People also have norms of cooperation for different circumstances. How much you cooperate with your sports team might be different than how much you cooperate with your neighbors, for instance. Moreover, we tend to adopt the norms of the society and organization we find ourselves in. This means that humans are conditionally cooperative: we cooperate only when others cooperate. Experimental research bears this out.
On the whole, individuals appear to be cooperative so long as they know that other people are being cooperative. A majority of individuals give in amounts that are similar to others in their group if past information about their peers is known, and this pattern holds true in experiments in the lab, 19 in the field 20 and in real-world case studies. For example, our research laboratory played a cooperative game with shoppers at neighboring grocery stores—one cooperative, and one traditional.
We found that people exiting the co-op were more generous donated a larger portion of their experimental earnings to others than shoppers at the traditional grocery store. The co-op we studied had stronger norms of cooperation, as most co-ops probably do.
Sometimes cooperative norms require even more support, especially when a social norm needs to be changed. Another simple and powerful tool to support cooperative norms is reward for cooperation and punishment for free-riding. Research shows that reward and punishment can make cooperative behavior flourish. Experiments that allow individuals to pay to penalize free-riders show that punishment gradually decreases over time and cooperation slowly increases to a sustainable majority.
Experiments of this type show that individuals tend to act cooperatively when there is a firm but fair system in place, rewarding good behavior and punishing bad.
Rules take on a different role when considered as tools to bolster cooperative behavior, rather than coerce or require certain outcomes. For cooperatives, cultivating social norms of cooperation is essential when it is not formally required by some institutional mechanism. Cultivating norms can also be a stepping-stone to more formal rule structures.
Establishing common behavior patterns is difficult, but if new and existing members can see that cooperation is the norm, they will tend to emulate it.
All cooperatives rely on rules to organize their business, and for good reason. Informal norms of cooperation are insufficient to make a durable business, no matter how observable. Rules are commonplace and common sense. But rules take on a different role when considered as tools to bolster cooperative behavior, rather than coerce or require certain outcomes.
A classic finding from behavioral science is that rules can relieve individual members of the onus to punish free-riders, 26 placing responsibility on the organization as a whole and allowing punishment to be more just and transparent. Rules can pick up where norms and reputation leave off. But which rules?
While there is no perfect guide to which rules fit a given business or organization, rulemaking — especially democratic rule making—creates a concrete social contract that can formalize cooperative social norms. Figure 1: Group-living is widespread in the animal kingdom. Although many species form temporary associations, such as a flamingo Phoenicopterus minor colonies and b zebra Equus quagga herds, some species such as c African elephants Loxodonta africana , d snapping shrimps Synalpheus brooksi , and e superb starlings Lamprotornis superbus form more permanent social groups and live together year-round.
Group-living typically provides benefits to individual group members. For instance, most animals only have one pair of eyes to look for food or to watch for predators. Animals living in groups, however, benefit from many more pairs of eyes to provide vigilance or help forage. But living in groups may also confer costs to members.
As individuals aggregate, they become more conspicuous to predators and competition for food can increase. Therefore, when deciding to join a group, individuals must weigh the cost-benefit ratio of living solitarily versus with others. When the benefits of living together outweigh the costs of living alone, animals will tend to form groups Alexander Other benefits of group-living may include receiving assistance to deal with pathogens i.
Other costs of group-living may include increased attack rates by predators, increased parasite burdens, misdirected parental care, and greater reproductive competition. Although many species form short-term, unstable groups e. Similarly, when a meerkat forgoes reproduction and instead feeds the young of another group member, it reduces the number of offspring it will produce during its lifetime Clutton-Brock et al.
Scientists since Darwin have wondered why animals like these perform cooperative behaviors that may be detrimental to their own evolutionary fitness. One key to understanding such altruistic behavior came from Robert Trivers, who considered a hypothetical group of animals in which one individual is faced with the opportunity to take a small risk in order to provide a large benefit to another Trivers This provides incentive for altruistic behavior in situations where individuals interact repeatedly, which typically occurs when animals live in stable groups.
For example, many primates like baboons live in large groups and form coalitions where such cooperative interactions are frequent. Altruistic behavior can benefit individuals even when it is not reciprocated. William Hamilton was among the first to realize this when he considered how altruistic behaviors might evolve in living organisms Hamilton Based upon observations of social insects, he reasoned that the extent to which an individual is willing to help another should be determined by the degree to which those individuals are related.
For example, Hamilton would predict that a person should be more willing to run into a burning building to rescue their own cousin than they should be to save an unrelated stranger.
If the cousin who is saved goes on to reproduce, then the altruistic act of saving that relative increases the evolutionary fitness of the rescuer by passing on shared genes. Figure 2: Hamilton's rule Hamilton's rule details the conditions under which altruistic behavior should evolve. It weighs the benefits and costs in terms of reproductive benefits, or offspring produced of a donor performing an altruistic behavior towards a recipient.
According to Hamilton's rule, the donor receives a direct cost C in terms of lost direct fitness for cooperating, whereas the recipient receives an additional benefit B in terms of increased direct fitness. However, the donor also receives a portion of the benefit B that is discounted by the genetic relatedness r i.
This discounted portion of the benefit is equivalent to the donor's indirect fitness gain. Although organisms can enhance their direct fitness by reproducing themselves, Hamilton realized that they can also enhance their own indirect fitness by helping relatives. Kin selection theory is particularly relevant to social insect societies because many insects are haplodiploid.
Diploid fertilized eggs containing two copies — one from each parent — become females, while unfertilized haploid eggs with only a single copy become males. Kin selection theory suggests that the sex-determined differences in relatedness among individuals Figure 3 provide incentives for young females to stay at home and help raise their sisters.
However, initial excitement over this explanation as a primary reason for sociality was tempered by observations of non-social haplodiploid species, as well as subsequent discovery of eusocial diploid species like termites.
Figure 3: Patterns of relatedness in haplodiploid and diploid species A Haplodiploid and B diploid family trees showing the relatedness of an individual female denoted by red star to kin, assuming her mother mates with only one male i. However, in many haplodiploid species including the honey bee queens are polyandrous and can mate with multiple males, creating broods in which most workers are not full siblings and instead are half-sisters r between 0.
This creates an incentive for workers to police other workers by destroying their eggs. The enormous and highly complex societies formed by some insects have been especially important for studying the causes and consequences of sociality.
These groups are called eusocial i. Eusociality was first formally described in ants by Wheeler Wheeler , and has since been shown to be widespread in numerous other insects, most notably in bees, wasps, and termites, as well as in some other taxa like snapping shrimp and even a rodent. The coordination that makes a eusocial group successful depends upon the majority of group members forgoing personal reproduction.
This allows workers to focus their efforts on specialized tasks, creating extraordinary efficiencies of scale. Are they being coerced into helping by queens, or are they helping voluntarily to gain the indirect fitness benefits of rearing relatives? Research suggests that helping behavior in insects may be a product of both coercion and voluntary actions. For example, evidence of coercion comes from honeybees, where individuals cannot choose their reproductive role and instead develop into either workers or queens based upon the nutrients they receive from others during their larval stage.
However, there is also evidence from honeybees that workers voluntarily act to maximize their own fitness by rearing relatives. In addition, they are gaining increasing levels of cooperation from exchanges, which face government pressure and want greater legitimacy.
Agreement by researchers to publish the virus genome in January set the stage for global scientific cooperation , many believed. Doing so requires the cooperation of many people — from scientists and conservation organizations to governments and local residents — as well as a bit of luck.
These approaches have won cooperation from the citizenry when it comes to wearing face masks and other behavioral changes.
We ought to seek Chinese cooperation in a response to this North Korean act of aggression. Much can be accomplished even without the cooperation of a conservative Congress.
Under unusually blue skies in Beijing, the American and Chinese presidents vow cooperation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Within such groups, The model suggests that the The idea is that culturally different groups compete, causing the spread of traits that give Using a novel technique, researchers have been able They found that And positive interactions promote the child's healthy socioemotional development.
0コメント