Cooperation among non-kin has been attributed sometimes to reciprocal altruism: Two or more individuals exchange behaviour that benefits the respective partner. According to direct reciprocity, cooperation is based on past behaviour of a known partner. In contrast, in generalised reciprocity, cooperation is based on anonymous social experience where the identity of the partner is irrelevant. In a previous study, female Norway rats (Rattus norvegicus) were found to cooperate according to a generalised reciprocity mechanism. In this study, we tested whether Norway rats would also cooperate as predicted by a direct reciprocity mechanism and whether direct reciprocity would cause a higher propensity to cooperate than generalised reciprocity. Focal animals were experimentally manipulated to receive social experience from known or unknown, helpful or defecting partners in an instrumental cooperative task. Our first experiment shows that rats are more helpful towards a partner from which they had received help before than towards a partner that had not helped (i.e. direct reciprocity). Our second experiment revealed that after receiving help by others, rats were more helpful towards a partner from which they had received help before than towards a new partner (i.e. direct reciprocity generated a higher cooperation propensity than generalised reciprocity). We conclude that in female Norway rats, the tendency to cooperate is influenced by partner-specific information. To our knowledge, this is the first study to demonstrate direct reciprocity in rodents, and it is the first study testing direct vs generalised reciprocity in animals.
Cooperation Reciprocal altruism Cognition Rodents Game theory
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
We are grateful to anonymous referees for helpful comments on an earlier version of the manuscript. The housing of the rats and the experimental procedure adhered to the Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour Guidelines for the Use of Animals in Research and were approved by the Swiss Federal Veterinary Office.
Alexander RD (1987) The biology of moral systems. Aldine de Gruyter, New YorkGoogle Scholar
Barrett L, Henzi SP, Weingrill T, Lycett JE, Hill RA (2000) Female baboons do not raise the stakes but they give as good as they get. Anim Behav 59:763–770PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berkowitz L, Daniels L (1964) Affecting the salience of the social responsibility norm: effects of past help on the response to dependency relationships. J Abnorm Soc Psychol 68:275–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dugatkin A (1997) Cooperation among animals. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
Dugatkin LA, Alfieri M (1991) Guppies and the TIT FOR TAT strategy: preference based on past interaction. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 28:243–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gheusi G (1997) Individually distinctive odours represent individual conspecifics in rats. Anim Behav 53:935–944CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gheusi G, Bluthé R-M, Goodall G, Dantzer R (1994) Social and individual recognition in rodents: methodological aspects and neurobiological bases. Behav Processes 33:59–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Godard R (1993) Tit for tat among neighbouring hooded warblers. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 33:45–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamilton IM, Taborsky M (2005) Contingent movement and cooperation under generalized reciprocity. Proc R Soc B 272:2259–2267PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hauser MD, Chen MK, Chen F, Chuang E (2003) Give unto others: genetically unrelated cotton-top tamarin monkeys preferentially give food to those who altruistically give food back. Proc R Soc B 270:2363–2370PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar