias to perform whichever behavior first obtained them a reward. These results support our model that simple social learning mechanisms combined with reinforcement can result in traditional patterns of behavior.     

Making amends

Conflict is an integral, and potentially disruptive, element in the lives of humans and other group-living animals. But conflicts are often settled, sometimes within minutes after the altercation has ended. The goal of this paper is to understand why primates, including humans, make amends. Primatologists have gathered an impressive body of evidence which demonstrates that monkeys and apes use a variety of behavioral mechanisms to resolve conflicts. Peaceful post-conflict interactions in nonhuman primates, sometimes labeled "reconciliation," have clear and immediate effects upon former adversaries, relieving uncertainty about whether aggression will continue, reducing stress, increasing tolerance, and reducing anxiety about whether aggressors will resume aggression toward former victims. However, the long-term effects of these interactions are less clearly established, leaving room to debate the adaptive function of conflict resolution strategies among primates. It is possible that reconciliatory behavior enhances the quality of valued, long-term social relationships or that reconciliatory interactions are signals that the conflict has ended and the actor’s intentions are now benign. Both of these hypotheses may help us to understand how and why monkeys, apes, and humans make amends. Over the past few years I have discussed the ideas in this paper with a number of colleagues, whose constructive comments and criticism have helped me to shape my thoughts about PPCS. I am grateful for feedback from F. Aureli, R. Boyd, D. Castles, D. Cheney, M. Cords, L. Fairbanks, S. Harcourt, S. Hrdy, B. Kaldor, R. Seyfarth, D. Smucny, and K. Stewart. Joan Silk is a professor in and chair of the Department of Anthropology at the University of California, Los Angeles. She has long-standing interests in the evolution of social behavior and the dynamics of social interactions among primates. She has conducted research on chimpanzees at the Gombe Stream National Park, on free-ranging baboons in Kenya and Botswana, and on captive bonnet macaques.     

Chimpanzees coordinate in a negotiation game

A crucially important aspect of human cooperation is the ability to negotiate to cooperative outcomes when interests over resources conflict. Although chimpanzees and other social species may negotiate conflicting interests regarding travel direction or activity timing, very little is known about their ability to negotiate conflicting preferences over food. In the current study, we presented pairs of chimpanzees with a choice between two cooperative tasks—one with equal payoffs (e.g., 5-5) and one with unequal payoffs (higher and lower than in the equal option, e.g., 10-1). This created a conflict of interests between partners with failure to work together on the same cooperative task resulting in no payoff for either partner. The chimpanzee pairs cooperated successfully in as many as 78–94% of the trials across experiments. Even though dominant chimpanzees preferred the unequal option (as they would obtain the largest payoff), subordinate chimpanzees were able to get their way (the equal option) in 22–56% of trials across conditions. Various analyses showed that subjects were both strategic and also cognizant of the strategies used by their partners. These results demonstrate that one of our two closest primate relatives, the chimpanzee, can settle conflicts of interest over resources in mutually satisfying ways—even without the social norms of equity, planned strategies of reciprocity, and the complex communication characteristic of human negotiation.