Biology & Philosophy

, Volume 29, Issue 4, pp 559–576 | Cite as

The ontogeny and evolution of human collaboration

Article

Abstract

How is the human tendency and ability to collaborate acquired and how did it evolve? This paper explores the ontogeny and evolution of human collaboration using a combination of theoretical and empirical resources. We present a game theoretic model of the evolution of learning in the Stag Hunt game, which predicts the evolution of a built-in cooperative bias. We then survey recent empirical results on the ontogeny of collaboration in humans, which suggest the ability to collaborate is developmentally stable across a range of environments. Lastly, we use an account of innateness developed by Ariew (Philos Sci 63:S19–S27, 1996) and Sober (Routledge encyclopedia of philosophy. Routledge, London, pp 794–797, 1998) to assess the extent that (1) the model predicts the fixation of innate collaboration and (2) the empirical studies show a human’s ability to collaborate to be innate.

Keywords

Innateness Cooperation Evolution Collaboration Learning Stag Hunt 

References

  1. Arbilly M, Motro U, Feldman MW, Lotem A (2010) Co-evolution of learning complexity and social foraging strategies. J Theor Biol 267:573–581CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ariew A (1996) Innateness and canalization. Philos Sci 63:S19–S27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ariew A (1999) Innateness is canalization: in defense of a developmental account of innateness. In: Hardcastle VG (ed) Where biology meets psychology: philosophical essays. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 117–138Google Scholar
  4. Ariew A (2007) Innateness. In: Matthen M, Stephens C (eds) Handbook of the philosophy of science, vol 3: philosophy of biology. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  5. Binmore K (2005) Natural justice. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brownell C (2011) Early developments in joint action. Rev Philos Psychol 2:193–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brownell C, Ramani G, Zerwas S (2006) Becoming a social partner with peers: cooperation and social understanding in one- and two-year-olds. Child Dev 77(4):803–821Google Scholar
  8. Callaghan T, Moll H, Rakoczy H, Warneken F, Liszkowski U, Behne T, Tomasello M (2011) Early social cognition in three cultural contexts. Monogr Soc Res Child Dev 76:1–142Google Scholar
  9. Carpenter M (2009) Just how joint is joint activity in infancy? Top Cogn Sci 1:380–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cowie F (1999) What’s within? Nativism reconsidered. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. Dubois F, Morand-Ferron J, Giraldeau LA (2010) Learning in a game context: strategy choice by some keeps learning from evolving in others. Proc R Soc B 277:3609–3616CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Eckerman C, Whitehead H (1999) How toddler peers generate coordinated action: a cross-cultural exploration. Early Educ Dev 10(3):241–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gaskins S (2006) Cultural perspectives on infant–caregiver interaction. In: Enfield NJ, Levinson S (eds) The roots of human sociality: culture, cognition, and human interaction. Berg, Oxford, pp 279–298Google Scholar
  14. Gilbert M (1990) Walking together: a paradigmatic social phenomenon. Midwest Stud Philos 15:1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Godfrey-Smith P (1996) Complexity and the function of mind in nature. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gould J, Marler P (1991) Learning by instinct. In: Mock D (ed) Behavior and evolution of birds. Freeman, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  17. Gräfenhain M, Behne T, Carpenter M, Tomasello M (2009) Young children’s understanding of joint commitments. Dev Psychol 45(5):1430–1443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Griffiths P (2002) What is innateness? Monist 85(1):70–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hamann K, Warneken F, Greenberg JR, Tomasello M (2011) Collaboration encourages equal sharing in children but not chimpanzees. Nature 476:328–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hamann K, Warneken F, Tomasello M (2012) Children’s developing commitments to joint goals. Child Dev 83(1):137–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hamblin S, Giraldeau LA (2009) Finding the evolutionarily stable learning rule for frequency-dependent foraging. Anim Behav 78:1343–1350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Harley CB (1981) Learning the evolutionarily stable strategy. J Theor Biol 89:611–633CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Herrnstein RJ (1970) On the law of effect. J Exp Anal Behav 13:243–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Huttegger SM, Smead R (2011) Efficient social contracts and group selection. Biol Philos 26:517–531CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Katsnelson E, Motro U, Feldman MW, Lotem A (2012) Evolution of learned strategy choice in a frequency-dependent game. Proc R Soc B 279:1176–1184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Khalidi MA (2007) Innate cognitive capacities. Mind Lang 22(1):92–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mallon R, Weinberg J (2006) Innateness as closed-process invariantism. Philos Sci 73(3):323–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mameli M, Bateson P (2007) The innate and the acquired: useful clusters or a residual distinction from folk biology? Dev Psychobiol 49(8):818–831CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Maynard Smith J (1982) Evolution and the theory of games. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Roth A, Erev I (1995) Learning in extensive form games: experimental data and simple dynamical models in the intermediate term. Games Econ Behav 8:164–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Samuels R (2004) Innateness in cognitive science. Trends Cogn Sci 8(3):136–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Samuelson L (1998) Evolutionary games and equilibrium selection. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  33. Searle J (1995) The construction of social reality. The Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  34. Simpson GG (1953) The Baldwin effect. Evolution 7(2):110–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Skyrms B (2004) The stag hunt and the evolution of social structure. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  36. Smead R (2012) Game theoretic equilibria and the evolution of learning. J Exp Theor Artif Intell 24(3):301–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Smead R (2014) The role of social interaction in the evolution of learning. Br J Philos Sci (forthcoming)Google Scholar
  38. Sober E (ed) (1994a) Apportioning causal responsibility. From a biological point of view: essays in evolutionary philosophy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 184–200Google Scholar
  39. Sober E (ed) (1994b) The adaptive advantage of learning and a priori prejudice. From a biological point of view: essays in evolutionary philosophy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 50–69Google Scholar
  40. Sober E (1998) Innate knowledge. In: Craig E, Floridi L (eds) Routledge encyclopedia of philosophy. Routledge, London, pp 794–797Google Scholar
  41. Sterelny K (2011) From hominins to humans: how sapiens became behaviorally modern. Philos Trans R Soc B 366:809–822CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sterelny K (2012) The evolved apprentice: how evolution made humans unique. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  43. Taylor P, Jonker L (1978) Evolutionary stable strategies and game dynamics. Math Biosci 40:145–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Tomasello M (2009) Why we cooperate. MIT Press, CambirdgeGoogle Scholar
  45. Tomasello M, Carpenter M, Call J, Behne T, Moll H (2005) Understanding and sharing intentions: the origins of cultural cognition. Behav Brain Sci 28:675–691Google Scholar
  46. Tuomela R (2007) The philosophy of sociality: the shared point of view. Oxford University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Warneken F, Tomasello M (2007) Helping and cooperation at 14 months of age. Infancy 11(3):271–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Warneken F, Chen F, Tomasello M (2006) Cooperative activities in young children and chimpanzees. Child Dev 77(3):640–663CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Warneken F, Lohse K, Melis AP, Tomasello M (2011) Young children share the spoils after collaboration. Psychol Sci 22(2):267–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wyman E, Rakoczy H, Tomasello M (2013) Non-verbal communication enables children’s coordination in a ‘Stag Hunt’ game. Eur J Dev Psychol 10(5):597–610CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Zollman KJS (2005) Talking to neighbors: the evolution of regional meaning. Philos Sci 72:69–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Zollman KJS, Smead R (2010) Language and plasticity: an example of the Baldwin effect? Philos Stud 147:7–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Wisconsin-MadisonMadisonUSA
  2. 2.Department of Philosophy and ReligionNortheastern UniversityBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations