Cited by 67Language and cultural evolutionEvolutionary Game Theory and CooperationGenetic diversity and population structure

Genetic differentiation and the evolution of cooperation in chimpanzees and humans.

Open access
Langergraber, Kevin, Schubert, Grit, Rowney, Carolyn, Wrangham, Richard, Zommers, Zinta, Vigilant, Linda·2011·Proceedings of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences

Abstract

It has been proposed that human cooperation is unique among animals for its scale and complexity, its altruistic nature and its occurrence among large groups of individuals that are not closely related or are even strangers. One potential solution to this puzzle is that the unique aspects of human cooperation evolved as a result of high levels of lethal competition (i.e. warfare) between genetically differentiated groups. Although between-group migration would seem to make this scenario unlikely, the plausibility of the between-group competition model has recently been supported by analyses using estimates of genetic differentiation derived from contemporary human groups hypothesized to be representative of those that existed during the time period when human cooperation evolved. Here, we examine levels of between-group genetic differentiation in a large sample of contemporary human groups selected to overcome some of the problems with earlier estimates, and compare them with those of chimpanzees. We find that our estimates of between-group genetic differentiation in contemporary humans are lower than those used in previous tests, and not higher than those of chimpanzees. Because levels of between-group competition in contemporary humans and chimpanzees are also similar, these findings suggest that the identification of other factors that differ between chimpanzees and humans may be needed to provide a compelling explanation of why humans, but not chimpanzees, display the unique features of human cooperation.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1098/rspb.2010.2592

Cites

62 of 65 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Estimates of between-group genetic differentiation in hunter-gatherers and other small-scale human societies are similar to those among chimpanzees, if not slightly higher among chimpanzees.

    “Yet estimates of the degree of between-group genetic differentiation in hunter-gatherers and other small-scale human societies likewise prove to be similar to those among chimpanzees, if not slightly higher among chimpanzees (Langergraber et al., 2011).”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. 7 Wilson, E. O. 1975 Sociobiology. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
  2. 42 Schubert, G. 2010 Genetic differentiation, gene flow and kinship in bonobos, chimpanzees and humans. PhD thesis, University of Leipzig, Germany.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Langergraber, K., Schubert, G., Rowney, C., Wrangham, R., Zommers, Z., & Vigilant, L.
Affiliations
  • Boston University (US)
  • Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology (DE)
  • Harvard University (US)
  • University of Oxford (GB)
  • Max Planck Society (DE)
Corresponding author
Langergraber, Kevin
Venue
Proceedings of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences
Published
2011-01-19
Volume
278
Issue
1717
Pages
2546-2552
ISSN
  • 0080-4649 (ISSN-L)
  • 0962-8452
  • 1471-2954
OpenAlex
W2131559081
Cited by
67
References
61
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 6
FWCI
147.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Digital Access to Scholarship at Harvard (DASH) (Harvard University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics (submittedVersion)
  • MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Cultural Studies › Language and cultural evolution
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Evolutionary Game Theory and Cooperation
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic diversity and population structure
Keywords
evolution of cooperation, human cooperation, chimpanzees, genetic differentiation, between-group competition, war, altruism, human uniqueness
MeSH terms
Altruism, Animals, Pan troglodytes, Competitive Behavior, Cooperative Behavior, Emigration and Immigration, Biological Evolution, Humans, Cote d'Ivoire, Social Behavior, Uganda, Genetic Variation, Animal Migration

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review