In the Light of Evolution Volume V: Cooperation and Conflict (2011) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
16 Evolutionary Foundations of Human Prosocial Sentiments--JOAN B. SILK and BAILEY R. HOUSE
16 Evolutionary Foundations of Human Prosocial Sentiments--JOAN B. SILK and BAILEY R. HOUSE
Pages 343-362
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 343... ...
Although altruistic behavior is well documented in other primates, the range of altruistic behaviors in other primate species, including the great apes, is much more limited than it is in humans. Moreover, when altruism does occur among other primates, it is typically limited to familiar group members -- close kin, mates, and reciprocating partners.
|
From page 344... ...
However, as Adam Smith realized, human behavior deviates from the expected behavior for self-interested actors. Experi mental studies in behavioral economics that are designed to bring conflicts between self-interest and altruism into sharp relief show that people value their own welfare but also value the welfare of others (Henrich et al., 2004; Fehr and Schmidt, 2006)
|
From page 345... ...
This eliminates reputational benefits or expectations based on reciprocity. A selfish player would keep the full endowment; an altruistic player would allocate some fraction of the endowment to the recipient.
|
From page 346... ...
. Fairness Proposers' offers in the Dictator Game, recipients' behavior in the Ultimatum Game, and responses of third parties in the Third-Party Punishment Game all suggest that people have a strong preference for equitable outcomes.
|
From page 347... ...
. CRITIQUES OF INTERPRETATION OF BEHAVIORAL ECONOMICS GAMES In behavioral economics games, players are paired with strangers in one-shot games to eliminate egoistic motives for altruism, including the opportunity for reciprocity and reputational benefits.
|
From page 348... ...
found that contributions in an anonymous Dictator Game were higher when the computer monitor displayed a pair of stylized eyes than when it displayed plain text. The effects of eyes in the Dictator Game have been replicated (Rigdon et al., 2009; Mifune et al., 2010; Oda et al., 2011)
|
From page 349... ...
However, if people are motivated by egoistic motives, then the benefits that they deliver to others may be incidental to their primary goals. People might be motivated to help others, because helping brings rewards to themselves (including reputational benefits or future material gains)
|
From page 350... ...
DIMENSIONS OF ALTRUISTIC SOCIAL PREFERENCES IN NONHUMAN PRIMATES Differences in the scope and pattern of cooperation between humans and other primates may be reflected in differences in the nature of their social preferences. Researchers have recently begun to explore the dimensions of altruistic social preferences in nonhuman primates in systematic ways using the same kinds of tools that behavioral economists have used to assess human social preferences.
|
From page 351... ...
Therefore, a nonsocial control condition was included in which no recipient was present to receive rewards. Actors' choices in the Prosocial Test provide insights about their social preferences.
|
From page 352... ...
In both of these studies, the actors were as likely to deliver rewards in the nonsocial control condition as in the social test condition. Brosnan et al.
|
From page 353... ...
This was not seen in any of the studies. HELPFUL RESPONSES OF CHIMPANZEES IN OTHER EXPERIMENTAL SETTINGS The conclusions derived from the prosocial test with chimpanzees conflict with results derived from experimental paradigms in which one individual is given the opportunity to help another individual obtain a goal.
|
From page 354... ...
Recipients were motivated to gain access to the locked room, because it contained food rewards, but these rewards were not visible to the actors. In the test condition, food rewards were placed in the room that the actor could unlock and the recipient could enter; in the control condition, food rewards were placed in the room that the recipient could not enter.
|
From page 355... ...
The participants were significantly more likely to pull the platform to the end position in the two altruism conditions than in the baseline condition, suggesting that the chimpanzees were willing to continue pulling even after they had obtained their own reward. In this setting, direct solicitations or requests for help were rarely observed.
|
From page 356... ...
House RECONCILING RESULTS FROM EXPERIMENTAL STUDIES OF PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR IN CHIMPANZEES In the Prosocial Test, chimpanzees are as likely to choose the proso cial option when another individual is present as when they are alone, and therefore, they do not meet the experimental criterion for prosocial preferences. In several helping tasks, chimpanzees are more likely to pro vide help when it is needed than when it is not needed and thus, satisfy the criterion for prosocial behavior within these protocols.
|
From page 357... ...
The scope of prosocial responses roughly parallels food-sharing patterns in naturalistic settings. Tests for prosocial behavior in tamarins, which also breed coopera tively, have produced mixed results.
|
From page 358... ...
House behavior is evidence for prosocial preferences and not contingent reciprocity, because the effects only emerged in the last one-third of the 5-minute trials. However, this leaves open the question of why the tamarins did not provide rewards to their partners in the no-reciprocity condition.
|
From page 359... ...
. In other trials, proposers received rewards of high value and could deliver rewards of high or low value (H/H vs.
|
From page 360... ...
, who trained tufted capuchins to exchange tokens for food rewards. The monkeys consistently offered experimenters tokens in exchange for small pieces of cucumbers, but some individu als refused to complete exchanges after they saw other group members receive more highly valued rewards in exchange for tokens or saw other group members obtain more highly valued rewards without exchanging tokens.
|
From page 361... ...
It is important to continue efforts to chart the size and dimensions of the gap between humans and other primates if we want to understand the evolutionary forces that have shaped human social preferences. Evidence that closely related primates, particularly great apes, have altruistic social preferences would suggest that our social preferences were built on a set of ancestral motivations that facilitated altruism to kin and reciprocating partners, mutualistic activities with group members, punitive behavior to competitors, antagonistic attitudes to strangers, and concern for reputational status.
|
From page 362... ...
First, they would strengthen comparative analyses by providing a richer database to test functional hypotheses about the factors that contribute to variation in prosocial preferences across species. Second, by using stan dardized methods, we can generate larger samples of behavior within species.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.