ReviewPhilosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences2015
When cooperation begets cooperation: the role of key individuals in galvanizing support.
Review in Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Influential individuals can promote prosocial practices in heterogeneous societies: a mathematical and agent-based model.PNAS nexus · 2024Article
- Article
- Fighting force and experience combine to determine contest success in a warlike mammal.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2022Article
- Key individuals catalyse intergroup violence.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2022Review
- No good deed goes unpunished: the social costs of prosocial behaviour.Evolutionary human sciences · 2021Review
- Formation of raiding parties for intergroup violence is mediated by social network structure.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2016Article
- 'Impact hunters' catalyse cooperative hunting in two wild chimpanzee communities.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2015Article
- Collective action problem in heterogeneous groups.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2015Review
- Solving the puzzle of collective action through inter-individual differences.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2015Article
- Manipulating carer number versus brood size: complementary but not equivalent ways of quantifying carer effects on offspring.Behavioral ecology : official journal of the International Society for Behavioral EcologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Life abounds with examples of conspecifics actively cooperating to a common end, despite conflicts of interest being expected concerning how much each individual should contribute. Mathematical models typically find that such conflict can be resolved by partial-response strategies, leading investors to contribute relatively equitably. Using a case study approach, we show that such model expectations can be contradicted in at least four disparate contexts: (i) bi-parental care; (ii) cooperative breeding; (iii) cooperative hunting; and (iv) human cooperation. We highlight that: (a) marked variation in contributions is commonplace; and (b) individuals can often respond positively rather than negatively to the contributions of others. Existing models have surprisingly limited power in explaining these phenomena. Here, we propose that, although among-individual variation in cooperative contributions will be influenced by differential costs and benefits, there is likely to be a strong genetic or epigenetic component. We then suggest that selection can maintain high investors (key individuals) when their contributions promote support by increasing the benefits and/or reducing the costs for others. Our intentions are to raise awareness in--and provide testable hypotheses of--two of the most poorly understood, yet integral, questions regarding cooperative ventures: why do individuals vary in their contributions and when does cooperation beget cooperation?
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.