Humans are much more inclined to cooperate than are their closest evolutionary relatives. The prevailing wisdom about why this is true has long been focused on the idea of altruism: we go out of our way to do nice things for other people, sometimes even sacrificing personal success for the good of others. Modern theories of cooperative behavior suggest that acting selflessly in the moment provides a selective advantage to the altruist in the form of some kind of return benefit.
A new study published by Current Anthropology offers another explanation for our unusual aptitude for collaboration. The authors of the study argue that humans developed cooperative skills because it was in their mutual interest to work well with others—indeed ecological circumstances forced them to cooperate with others to obtain food. In other words, altruism isn't the reason we cooperate; we must cooperate in order to survive, and we are altruistic to others because we need them.
Previous theories located the origin of cooperation in either small group settings or large, sophisticated societies. Based on results from cognitive and psychological experiments and research on human development, this study provides a comprehensive account of the evolution of cooperation as a two-step process, which begins in small hunter-gatherer groups and becomes more complex and culturally inscribed in larger societies later on.
The authors premise their theory of mutualistic cooperation on the principle of interdependence. They speculate that at some point in our evolution, it became necessary for humans to forage together, which meant that each individual had a direct stake in the welfare of his partners. In this context of interdependence, humans evolved special cooperative abilities that other apes do not possess, including dividing the spoils fairly, communicating goals and strategies, and understanding one's role in the joint activity as equivalent to another's. Good partners—who were able to coordinate well with their fellow foragers and would pull their weight in the group—were more likely to succeed.
As societies grew in size and complexity, their members became even more dependent on one another. In what the authors of this study define as a second evolutionary step, these collaborative skills and impulses were developed on a larger scale as humans faced competition from other groups. People became more "group-minded," identifying with others in their society even if they did not know them personally. This new sense of belonging brought about cultural conventions, norms, and institutions that incentivized and structured feelings of social responsibility.
University of Chicago Press Journals: http://www.journals.uchicago.edu
This press release was posted to serve as a topic for discussion. Please comment below. We try our best to only post press releases that are associated with peer reviewed scientific literature. Critical discussions of the research are appreciated. If you need help finding a link to the original article, please contact us on twitter or via e-mail.
When you spend five years watching kangaroos, you start to see some strange things.
Nearly three-quarters of fresh shop-bought chickens test positive for food poisoning bug campylobacter in year-long study.
Designed to give paralysed people more independence, the implant also lets us see if brain activity can show a person's decisions – before they realise they've made any
Australopithecus deyiremeda, which lived about 3.4 million yeas ago, suggests our ancestors were more diverse than we thought
Scientists say it's not just a murder from another era, but also part of one of the earliest mass graves.
Wild birds identify “good” seeds without first opening the shells by weighing them and by listening to the sound produced when clicking their beaks on the shell, according to a recent study
139 new species were identified in South East Asian region in 2014, including four moths named after Thai princesses and a new mammal
A genetically engineered version of a virus that normally causes cold sores shows real promise for treating skin cancer, say researchers.
An experimental Parkinson's treatment abandoned in the 1990s has been revived – and could restore a person's control of their movement within five years
The White House said on Tuesday the ethical issues associated with gene-editing on the human genome need further study by the scientific community and should not be pursued until issues are resolved.