CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 134Experimental Behavioral Economics StudiesEvolutionary Game Theory and CooperationPrimate Behavior and Ecology

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 109 of the 113 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A Hypothesis of the Co-evolution of Cooperation and Responses to Inequity

Open access
Brosnan, Sarah F.·2011·Frontiers in Neuroscience
DOI 10.3389/fnins.2011.00043PMC PMC3077916
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Recent evidence demonstrates that humans are not the only species to respond negatively to inequitable outcomes which are to their disadvantage. Several species respond negatively if they subsequently receive a less good reward than a social partner for completing the same task. While these studies suggest that the negative response to inequity is not a uniquely human behavior, they do not provide a functional explanation for the emergence of these responses due to similar characteristics among these species. However, emerging data support the hypothesis that an aversion to inequity is a mechanism to promote successful long-term cooperative relationships amongst non-kin. In this paper, I discuss several converging lines of evidence which illustrate the need to further evaluate this relationship. First, cooperation can survive modest inequity; in explicitly cooperative interactions, individuals are willing to continue to cooperate despite inequitable outcomes as long as the partner's overall behavior is equitable. Second, the context of inequity affects reactions to it in ways which support the idea that joint efforts lead to an expectation of joint payoffs. Finally, comparative studies indicate a link between the degree and extent of cooperation between unrelated individuals in a species and that species' response to inequitable outcomes. This latter line of evidence indicates that this behavior evolved in conjunction with cooperation and may represent an adaptation to increase the payoffs associated with cooperative interactions. Together these data inform a testable working hypothesis for understanding decision-making in the context of inequity and provide a new, comparative framework for evaluating decision-making behavior.

Overview

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 · 10.3389/fnins.2011.00043

Cites

109 of 109 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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?

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 113 references

4 of the 113 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Fruth B. Hohmann G. (2002). “How bonobos handle hunts and harvests: food sharing,” in Behavioural Diversity in Chimpanzees and Bonobos, eds Boesch C. Hohmann G. Marchant L. F. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 231– 243
  2. van Schaik C. P. van Hooff J. A. R. A. M. (1996). “Towards an understanding of the orangutan's social system,” in Great Ape Societies, eds McGrew W. C. Marchant L. F. Nishida T. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 3– 15

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–133 of 133

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Brosnan, S. F.
Affiliations
Georgia State University (US)
Corresponding author
Brosnan, Sarah F.
ORCID
Brosnan, Sarah F.
Venue
Frontiers in Neuroscience
Publisher
Frontiers Media SA
Published
2011
Volume
5
Pages
43-43
ISSN
  • 1662-453X (ISSN-L)
  • 1662-4548
DOI
10.3389/fnins.2011.00043
PMC
PMC3077916
OpenAlex
W1964756643
Cited by
134
References
113
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 10
FWCI
29.58
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Frontiers in Neuroscience (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
National Science Foundation
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Experimental Behavioral Economics Studies
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Evolutionary Game Theory and Cooperation
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Primate Behavior and Ecology
Keywords
inequity aversion, cooperation, coevolution, comparative psychology, non-kin cooperation, joint effort, evolutionary psychology, decision-making

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