Marmosets mutually compensate for differences in rhythms when coordinating vigilance.

Synchronization is widespread in animals, and studies have often emphasized how this seemingly complex phenomenon can emerge from very simple rules. However, the amount of flexibility and control that animals might have over synchronization properties, such as the strength of coupling, remains underexplored. Here, we studied how pairs of marmoset monkeys coordinated vigilance while feeding. By modeling them as coupled oscillators, we noted that (1) individual marmosets do not show perfect periodicity in vigilance behaviors, (2) nevertheless, marmoset pairs started to take turns being vigilant over time, a case of anti-phase synchrony, (3) marmosets could couple flexibly; the coupling strength varied with every new joint feeding bout, and (4) marmosets could control the coupling strength; dyads showed increased coupling if they began in a more desynchronized state. Such flexibility and control over synchronization require more than simple interaction rules. Minimally, animals must estimate the current degree of asynchrony and adjust their behavior accordingly. Moreover, the fact that each marmoset is inherently non-periodic adds to the cognitive demand. Overall, our study provides a mathematical framework to investigate the cognitive demands involved in coordinating behaviors in animals, regardless of whether individual behaviors are rhythmic or not.

The proximate regulation of prosocial behaviour: towards a conceptual framework for comparative research.

Humans and many other animal species act in ways that benefit others. Such prosocial behaviour has been studied extensively across a range of disciplines over the last decades, but findings to date have led to conflicting conclusions about prosociality across and even within species. Here, we present a conceptual framework to study the proximate regulation of prosocial behaviour in humans, non-human primates and potentially other animals. We build on psychological definitions of prosociality and spell out three key features that need to be in place for behaviour to count as prosocial: benefitting others, intentionality, and voluntariness. We then apply this framework to review observational and experimental studies on sharing behaviour and targeted helping in human children and non-human primates. We show that behaviours that are usually subsumed under the same terminology (e.g. helping) can differ substantially across and within species and that some of them do not fulfil our criteria for prosociality. Our framework allows for precise mapping of prosocial behaviours when retrospectively evaluating studies and offers guidelines for future comparative work.

Putting the cart before the horse? The origin of information donation.

Heintz & Scott-Phillips propose that the partner choice ecology of our ancestors required Gricean cognitive pragmatics for reputation management, which caused a tendency toward showing and expecting prosociality that subsequently scaffolded language evolution. Here, we suggest a cognitively leaner explanation that is more consistent with comparative data and posits that prosociality and eventually language evolved along with cooperative breeding.