User:Psyc452-GGeorge/Evolutionary psychology of non-kin group interactions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The evolutionary psychology of non-kin group interactions examines the manner in which organisms cooperate and/or take advantage of other non-related organisms. Investment in kin may contribute to one’s own reproductive success, but investment in non-kin may not and that genetic advantage shapes social relationships.

Types of Non-kin Group Interactions[edit]

Cooperation[edit]

Non-kin reciprocity (or "reciprocal altruism") serves as the foundation for long-term cooperativeness between individuals.[1] Cooperation by an individual is contingent upon the cooperation of others. Reciprocal altruism usually involves a system of score-keeping. There are several different strategies for engaging in reciprocal altruism. The two predominant strategies are tit for tat and contingent cooperation. [2].Reciprocity is a central issue in the study of relationships and the degree of reciprocity has been found to vary depending on the type of relationship and goals of those involved. For example, those with communal goals such as kinship groups place less emphasis on the balance of give and take in relationships than those with exchange goals such as peer groups [3] [4]. According to this evolutionary model, a relationship between close kin holds a smaller expectation of reciprocation than relationships between far kin or non-related persons. Because helping or supporting kin increases the chance that shared genes will survive, an advantage in fitness can be achieved even when support is not reciprocated [5]. Among non-kin relationships there should be a higher expectation of reciprocal exchange and relationships which do not fulfill reproductive success by passing down genes.

Reciprocal altruism must have a favorable cost-benefit ratio, especially among non-kin. Reciprocal altruism may have co-evolved with meat-sharing. Meat was an extremely valuable commodity that was not available frequently and could not be preserved. Therefore, if a male killed an animal, it would not be a cost to him to share the extra meat with non-kin. If the same male could not catch prey later on, he could be returned the favor. Group hunting and scarcity of meat may have strongly contributed to the development of reciprocal altruism. [6] Reciprocity can also occur among strangers. This may be a maladaptive response to modern societal conditions. Humans may have reciprocal relationships with strangers, because in our hunter-gatherer past we encountered few strangers. In modernity, when we encounter strangers, our "stone-age minds" may register them as kin or close non-kin.[7]

Predicting Factors of Reciprocity[edit]

Studies have shown that certain factors can increase the likeliness of an individual displaying cooperative behavior.

Birth Order[edit]
Main article: Birth Order

Firstborns are less trustful and reciprocate less with non-kin[8]. This has been attributed to a reduction in cooperation on behalf of firstborns when a second, younger sibling is born[8]. Middleborn children are the most trustful of non-kin members and also reciprocate with non-kin members the most[8], potentially because their closest relationships are with non-kin members[9].

Neighborhood Diversity[edit]

Reciprocity patterns in neighborhood communities differ relative to the overall financial stability of a neighborhood’s inhabitants. When neighborhoods are run-down and poor, members of the community are less likely to help their neighbors, and of these members, the most poor have the highest difficulty in honoring the theme of reciprocity in which one returns favors (in other words, “you scratch my back, I scratch yours” is fully executed)[10]. When neighborhoods have a higher average income, the families are more likely to engage in non-kin reciprocity with one another. Racial diversity within neighborhoods has been shown not to have a significant effect on non-kin reciprocity[10].

Personality Traits[edit]

There are individual differences in the tendency of individuals to act altruistically. There are different personality traits associated with reciprocal altruism and with kin altruism. The Big '5' personality trait of agreeableness is related to reciprocal altruism. Specifically, the personality traits of forgiveness and non-retaliation in individuals may encourage them to engage in non-kin reciprocal altruism.[11]


Mutualism[edit]

Main article: Mutualism (biology)

Cooperation can generate immediate shared benefits for both parties involved. There is an argument that cooperative behavior based on shared benefits could generate opportunities for selection to favor individuals that cheat thus preventing the maintenance of cooperation. However, if group size is small and cooperation generates benefits to cooperators’ reproductive success/survival, cheaters cannot exploit the delay between giving and receiving assistance. Thus, there would be little opportunity for cheating strategies to evolve.[12]

Pseudo-Reciprocity[edit]

Manipulators may adjust their behavior to increase the probability that the other party performs purely selfish actions, which increase their own fitness but as a coincidental “by-product” provide benefits to the manipulator. According to Connor, pseudo-reciprocity "comprises those interactions in which the return benefit for a beneficent act is a by-product or incidental effect of egoistic behaviour by the recipient of the beneficent act."[13]


Problems[edit]

Problems with direct reciprocity empirical evidence[edit]

There are some problems with the theories of non-kin reciprocity and evolution. More aspects of non-kin reciprocity must be demonstrated in order for it to hold serious weight in evolutionary psychological theory. It must be demonstrated that the same individuals are repeatedly assisting each other, for example, and that the frequency they assist (the cost) is contingent upon the frequency their partner assists them (the benefit). It must also be established that while cooperative behavior has temporary costs short term, it is followed by benefits for the individual down the road. Empirical evidence must also support that individuals engaging in reciprocity are non-related, are not prospective mates, and that cooperative behavior has temporary costs but payoffs later.[5][12]

References[edit]

  1. ^ Michael C. Ashton, Sampo V. Paunonen, Edward Helmes, Douglas N. Jackson. "Kin Altruism, Reciprocal Altruism, and the Big Five Personality Factors" Evolution and Human Behavior, Volume 19, Issue 4, July 1998, Pages 243–255.
  2. ^ Gurven, M. (2006). The evolution of contingent cooperation. Current Anthropology, 47(1), 185-192.
  3. ^ Fiske, A. P. (1992). The four elementary forms of sociality: Framework for a unified theory of social relations. Psychological Review, 99(4), 689-723. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.99.4.689
  4. ^ Clark, M. S. (1981). Noncomparability of benefits given and received: A cue to the existence of friendship. Social Psychology Quarterly, 44(4), 375-381. doi:10.2307/3033907
  5. ^ a b Hamilton, W. D. (1996). The genetical evolution of social behavior, I. In L. D. Houck, L. C. Drickamer (Eds.) , Foundations of animal behavior: Classic papers with commentaries (pp. 764-779). Chicago, IL US: University of Chicago Press.
  6. ^ Buunk, B. P. & Schaufeli, W. B. (1999). Reciprocity in interpersonal relationships: An evolutionary perspective on its importance for health and well-being. European Review of Psychology, 10(1), 259-291.
  7. ^ Herbert Gintis, Joseph Henrich, Samuel Bowles, Robert Boyd, Ernst Fehr. "Strong Reciprocity and the Roots of Human Morality" Social Justice Research, Volume 21, Issue 2, June 2008, Pages 241-253.
  8. ^ a b c Johnson, Ronald C., Danko, George P.,Darvill, Thomas J., Nagoshi, Craig T. “Docility” versus reciprocity as an explanation for evolutionary selection for altruistic behavior, Personality and Individual Differences, Volume 13, Issue 3, March 1992, Pages 263-267, ISSN 0191-8869, 10.1016/0191-8869(92)90100-4
  9. ^ Salmon, C. A. & Daly, M. 1998. Birth order and familial sentiment: middleborns are different. Evolution and Human Behavior, 19, 299–312.
  10. ^ a b Phan, M. B., Blumer, N., & Demaiter, E. I. (2009). Helping hands: Neighborhood diversity, deprivation, and reciprocity of support in non-kin networks. Journal Of Social And Personal Relationships, 26(6-7), 899-918. doi:10.1177/0265407509345655.
  11. ^ Ashton, M. C., Paunonen, S. V., Helmes, E., & Jackson, D. N. (1998). Kin altruism, reciprocal altruism, and the Big Five personality factors.Evolution And Human Behavior, 19(4), 243-255. doi:10.1016/S1090-5138(98)00009-9 .
  12. ^ a b Clutton-Brock, T. (2009). Cooperation between non-kin in animal societies. Nature, 462(7269), 51-57. doi:10.1038/nature08366
  13. ^ Connor, Richard. Pseudo-Reciprocity: Investing in Mutualism. Animal Behaviour, 1986, p. 1562.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Psyc452-GGeorge/Evolutionary_psychology_of_non-kin_group_interactions&oldid=695562800"