Primate social organization evolved from a flexible pair-living ancestor.

Explaining the evolution of primate social organization has been fundamental to understand human sociality and social evolution more broadly. It has often been suggested that the ancestor of all primates was solitary and that other forms of social organization evolved later, with transitions being driven by various life history traits and ecological factors. However, recent research showed that many understudied primate species previously assumed to be solitary actually live in pairs, and intraspecific variation in social organization is common. We built a detailed database from primary field studies quantifying the number of social units expressing different social organizations in each population. We used Bayesian phylogenetic models to infer the probability of each social organization, conditional on several socioecological and life history predictors. Here, we show that when intraspecific variation is accounted for, the ancestral social organization of primates was inferred to be variable, with the most common social organization being pair-living but with approximately 10 to 20% of social units of the ancestral population deviating from this pattern by being solitary living. Body size and activity patterns had large effects on transitions between types of social organizations. As in other mammalian clades, pair-living is closely linked to small body size and likely more common in ancestral species. Our results challenge the assumption that ancestral primates were solitary and that pair-living evolved afterward emphasizing the importance of focusing on field data and accounting for intraspecific variation, providing a flexible statistical framework for doing so.

Life-history tradeoffs in a historical population (1896-1939) undergoing rapid fertility decline: Costs of reproduction?

Evolutionary demographers often invoke tradeoffs between reproduction and survival to explain reductions in fertility during demographic transitions. The evidence for such tradeoffs in humans has been mixed, partly because tradeoffs may be masked by individual differences in quality or access to resources. Unmasking tradeoffs despite such phenotypic correlations requires sophisticated statistical analyses that account for endogeneity among variables and individual differences in access to resources. Here we tested for costs of reproduction using N=13,663 birth records from the maternity hospital in Basel, Switzerland, 1896-1939, a period characterized by rapid fertility declines. We predicted that higher parity is associated with worse maternal and offspring condition at the time of birth, adjusting for age and a variety of covariates. We used Bayesian multivariate, multilevel models to simultaneously analyze multiple related outcomes while accounting for endogeneity, appropriately modeling non-linear effects, dealing with hierarchical data structures, and effectively imputing missing data. Despite all these efforts, we found virtually no evidence for costs of reproduction. Instead, women with better access to resources had fewer children. Barring limitations of the data, these results are consistent with demographic transitions reflecting women's investment in their own embodied capital and/or the adoption of maladaptive low-fertility norms by elites.

Do wealth and inequality associate with health in a small-scale subsistence society?

In high-income countries, one's relative socio-economic position and economic inequality may affect health and well-being, arguably via psychosocial stress. We tested this in a small-scale subsistence society, the Tsimane, by associating relative household wealth (n = 871) and community-level wealth inequality (n = 40, Gini = 0.15-0.53) with a range of psychological variables, stressors, and health outcomes (depressive symptoms [n = 670], social conflicts [n = 401], non-social problems [n = 398], social support [n = 399], cortisol [n = 811], body mass index [n = 9,926], blood pressure [n = 3,195], self-rated health [n = 2523], morbidities [n = 1542]) controlling for community-average wealth, age, sex, household size, community size, and distance to markets. Wealthier people largely had better outcomes while inequality associated with more respiratory disease, a leading cause of mortality. Greater inequality and lower wealth were associated with higher blood pressure. Psychosocial factors did not mediate wealth-health associations. Thus, relative socio-economic position and inequality may affect health across diverse societies, though this is likely exacerbated in high-income countries.

Poverty is bad for health. People living in poverty are more likely to struggle to afford nutritious food, lack access to health care, or be overworked or stressed. This may make them susceptible to chronic diseases, contribute to faster aging, and shorten their lifespans. In high-income countries, there is growing evidence to suggest that a person's 'rank' in society also impacts their health. For example, individuals who have a lower position in the social hierarchy report worse health outcomes, regardless of their incomes. But it is unclear why living in an unequal society or having a lower social status contributes to poorer health. One possibility is that inequalities in society are creating a stressful environment that leads to worse physical and mental outcomes. It is thought that this stress largely comes from how humans evolved to prioritize reaching a higher social status over having a long and healthy life. If this is the case, this would mean that the link between social status and health would also be present in non-industrialized communities where social hierarchies tend to be less pronounced. To test this, Jaeggi, Blackwell et al. studied the Indigenous Tsimane population in Bolivia who live in small communities and forage and farm their own food. The income and relative wealth of 870 households from 40 Tsimane communities were compared against various outcomes, including symptoms associated with depression, stress hormone levels, blood pressure, self-rated health and several diseases. Jaeggi, Blackwell et al. found poverty and inequality did not negatively impact all of the health outcomes measured as has been previously reported for industrialized societies. However, blood pressure was higher among people with lower incomes or those who lived in more unequal communities. But because the Tsimane people generally have low blood pressure, the differences were too small to have much effect on their health. People who lived in more unequal communities were also three times more likely to have respiratory infections, but the reason for this was unclear. This shows that social determinants such as a person's wealth or inequality can affect health, even in communities with less rigid social hierarchies. In industrial societies the effect may be worse in part because they are compounded by lifestyle factors, such as diets rich in fat and sugar, and physical inactivity which can also increase blood pressure. This information may help policy makers reduce health disparities by addressing some of the social determinants of health and the lifestyle factors that cause them.

Group-level competition influences urinary steroid hormones among wild red-tailed monkeys, indicating energetic costs.

Various theories emphasize that intergroup competition should affect intragroup cooperation and social relationships, especially if the cost of intergroup competition outweighs that of intragroup competition. This cost of intergroup competition may be quantified by changes in physiological status, such as in the steroid hormones cortisol (C) and testosterone (T), which rise or are depressed during periods of energetic stress, respectively. Here we tested for changes in urinary C and T after intergroup encounters (IGEs) among wild red-tailed monkeys (Cercopithecus ascanius), a species that experiences frequent intergroup feeding competition, at the Ngogo station in Kibale National Park, Uganda. We assayed 108 urine samples, of which 36 were collected after IGEs, from 23 individuals in four social groups. Bayesian multilevel models controlling for various confounds revealed that IGEs increased C and decreased T relative to baseline, consistent with an energetic cost to IGEs. The C change was more apparent in samples collected early after IGEs, suggesting an anticipatory increase, whereas the T change was stronger in later samples, suggesting sustained energetic trade-offs. Hormone responses were not affected by the IGE outcome. This cost to intergroup competition, together with little evidence for intragroup competition in redtails and other guenons, establishes an interesting test case for theories emphasizing the effect of intergroup competition on intragroup cooperation.

Men's status and reproductive success in 33 nonindustrial societies: Effects of subsistence, marriage system, and reproductive strategy.

Social status motivates much of human behavior. However, status may have been a relatively weak target of selection for much of human evolution if ancestral foragers tended to be more egalitarian. We test the "egalitarianism hypothesis" that status has a significantly smaller effect on reproductive success (RS) in foragers compared with nonforagers. We also test between alternative male reproductive strategies, in particular whether reproductive benefits of status are due to lower offspring mortality (parental investment) or increased fertility (mating effort). We performed a phylogenetic multilevel metaanalysis of 288 statistical associations between measures of male status (physical formidability, hunting ability, material wealth, political influence) and RS (mating success, wife quality, fertility, offspring mortality, and number of surviving offspring) from 46 studies in 33 nonindustrial societies. We found a significant overall effect of status on RS (r = 0.19), though this effect was significantly lower than for nonhuman primates (r = 0.80). There was substantial variation due to marriage system and measure of RS, in particular status associated with offspring mortality only in polygynous societies (r = -0.08), and with wife quality only in monogamous societies (r = 0.15). However, the effects of status on RS did not differ significantly by status measure or subsistence type: foraging, horticulture, pastoralism, and agriculture. These results suggest that traits that facilitate status acquisition were not subject to substantially greater selection with domestication of plants and animals, and are part of reproductive strategies that enhance fertility more than offspring well-being.

Does market integration buffer risk, erode traditional sharing practices and increase inequality? A test among Bolivian forager-farmers.

Sharing and exchange are common practices for minimizing food insecurity in rural populations. The advent of markets and monetization in egalitarian indigenous populations presents an alternative means of managing risk, with the potential impact of eroding traditional networks. We test whether market involvement buffers several types of risk and reduces traditional sharing behavior among Tsimane Amerindians of the Bolivian Amazon. Results vary based on type of market integration and scale of analysis (household vs. village), consistent with the notion that local culture and ecology shape risk management strategies. Greater wealth and income were unassociated with the reliance on others for food, or on reciprocity, but wealth was associated with a greater proportion of food given to others (i.e., giving intensity) and a greater number of sharing partners (i.e., sharing breadth). Across villages, greater mean income was negatively associated with reciprocity, but economic inequality was positively associated with giving intensity and sharing breadth. Incipient market integration does not necessarily replace traditional buffering strategies but instead can often enhance social capital.

Natural cooperators: food sharing in humans and other primates.

The study of cooperation is rich with theoretical models and laboratory experiments that have greatly advanced our knowledge of human uniqueness, but have sometimes lacked ecological validity. We therefore emphasize the need to tie discussions of human cooperation to the natural history of our species and its closest relatives, focusing on behavioral contexts best suited to reveal underlying selection pressures and evolved decision rules. Food sharing is a fundamental form of cooperation that is well-studied across primates and is particularly noteworthy because of its central role in shaping evolved human life history, social organization, and cooperative psychology. Here we synthesize available evidence on food sharing in humans and other primates, tracing the origins of offspring provisioning, mutualism, trade, and reciprocity throughout the primate order. While primates may gain some benefits from sharing, humans, faced with more collective action problems in a risky foraging niche, expanded on primate patterns to buffer risk and recruit mates and allies through reciprocity and signaling, and established co-evolving social norms of production and sharing. Differences in the necessity for sharing are reflected in differences in sharing psychology across species, thus helping to explain unique aspects of our evolved cooperative psychology.

Tolerant food sharing and reciprocity is precluded by despotism among bonobos but not chimpanzees.

Tolerant food sharing among human foragers can largely be explained by reciprocity. In contrast, food sharing among chimpanzees and bonobos may not always reflect reciprocity, which could be explained by different dominance styles: in egalitarian societies reciprocity is expressed freely, while in more despotic groups dominants may hinder reciprocity. We tested the degree of reciprocity and the influence of dominance on food sharing among chimpanzees and bonobos in two captive groups. First, we found that chimpanzees shared more frequently, more tolerantly, and more actively than bonobos. Second, among chimpanzees, food received was the best predictor of food shared, indicating reciprocal exchange, whereas among bonobos transfers were mostly unidirectional. Third, chimpanzees had a shallower and less linear dominance hierarchy, indicating that they were less despotic than bonobos. This suggests that the tolerant and reciprocal sharing found in chimpanzees, but not bonobos, was made possible by the absence of despotism. To investigate this further, we tested the relationship between despotism and reciprocity in grooming using data from an additional five groups and five different study periods on the main groups. The results showed that i) all chimpanzee groups were less despotic and groomed more reciprocally than bonobo groups, and ii) there was a general negative correlation between despotism and grooming reciprocity across species. This indicates that an egalitarian hierarchy may be more common in chimpanzees, at least in captivity, thus fostering reciprocal exchange. We conclude that a shallow dominance hierarchy was a necessary precondition for the evolution of human-like reciprocal food sharing.