Camp stability predicts patterns of hunter-gatherer cooperation

July 12, 2016, University College London
Agta camp members. Credit: Daniel Smith / UCL Anthropology

Reciprocal food-sharing is more prevalent in stable hunter-gatherer camps, shows new UCL research that sheds light on the evolutionary roots of human cooperation.

The research explores patterns of food-sharing among the Agta, a population of Filipino hunter-gatherers. It finds that reciprocal food-sharing is more prevalent in stable camps (with fewer changes in membership over time); while in less stable camps acquire resources by taking from others - known as 'demand sharing'.

Exploring social dynamics in the last remaining groups of present day hunter-gatherers is essential for understanding the factors that shaped the evolution of our widespread , especially with non-kin.

The study, published today in the Royal Society journal Open Science, is the first to report a real-world association between patterns of cooperation and group stability.

First author of the study, Daniel Smith (UCL Anthropology), said: "Cooperation between unrelated individuals is rare in animals, yet extensive among humans. Reciprocity - the principle of "you scratch my back, I scratch yours" - may explain this non-kin cooperation, yet requires stable groups and repeated interactions to evolve.

"Our research shows that hunter-gatherer cooperation is extremely flexible - reflecting either reciprocity or demand sharing depending on the frequency of repeated interactions between camp members."

Agta camp member participating in the study. Credit: Daniel Smith / UCL Anthropology

The authors looked at two types of food-sharing data. Firstly, details of actual food-sharing from six Agta camps were examined to explore whether differences in camp stability predicted patterns of food-sharing. Secondly, games were also conducted in which individuals were asked to distribute resources between themselves and other camp-mates. These games were conducted with 324 Agta over 18 separate camps.

In one of the games, participants were shown their own picture, along with other randomly selected adults from camp. They were then given a number of small wooden tokens, each representing 125g rice, equal to the number of camp-mates' photos. Not every picture including the subject's could end up with rice on it, introducing a social dilemma regarding whether to share, as it would be impossible for everyone to receive rice. Participants then decided, token by token, whether to keep the rice for themselves, or to give to a camp-mate.

The results showed that, firstly, stable camps were more likely to display reciprocity in the actual food-sharing analyses. Patterns of food-sharing in unstable camps were not reciprocal, consistent with demand sharing, whereby individuals take resources from others rather than being given them. Secondly, individuals from more stable camps were increasingly likely to give resources to others and less likely to take resources in the games.

Despite differences in cooperation, individuals from both stable and unstable camps received resources from others. This distribution of resources among camp-mates is crucial for hunter-gatherers' survival. As foraging success is variable it is likely that, on any given day, an individual may return to camp with no resources. Food-sharing is therefore essential to reduce the likelihood of individuals going without resources for extended lengths of time.

Last author, Professor Ruth Mace (UCL Anthropology), added: "Food sharing and cooperation are at the centre of hunter-gatherers lifestyle. No other Apes share food or cooperate to the extent that humans do. A complex network of sharing and cooperation exists within camps and between camps in different hunter-gatherer groups, regulated by social rules, friendship ties, food taboos, kinship and supernatural beliefs. Sharing is a crucial adaptation to hunter-gatherers' lifestyles, central to their resilience - and central to the evolution of mankind."

Explore further: Unique social structure of hunter-gatherers explained

More information: Camp Stability Predicts Patterns of Hunter-Gatherer Cooperation, Royal Society Open Science, rsos.royalsocietypublishing.or … /10.1098/rsos.160131

Related Stories

Why our ancestors were more gender equal than us

May 18, 2015

It is often believed that hierarchical and sometimes oppressive social structures like the patriarchy are somehow natural – a reflection of the law of the jungle. But the social structure of today's hunter gatherers suggests ...

Refugees can offer economic boost to their host countries

June 20, 2016

Refugees are often considered an economic burden for the countries that take them in, but a new study conducted by UC Davis with the United Nations World Food Program indicates that refugees receiving aid—especially in ...

Solving the puzzle of cooperation in group environments

November 13, 2014

Research has shown that when two individuals meet repeatedly they are more likely to cooperate with one another. Flávio Pinheiro and colleagues from the Universities of Minho and Lisbon show that the most successful strategy ...

Recommended for you

T. Rex couldn't stick out its tongue, new research shows

June 20, 2018

Dinosaurs are often depicted as fierce creatures, baring their teeth, with tongues wildly stretching from their mouths like giant, deranged lizards. But new research reveals a major problem with this classic image: Dinosaurs ...

2 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (1) Jul 12, 2016
What is this 'camps'? Why is it so hard for these soft science types to use the word tribe? Afraid they'll lose funding?

"Darwin (1871) considered the possibility of (violent) intergroup competition in (early) hominid/human evolution in his tentative explanation of the evolution of morality and other specifically human qualities:
"There can be no doubt that a tribe including many members who, from possessing in a high degree the spirit of patriotism, fidelity, obedience, courage, and sympathy, were always ready to give aid to each other and to sacrifice themselves for the common good, would be victorious over most other tribes; and this would be natural selection" (Darwin, 1871)
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (1) Jul 12, 2016
"Alexander (1979) agrees with Bigelow that intergroup aggressive competition was a prime mover in human evolution and that it selected for intragroup altruism as well as for other forms of complex behavior."

-That's why. Internal altruism in conjunction with external animosity equals group selection. Too many uncomfortable and embarrassing questions to answer.
http://rint.recht...rid2.htm

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.