Browse
Submit Data
Databases
API
Help

Dataset Information

25 Views

0 Connections

0 Citations

0 Reanalyses

0 Downloads

Omics score: 0

Partner choice creates fairness in humans.

ABSTRACT: Many studies demonstrate that partner choice has played an important role in the evolution of human cooperation, but little work has tested its impact on the evolution of human fairness. In experiments involving divisions of money, people become either over-generous or over-selfish when they are in competition to be chosen as cooperative partners. Hence, it is difficult to see how partner choice could result in the evolution of fair, equal divisions. Here, we show that this puzzle can be solved if we consider the outside options on which partner choice operates. We conduct a behavioural experiment, run agent-based simulations and analyse a game-theoretic model to understand how outside options affect partner choice and fairness. All support the conclusion that partner choice leads to fairness only when individuals have equal outside options. We discuss how this condition has been met in our evolutionary history, and the implications of these findings for our understanding of other aspects of fairness less specific than preferences for equal divisions of resources.

SUBMITTER: Debove S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4455807 | biostudies-other | 2015 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Json Xml

Publications

Partner choice creates fairness in humans.

Debove Stéphane S André Jean-Baptiste JB Baumard Nicolas N

Proceedings. Biological sciences 20150601 1808

Many studies demonstrate that partner choice has played an important role in the evolution of human cooperation, but little work has tested its impact on the evolution of human fairness. In experiments involving divisions of money, people become either over-generous or over-selfish when they are in competition to be chosen as cooperative partners. Hence, it is difficult to see how partner choice could result in the evolution of fair, equal divisions. Here, we show that this puzzle can be solved ...[more]

PMID: 25972467

Similar Datasets

Exploring the trade-off between quality and fairness in human partner choice.

Project description:Partner choice is an important force underpinning cooperation in humans and other animals. Nevertheless, the mechanisms individuals use to evaluate and discriminate among partners who vary across different dimensions are poorly understood. Generally, individuals are expected to prefer partners who are both able and willing to invest in cooperation but how do individuals prioritize the ability over willingness to invest when these characteristics are opposed to one another? We used a modified Dictator Game to tackle this question. Choosers evaluated partners varying in quality (proxied by wealth) and fairness, in conditions when wealth was relatively stable or liable to change. When both partners were equally fair (or unfair), choosers typically preferred the richer partner. Nevertheless, when asked to choose between a rich-stingy and a poor-fair partner, choosers prioritized fairness over wealth-with this preference being particularly pronounced when wealth was unstable. The implications of these findings for real-world partner choice are discussed.

| S-EPMC5180136 | biostudies-literature

Partner Choice in Raven (Corvus corax) Cooperation.

Project description:Although social animals frequently make decisions about when or with whom to cooperate, little is known about the underlying mechanisms of partner choice. Most previous studies compared different dyads' performances, though did not allow an actual choice among partners. We tested eleven ravens, Corvus corax, in triads, giving them first the choice to cooperate with either a highly familiar or a rather unfamiliar partner and, second, with either a friend or a non-friend using a cooperative string-pulling task. In either test, the ravens had a second choice and could cooperate with the other partner, given that this one had not pulled the string in the meantime. We show that during the experiments, these partner ravens indeed learn to wait and inhibit pulling, respectively. Moreover, the results of these two experiments show that ravens' preferences for a specific cooperation partner are not based on familiarity. In contrast, the ravens did show a preference based on relationship quality, as they did choose to cooperate significantly more with friends than with non-friends and they were also more proficient when cooperating with a friend. In order to further identify the proximate mechanism of this preference, we designed an open-choice experiment for the whole group where all birds were free to cooperate on two separate apparatuses. This set-up allowed us to distinguish between preferences for close proximity and preferences to cooperate. The results revealed that friends preferred staying close to each other, but did not necessarily cooperate with one another, suggesting that tolerance of proximity and not relationship quality as a whole may be the driving force behind partner choice in raven cooperation. Consequently, we stress the importance of experiments that allow such titrations and, suggest that these results have important implications for the interpretations of cooperation studies that did not include open partner choice.

| S-EPMC4902252 | biostudies-literature

Partner Choice in Sweden Following a Failed Intermarriage.

Project description:This paper is based on the assumption that divorced and separated individuals bring with them the experience of a failed union which may shape their future choices on the marriage market. It aims to contribute to our knowledge of intermarriage, and social interaction in Sweden in general, by comparing the repartnering choices of immigrants and natives in Sweden who had made what is still considered an atypical choice of entering a native-immigrant union with the partner choices of natives and immigrants whose previous union was endogamous. The empirical analysis in this paper is based on the Swedish register data from the STAR data collection (Sweden over Time: Activities and Relations) and covers the period 1990-2007. All the analyses in the paper include individuals aged 20-55 at the time of union dissolution. The multivariate analysis is based on discrete-time multinomial logistic regression. The results show that for all four groups defined by sex and nativity (native men, native women, immigrant men, and immigrant women), there is a positive association between the previous experience of intermarriage and the likelihood of initiating another intermarriage after union dissolution. Another important finding is that the magnitude of this positive association increases with the degree of social distance between the groups involved in the union. Gender differences are modest among natives and somewhat more pronounced among immigrants.

| S-EPMC6241011 | biostudies-literature

Partner choice does not predict prosociality across countries.

Project description:Why does human prosociality vary around the world? Evolutionary models and laboratory experiments suggest that possibilities for partner choice (i.e. the ability to leave unprofitable relationships and strike up new ones) should promote cooperation across human societies. Leveraging the Global Preferences Survey (n = 27,125; 27 countries) and the World Values Survey (n = 54,728; 32 countries), we test this theory by estimating the associations between relational mobility, a socioecological measure of partner choice, and a wide variety of prosocial attitudes and behaviours, including impersonal altruism, reciprocity, trust, collective action and moral judgements of antisocial behaviour. Contrary to our pre-registered predictions, we found little evidence that partner choice is related to prosociality across countries. After controlling for shared causes of relational mobility and prosociality - environmental harshness, subsistence style and geographic and linguistic proximity - we found that only altruism and trust in people from another religion are positively related to relational mobility. We did not find positive relationships between relational mobility and reciprocity, generalised trust, collective action or moral judgements. These findings challenge evolutionary theories of human cooperation which emphasise partner choice as a key explanatory mechanism, and highlight the need to generalise models and experiments to global samples.

| S-EPMC10426035 | biostudies-literature

The logic and mechanism of homologous recombination partner choice.

Project description:Recombinational repair of spontaneous double-strand breaks (DSBs) exhibits sister bias. DSB-initiated meiotic recombination exhibits homolog bias. Physical analysis in yeast reveals that, in both cases, the recombination reaction intrinsically gives homolog bias. From this baseline default, cohesin intervenes to confer sister bias, likely independent of cohesion. In meiosis, cohesin's sister-biasing effect is counteracted by RecA homolog Rad51 and its mediators, plus meiotic RecA homolog Dmc1, which thereby restore intrinsic homolog bias. Meiotic axis complex Red1/Mek1/Hop1 participates by cleanly switching recombination from mitotic to meiotic mode, concomitantly activating Dmc1. We propose that a Rad51/DNA filament at one DSB end captures the intact sister, creating an anchor pad. This filament extends across the DSB site on the intact partner, precluding intersister strand exchange, thus forcing use of the homolog. Cohesin and Dmc1 interactively modulate this extension, with program-appropriate effects. In accord with this model, Rad51-mediated recombination in vivo requires the presence of a sister.

| S-EPMC4049084 | biostudies-literature

Recombinogenic conditions influence partner choice in spontaneous mitotic recombination.

Project description:Mammalian common fragile sites are loci of frequent chromosome breakage and putative recombination hotspots. Here, we utilized Replication Slow Zones (RSZs), a budding yeast homolog of the mammalian common fragile sites, to examine recombination activities at these loci. We found that rates of URA3 inactivation of a hisG-URA3-hisG reporter at RSZ and non-RSZ loci were comparable under all conditions tested, including those that specifically promote chromosome breakage at RSZs (hydroxyurea [HU], mec1? sml1?, and high temperature), and those that suppress it (sml1? and rrm3?). These observations indicate that RSZs are not recombination hotspots and that chromosome fragility and recombination activity can be uncoupled. Results confirmed recombinogenic effects of HU, mec1? sml1?, and rrm3? and identified temperature as a regulator of mitotic recombination. We also found that these conditions altered the nature of recombination outcomes, leading to a significant increase in the frequency of URA3 inactivation via loss of heterozygosity (LOH), the type of genetic alteration involved in cancer development. Further analyses revealed that the increase was likely due to down regulation of intrachromatid and intersister (IC/IS) bias in mitotic recombination, and that RSZs exhibited greater sensitivity to HU dependent loss of IC/IS bias than non RSZ loci. These observations suggest that recombinogenic conditions contribute to genome rearrangements not only by increasing the overall recombination activity, but also by altering the nature of recombination outcomes by their effects on recombination partner choice. Similarly, fragile sites may contribute to cancer more frequently than non-fragile loci due their enhanced sensitivity to certain conditions that down-regulate the IC/IS bias rather than intrinsically higher rates of recombination.

| S-EPMC3820797 | biostudies-literature

Cooperative partner choice in multi-level male dolphin alliances.

Project description:Investigations into cooperative partner choice should consider both potential and realised partners, allowing for the comparison of traits across all those available. Male bottlenose dolphins form persisting multi-level alliances. Second-order alliances of 4-14 males are the core social unit, within which 2-3 males form first-order alliances to sequester females during consortships. We compared social bond strength, relatedness and age similarity of potential and realised partners of individual males in two age periods: (i) adolescence, when second-order alliances are formed from all available associates, and (ii) adulthood, when first-order allies are selected from within second-order alliances. Social bond strength during adolescence predicted second-order alliance membership in adulthood. Moreover, males preferred same-aged or older males as second-order allies. Within second-order alliances, non-mating season social bond strength predicted first-order partner preferences during mating season consortships. Relatedness did not influence partner choice on either alliance level. There is thus a striking resemblance between male dolphins, chimpanzees and humans, where closely bonded non-relatives engage in higher-level, polyadic cooperative acts. To that end, our study extends the scope of taxa in which social bonds rather than kinship explain cooperation, providing the first evidence that such traits might have evolved independently in marine and terrestrial realms.

| S-EPMC7994371 | biostudies-literature

To punish or to leave: distinct cognitive processes underlie partner control and partner choice behaviors.

Project description:When a cooperative partner defects, at least two types of response are available: Punishment, aimed at modifying behavior, and ostracism, aimed at avoiding further social interaction with the partner. These options, termed partner control and partner choice, have been distinguished at behavioral and evolutionary levels. However, little work has compared their cognitive bases. Do these disparate behaviors depend on common processes of moral evaluation? Specifically, we assess whether they show identical patterns of dependence on two key dimensions of moral evaluation: A person's intentions, and the outcomes that they cause. We address this issue in a "trembling hand" economic game. In this game, an allocator divides a monetary stake between themselves and a responder based on a stochastic mechanism. This allows for dissociations between the allocator's intent and the actual outcome. Responders were either given the opportunity to punish or reward the allocator (partner control) or to switch to a different partner for a subsequent round of play (partner choice). Our results suggest that partner control and partner choice behaviors are supported by distinct underlying cognitive processes: Partner control exhibits greater sensitivity to the outcomes a partner causes, while partner choice is influenced almost exclusively by a partner's intentions. This cognitive dissociation can be understood in light of the unique adaptive functions of partner control and partner choice.

| S-EPMC4411127 | biostudies-literature

Population structure reduces benefits from partner choice in mutualistic symbiosis.

Project description:Mutualistic symbioses are key drivers of evolutionary and ecological processes. Understanding how different species can evolve to interact in mutually beneficial ways is an important goal of evolutionary theory, especially when the benefits require costly investments by the partners. For such costly investments to evolve, some sort of fitness feedback mechanism must exist that more than recoups the direct costs. Several such feedback mechanisms have been explored both theoretically and empirically, yet we know relatively little of how they might act together, as they probably do in nature. In this paper, I model the joint action of three of the main mechanisms that can maintain interspecific cooperation in symbioses: partner choice by hosts, population structure amongst symbionts and undirected rewards from hosts to symbionts. The model shows that population structure reduces the benefit from partner choice to hosts. It may help or hinder beneficial symbionts and create positive or negative frequency dependence depending on the nature of host rewards to the symbiont. Strong population structure also makes it less likely that host choosiness and symbiont cooperation will be jointly maintained in a population. The intuition behind these results is that all else being equal, population structure reduces local variation available to the host to choose from. Thus, population structure is not always beneficial for the evolution of cooperation between species. These results also underscore the need to do full analyses of multiple mechanisms of social evolution to uncover the interactions between them.

| S-EPMC5360914 | biostudies-literature

Reciprocity creates a stake in one's partner, or why you should cooperate even when anonymous.

Project description:Why do we care so much for friends, even making sacrifices for them they cannot repay or never know about? When organisms engage in reciprocity, they have a stake in their partner's survival and wellbeing so the reciprocal relationship can persist. This stake (aka fitness interdependence) makes organisms willing to help beyond the existing reciprocal arrangement (e.g. anonymously). I demonstrate this with two mathematical models in which organisms play a prisoner's dilemma, and where helping keeps their partner alive and well. Both models shows that reciprocity creates a stake in partners' welfare: those who help a cooperative partner--even when anonymous--do better than those who do not, because they keep that cooperative partner in good enough condition to continue the reciprocal relationship. 'Machiavellian' cooperators, who defect when anonymous, do worse because their partners become incapacitated. This work highlights the fact that reciprocity and stake are not separate evolutionary processes, but are inherently linked.

| S-EPMC7329032 | biostudies-literature

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

OmicsDI is an Elixir interoperability service. Learn more ›

Tweets

OmicsDI Databases

PRIDE
PeptideAtlas
MassIVE
JPOST Repository
Physiome Model Repository

EGA
EVA
ENA
LINCS
PAXDB
Cell Collective

MetaboLights
Metabolomics Workbench
MetabolomeExpress
GNPS
BioModels
FAIRDOMHub

ArrayExpress
dbGaP
ExpressionAtlas
GEO
NODE

Information

Databases
Help
API
Contact us
Code on GitHub
Terms of use
Submit Data